Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 5:00 pm and we're at the Canyon Community Center for the May 15th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Tom Dancy, Kendall Sagers, Nile Connelly, and April Ratitz. On the dis we have Susan Portland, Zion National Park representative, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla, and Paul Zimmerman, Melissa Labour, Rich Swanson, Tom Kennston, and Kosh Bati are out tonight. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I move that we approve tonight's agenda. Second. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry, I

Jennifer I. All I. Motion passes. Does the town have any general announcements? So, we will, excuse me, we will have the Zion Hawen Earthfest is this Saturday and Sunday of this weekend. And then we have a free concert in the park here at the gazebo next Friday at 6 PM with Eric Dodge. Any other announcements?

Yes, they're having Navy Day at the plaza. And uh forgive me, I can't remember which day that is. Tuesday at 6 PM. Yes.

Yeah, we're hoping so. And so so Navy Day is actually and there's a number of events at in Zion National Park with the Navy. One of them will be a um well this won't be in Zion National Park, but it will be up at the OC Tanner Amphitheater. There'll be a free uh Navy band performance at the OC Tanner Amphitheater on Monday night. And then the following evening, Tuesday evening, that same band will be giving a free performance at the town's downtown plaza. Are there any other announcements? Are there any declarations of conflict of interest? Okay. For tonight's agenda, we have four action items, all of which include public hearing. We'll follow the public meeting rules of order and procedure. Please be sure to have signed in to the meeting if you intend to speak. And please keep in mind that each public comment is limited to three minutes. The first action item is a public hearing regarding ordinance 2026-08 review of land use ordinance application from null Benson proposing an amendment to section 10-18-4 of the town code. The proposed amendment would introduce tiered minimum landscape and open space requirements based on the property size and the village commercial zone. The staff contact is Nile Connelly and Nile will be presenting.

Thank you. So yes, this is a land use ordinance amendment application uh that's been made by Mr. Null Benson. Uh in his application, he's proposed an amendment to chapter 18 within title 10 of the Springdale Town Code. And this chapter deals with the town's landscaping standards. Um in table four, let me bring up the the staff report here. So there's this table um that lists the minimum percentage of a property that must be landscaped or natural open space and you can see that there's different standards depending on the zones. Uh Mr. Benson proposes that the minimum landscaped landscape standards in the village commercial zone be tiered. So depending on the size of the property. So as you can see um in this table VC stands for village commercial. Um and so 60% of village commercial property should be either landscaped or natural open space. Um the proposal is that a tiered um landscape requirement be introduced based on the size of the property. So and it would be so properties of half an acre or greater would would remain the existing standard and then there would be uh reduced standards for smaller properties. So between a a fourth of an acre and a half an acre it would be 50% and then smaller than a fourth of an acre would be 40%. Um as you can see there's tiered landscape requirements already in the code uh for the central commercial zone which are down here and also the valley

residential zone has has the same kind of arrangement here. Um so the planning commission should review the ordinance amendment proposed by Mr. Benson. Um amendments to the code can be made if they uh promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the general plan uh or they correct manifest errors or they accomp accommodate substantial changes in conditions that were not contemplated in the general plan. So under any of those circumstances, the the code can be amended from time to time. Um so the commission's role tonight is to review this and make a recommendation to the town council on either to adopt this or not to adopt this. Um and just to um draw the commission's attention also to there's a number of public comments that were made actually on all of the different hearings for tonight. So, just to draw your attention to those that that were sent to you previously, um I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Does the applicant want to present at this time?

No. Benson, I just want to explain, I guess, give a little context to why I'm here. Uh, you know, our our family has a property in Springdale. It's about a quarter acre size and it's zone village commercial and we've been trying to figure something out on that property for coming up on two years and it's been very difficult. You know, u I am not a developer. I have never developed property personally. This be my first time doing it. if I'm able to do it. You know, we're just residents here in Springdale trying to create a business. And uh the reason that I'm here, I guess more so is that the the way the current code functions, it really not only regulates, you know, what you can do on a property, it regul it really points and steers these smaller properties to certain things. And some of those things can be very specific. And so under the current conditions, the there's kind of three paths that I put in the outline there. Um the first path would be underdevelopment and that's what I would consider it to do kind of the minimum. And when you're when you're working under the current constraints of the landscaping in a tiny tiny property like this, you know, really that that plan points to something like yet another bike rental because they're very easy to produce because you can kind of get away sometimes without too much parking and you need very little indoor space. And that's kind of where that propertyy's at. I can get a couple, you know, parking spaces and a very tiny building on there right now. And that's that's not something that I want to do frankly. Uh the other option would be overdevelopment. So because of the constraints of the landscaping taking up such a huge portion of the property, I would have to vertically stack everything and put the parking underneath and sort of overdevelop the property. And if I do that, it doesn't pencil. It really doesn't. it it might be something that we might consider, but honestly it'd be a passion project at

this point to try to get the type of business which we're currently trying for a restaurant. U and then the third thing would be to just kind of leave it as it is underutilized. I don't know if you know the property that that we have, but it's it's not the prettiest property in town. So, I'm hoping to uh to make it a little bit nicer. It's just to the right of a design gallery. Um, you know, I understand that that the town has goals and priorities and I'm really hoping that uh you guys believe as I do that I'm working within those constraints. So, I'm taking the general plan very seriously. I put some very specific language in there from the general plan that I think is very applicable and uh I hope you guys too do too. Now one more thing I want to mention is also is in the staff summary it seems very locked in you know recommend approval or not you have a little bit more latitude than that and for instance uh you know our property that we have appears to be just over a quarter acre. So even if this gets approved we're not going to be able to take advantage of the 40% tile. We would be in that 50 percentile. We are literally just a hair over. In fact, we were reassessed as far as size this year. It was.24 acres until this year it magically became. 26 acres. And so I would ask you if you are agreeable to this idea and you are looking to recommend approval to consider a 5% administrative tolerance at the thresholds. Uh it's not something that I put in the official application. It's something that would definitely affect us personally because our our property is so close to that. Uh but you do have that latitude and if you like something about the the um the application but you want to change a little bit recommend something a little bit different you have that latitude to do that as well. So in the staff summary it comes off like you know very much yes or no but you have you you have those ideas you

know if you have some other ideas you know you can share those with me and uh certainly you can move in any direction you want. So um that's about it. Uh you know on properties this small uh that 5% uh tolerance would be talking about a few hundred square feet difference and it would make all the difference for our property as far as to be able to develop. So that's about all I got. So I don't if you have any questions or whatever. So actually I have a question for staff. I didn't quite speak. Yeah. No. So at this time we can ask questions of the staff or the applicant.

Um and and it actually goes to something you said I thought about. So based upon what what was said here, are we able to recommend minor changes? So we could approve, assuming say we approved or recommended approval, could we also as conditions of that approval recommend changes to the town council? Would that be the way to do that?

Yes, I think um some some minor tweaks or some minor um qualifiers or conditions would be would be appropriate um if you felt it was necessary. I think um I think you made a a very good explanation. I've read the original and and what you handed out here. Um it really matches many of the things I imagined you would you would want to u to make as comments and and input. So I don't have any specific.

It's very thorough. Um it gave a lot of information to consider. So, I feel like you did a really good job providing with us with all of that. So, thank you. Think of anything. I'm I'm here. Okay. Are there any other questions from the planning commission for the staff or the applicants? Are there any questions from the public for the staff or the applicants? Okay. Okay. Can we get a motion to open public hearing? Make a motion to open public hearing. Second. Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? Terry I.

Jennifer I. All I.

Motion passes. We're going to move into the public comment period. Again acknowledging the letters of comment that we got from a number of residents. And thank you for that. it helps gives give us more perspective to consider and research as we're going through all of the the various issues we're discussing tonight. So, we did consider those public comment letters on this topic. And are there any other public comments at this time besides the letters we received? Okay, we will move to close public hearing.

I move that we close public hearing. Second. Motion from Paul, second from Terry. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Motion passes at this time. Is there a response from the applicant? If there were comments, you could Yeah, you could respond. You could have replied to the comments that didn't happen. Yeah, I think you did a fabulous job. Thank you. Okay. Um, now we will move into public commission deliberation.

Um, I would say off hand I I think I I understand the purpose and the idea and I think actually it does make some sense. Um, so generally I'm I'm for approval. I do have some thoughts and comments. Um, so I did some calculations. Um, being me, you know, that's kind of the way I do things. Um, so I I I I thought about a I took a quarter acre lot. Um, which is, let me pull this up here. Quarter acre lot is um 10,000 plus square feet. 10,780 square feet, I think, is what a quarter acre lot is. So, I took 60% and 40% and did some did some math on that. Um, and so it if you only have 40% left over, you end up with 50 4356 square feet, you know, whereas if you had 60% left over for the building, you could end up with 6,534 square feet. So, significant difference. But then I thought about parking requirements and our present parking requirements and I realize we're talking about potentially changing them, but the present parking requirements um for and I chose a restaurant just out of happen stance. I chose a restaurant um requirements um because it requires one parking space per 200 square feet. So that's one of the more um parking intensive requirements and did some back calculations and came up with under the present ordinance of 60% you could build a 1700 square foot restaurant with a,275 square foot dining area 75% I just picked that off which requires six bases base spaces plus two more in employee spaces which based on documents we've read from other issues is about 330 square ft per um per parking space based upon documents we've

read when we looked at the parking space issue. Um so all of that adds up to um 2640 ft of parking space for your 1700 foot restaurant total of 4340. So that's about as big as you can build with 60%. If you go to 40% the building size could go to 2400 and then the parking spaces would increase. And so I ended up about a 700 square foot increase between 60% of landscape requirement and 40% landscape requirement. Um but I thought a little more about this and and um I thought about we do also have setback requirements and in village commercial it's 30 feet in the front, 10 feet on each side and 20 feet in the back. So, I took an imaginary square quarter acre lot and subtracted out all the setbacks and you end up with um 4399 square ft of buildable space inside the setbacks. So, on a quarter acre lot, if we increase or decrease the required um landscaping and open space, you're still going to run into the setbacks. Um, of course, parking can impose on the setbacks to some extent,

right? So, there is a there is an ordinance that allows the planning commission to authorize up to 50% encroachment into the side and rear set back setbacks. And so if you if if we were to in a particular in this particular example of a square lot and everything, if we were to um allow the 50% in all three, the two sides and the rear, then you end up with um about what did I call with 5859 buildable square feet. um which is still less than the 6,534 buildable square feet that you would get just based upon go dropping the landscaping to 40 40%. Long story. I think potentially it doesn't make sense to have the 40% landscaping at the quarter acre tier because it doesn't gain you anything if you have to fit inside the set tops or setbacks, sorry. Um, and maybe that if it's just 60% above a half an acre and 50% below half an acre, that's going to work just about as well given that the set tops the setbacks already restrict the building area. Um, so I open that up as a potential consideration um to more in line with the way the setbacks work and the amount of space you're going to end up being able to build. Um, in a sense I could go either way because the setbacks are the setbacks and if if the the only problem is that you could end up with unlandscaped, unopen space area in the setbacks that theoretically can't have other things in them. Um, so I make that as a suggestion, something to consider. Um

and then the other thing that I came up with um is that if you look at the valley residential VR is a quarter acre minimum and it has a 60% um is quarter acre minimum. Yeah. So has a and it has a 60% um requirement for so for um landscaping and the whole idea of village commercial is that it's a transition between residential such as valley residential and central commercial. Um and so going from VR at 60% to village commercial quarter acre at 40% is a pretty big jump. So again to me that implies that the quarter acre going to 50% is a smaller jump on the way towards even more dense uh central commercial. So I sort of came away with the idea that we might recommend to the town council that they don't go all the way down to 40%.

That was impressive. Thank you. Uh, I'm willing to have him comment on that. Yes.

Just a few things on that. One, I think his considerations are only talking about a one-story structure, which I'm really trying hard to do. And second, it's far beyond parking. You have drive aisles, driveways, turn, you know, circulation of the property. And yes, I probably will have to ask you guys for that extra halfway into the setbacks because we are so tight. But uh there is a lot more latitude with with the reduced you know uh landscaping requirements far beyond what you were outlining there because you you know two stories and all that and stacked and all those things can dramatically change the quality and the size of the structure if I had more latitude for instance if it was even you know le if it was down to the 40% I know I could keep it at one one story for instance so that would be I think a big win for everybody. So

I guess I I'll ask a question on that. So if the setbacks restrict you to a square footage that is smaller than the 40% restricts you you're you're either going to have to go twotory or not. I don't really understand why I can go twotory. I could can lever over parking. I I do have a there is other options besides the outline of that. Right. But but taking those options um these setbacks would drive you into taking those options rather than the landscaping because the landscaping at 40% would leave you far more square footage than the setbacks would leave you.

Yeah. I mean, look, I'm trying to work within what what we want as a town. You know, I'm not trying to ask for for setbacks to be reduced or anything. Uh this, you know, I've talked with my architects and draftsmen. This is if this gets approved, this is going to make a huge difference for us. So, it's it's a little more complicated than we're what we're talking about. If you know at this time, uh, what kind of buildable square footage do you think would give you the ability to do what you need to do?

Well, right now, under the current constraints, we're looking at about a 900 foot building with about five spots. And we don't have any public transportation in the evenings. When the when the shuttles stop, they stop. And you I think it's a wonderful goal uh to get to be a very walkable town. I I fully support all of that. I I think the businesses should decide what parking they need to have a successful business. It seems weird to me that the town would tell a business how much parking they need, but at the end of the day, I you know, if people are going to come to my business, they many times are going to need a place to park. So, I I I can't forgo the parking at this point there. The culture isn't there in the town yet. So, yeah.

Yeah. I I wasn't expecting to forego the parking. Um Okay. And that was really good perspective, Terry. I just go back to though I mean, given property size, it just seems to make sense to tar to tier it in that way. Yeah. I I'm not saying we shouldn't we shouldn't I'm not saying we should not tear it at all. You're just saying it makes it that very bottom tier, that quarter acre tier um at 40%. Means that you're going to run into the setbacks. Yeah.

Well, before you run into the uh landscaping requirement. Can I offer just a just a point on that? Um, so within the setbacks, there are some things that can go other than landscaping such as, you know, patios, driveways, courtyards, and those things. So that that setback area doesn't necessarily have to be 100% landscaping if if that makes sense. So some of that area may be may be usable for other things in landscaping if that just helps.

Um yeah and and the definition of landscape includes some things like pools and patios under certain conditions. Um so it gets a little complicated in terms of what constitutes landscaping. Um, like I said, I I think leaving it at 40% doesn't change the whole setback issue. So, in the end, it's not going to give more space than the setbacks allow. Um, it might just lead to some misunderstanding about what you can build or what. That's more my concern than anything. So what you would suggest then is less than a half an acre at

50%

right and just you know sort of remove the the third um the third one the lowest one and say it's 50% and that's going to give you something very similar to what the setbacks allow um and it's also a transition from valley residential where a VR at a quarter acre is 60% then VC C at a quarter acre would be 50%. And central commercial at a quarter or you know at a quarter acre is going to be 30%. So it it gives it's it's less of a dramatic transition between the residential and the valley commercial, which is part of the purpose of valley commercial is to create that transition um where um where the commercial businesses are are less dense than they are in the central commercial area.

Ask a question. Yeah. Can you come up? I'm just curious, when you did your calculations for your name. Oh, Greg Federman. Hi. Uh, when you did your calculations for the 40%, did you include what would happen if you took advantage of the setback leniency? Um, because I'm just thinking about what Nile said where if they utilize some of that open space for in a in a restaurant scenario, a patio, they get to actually utilize the space, right? So if you're able to adjust those setbacks on a case- by case basis, would that 40% then allow him to do what he needs to do

if you so so in the in the way I did the calculations um I just took a quarter acres 10,780 ft multiply it by by 60% and that's if you had a 40% um requirement for uh landscaping and open space and you get 60%. That's how I came up with the number for that. And then I said, okay, on on a separate calculation, you calculate um given and I used a square just to make it simple, a square quarter acre lot and subtracted out all of the um all of the setbacks, right?

That's where I end up at 43.99. And then if we turned around and approved 50% encroachment into the two sides and rear setback, that's where I ended up at um what was it? 5800 I think it was 5859. Okay. So you did the calculations with the reduced setback requirements. That was my question. Right. Right. Yeah. So so I calculated if we gave the maximum setback encroachment that we c that we're allowed to give. Got it. Okay. And that ends up at the 5859, which is still less than the 60 a fixed 6534 that a 40% landscaping would leave available.

So you should change it to 30% then. Right. No, then that would leave even more square foot, you know. Yeah. Get I just was seeing just Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't mean I need to use all of it either. 48% might be a huge max.

So in that scenario, I I understand what you're saying. Um, so if if it was just the two tiers, then possibly adding in the whatever percentage 5% if that's what makes sense, administrative tolerance. You So then technically you could go 45, but it's not in the tiered. It would be discretion how you apply that be. That's not okay. Um I I was asking that if there was a property that the size was within 5% of the threshold. I see what you're saying.

Yeah. So I'm not giving another 5% landscape but like in my case I'm at 26. Okay. I'm like point you know 1% over the threshold if there was that tolerance that I could then uh realize that 40% as opposed to staying in the 50%. Gotcha.

And I'm not necessarily going to use all of it. If I was to granted that 40%, I would still maybe only use, you know, 45 or something. So, yeah. Well, another approach, I mean, we could leave the numbers the same if we felt we want to do that and just add a statement that um that these don't override the setback requirements so that people will realize that whatever number they get out of this calculation doesn't um mean that you can use more of the setback.

I mean, I don't think based on what null is saying the size of his property is. I mean, the bottom line is no longer applicable to your property because you're over a quarter of an acre right now, right? Well, there's no 5% tolerance threshold. Yeah. Right. Because you

Yeah. If there's no 5% tolerance at the threshold, it probably would be a moot point for me. But certainly uh if this does get all the way to approval, I might go ahead and pay for a new survey just to see because uh I was shocked when I pulled up public records a few months ago and saw that they had changed it from 0.24 to 26. I don't know why, maybe Tom or Nile knows, but uh they can do it with digital imaging. There's lots of stuff. But on this particular property, there was some eminent domain the town took uh some years back and there was an adjustment to the rear sight line. And so I have really no clue uh if the recalculation people, you know, uh what however they did that, if they took that into consideration or they knew that. So it's very possible that if there's no 5% tolerance and it does get approved, I'll probably go ahead and get a new a new survey to see, you know, if I

if you actually are under 25. Yeah. Because if if you know, ironically, if I was at 0.24 24 and got the 40% as opposed to 50% there would be a net gain for us on that scenario. So

I like the consistency of the tears. I think the tears um Yeah. I mean the consistency between the the three things makes sense but the I guess the in in in I don't know in small this small property where now it's commercial and a residential zone uh and it's you know the central commercial zone is not necessarily I'm not saying it isn't but it's not necessarily as adjacent to residential as the village commercial zone. One of the reasons village commercial is what it is is so that it provides sort of a buffer under there

buffer a transition. Yeah. So, um, you know, to put a fully built out and fully utilized space without the landscaping on a very small property in a residential sort of environment seems to me, you know, I guess I like I like your proposal to say, okay, if it's half acre or less, we we keep it at two zones rather than three uh for for this purpose. That seems to make sense, especially with the numbers that you that you pointed out. It's not really going to make a material difference one way or the other.

Uh I I understand the math with the setbacks, but it absolutely would give us way more latitude if we had that extra that extra 10% for sure. And and and you always have the setbacks. So you always have another another restrictive uh you know situation when you're going to design a property. And that's not going to change. So whether you put language in there, you know, reaffirming that or not, that's just another hurdle that you would have to have to deal with when you're developing a small property, but but not giving the opportunity and that flexibility, I think, would would be a big deal, at least for us, you know, the way we've done our our designs and calculations and things. So

So you're saying that um 50% doesn't work for your designs you're considering where 40 something under 50% would work. I think,

excuse me. Yeah, I applied for for a variance and I applied for uh to get that property down to 48% landscaping requirement because just that extra 2% was making a really big difference on our designs that we were we were drawing up. So having that little bit of latitude was a huge deal. And like Nile said, you can't put patios. You can even put dining in setbacks. I don't know if you've seen Cowboys and Angels where they got that whole thing in the front, you know, grass and lights and all that stuff. people hang out there and they they got tables and chairs and things and there's a lot of that in town. And so, uh, trust me, that extra 10% would be very useful. Even an extra, in my case, 2% would be very, very useful to have because we're so tight. You know, we're talking about such small property here. There's a couple ways we go. We leave it as 40%. We could recommend two years. We could recommend 45%. Um or um we could um allow a ver you know a I don't know we give ourselves the ability to prove something less than 50% under given conditions but that would make it a somewhat more complicated

Yeah. That's was my comment about the the tolerance when I didn't realize it was actually the tolerance was which I like that also I I think a 5% administrative tolerance here's here's some gohead for that portion but um and then the overriding setback part but

I agree that a quarter acre is a very small piece of property for a business and I think the 40% is reasonable. How about here's another possibility and no can comment on if he likes is that um is that in the case where the um where the required open space and and landscaping um is less than the size of the the total of the setbacks that any of setback fact that's not um not built with something like a patio or or other things has to be landscaped. In other words, the thing I'm concerned about is okay now now you've got parts of the property that don't have to be landscaped. They're outside of the this 50% and other things.

Yeah. um in an area where we really want to have that kind of buffer that the ordinances call for between commercial businesses and residential businesses. So, I'm wondering if maybe we have an idea. Okay, it can be 40%. Um but whatever is left over, if it's under 50%, whatever's left over in in the um setbacks has to be landscaped up to potentially 50%. I don't know. That's kind of an odd word. Yeah, I know. I know what you're saying. Uh that doesn't really resonate with me. Yeah, it's too complicated. Forget it.

Our particular project, we're planning to raise the whole all the structures and to start fresh. So, from our standpoint, we're pretty much going to be 100% landscape. We're not going to have any open space because we're going to start from scratch. So, everything that we do is going to be landscaped. And if you wanted to uh you know take away the opportunity for open space that doesn't affect us. I I mean that's that's totally up you know that doesn't affect our situation because we're going to be landscaping 100% of whatever is required basically. So so if you there was less open space or more a higher percentage of that uh landscape needed to actually be landscape and not open space that wouldn't affect us. That would be fine. thing between the three of us. You want to leave it at 40%.

I do. I can go either way. Are you saying you want to leave three tiers and then leave?

You leave the three tiers and we leave the bottom tier at 40%. then you run into this situation where the setbacks are more restrictive than the landscaping and open space requirements. Um but you still have a diff you know a different mechanism to minimize the impact of the village commercial area in when it's adjacent to a residential area. Um so in that sense I'm not that strongly that we have to take it out. It just seems like it you know to me um it doesn't gain much against the restrictions of the set tops. So that's why I say I'm comfortable with leaving it in if in fact

you guys are also um leaving the 40% leaving it leaving that tier in and leaving it at 40%. Yep. And then the town council can listen to us and decide if they want to. I I would suggest that if we leave it in, we make it we leave it in at 45%, not 40%. 45. I'm good with that. That makes a lot of sense to me because then that gets you much closer to um where the setbacks are going to restrict you.

Yeah. Then they're then they're kind of in the same range. And not that we should be trying to figure out how to make uh policy for a single individual but I think that still gets no okay I agree with 40 you know leave it in with 45% is comfortable with me and and again this is just a recommendation to the town council I mean if you're both oh go ahead

sorry just just a um a few points on whatever um recommendation you make. Um I think your recommendation should be based on the submission. So whether approve it or not approve it, but you can make um if you want to if you recommend a change um then you can kind of add that as a as a recommendation. But you should kind of make a decision on the proposal itself whether it should be approved or not. Um but you can add a recommendation to that if you want if you think it'd be wise for the town council to to make it something different.

Right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was say so that that was sort of the the purpose of my initial question was if we approve which I'm generally intending to approve um but there are a couple minor things that feel that feel like they that they would be better slightly changed. So I was expecting we don't we don't actually approve it. We recommend approval. We recommend approval with the following recommendations. With the following I was going to put him in his conditions or Yeah, we could make it again whatever. So a condition of our approval that works. One of the conditions is we recommend Yeah.

So I am on board with um recommending adoption of this, but I'm still I would rather approve 40 and you and you know I'm okay to disagree at this point and you know moving it on to the the town council. But how does that work then? Well, they're going to do what they want. We can agree on approval, but I don't necessarily agree on the the tears. Well, we can we can make a motion with conditions and you can vote against it is one way. I don't want to vote against it. Or um I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, I think that's the options. You can vote for it or you can vote for it or against it. Um a couple before we get to that point. I have another question and um maybe I can now maybe you have a better understanding of this. I'm I'm having trouble in my mind trying to figure out uh why we have a 40 or 50 or 60% uh condition for landscaping or natural open space and a smaller number for landscape and on a larger property I see that that makes some sense but on a small property um I I I failed to see how the what the difference between a 20 a 25% landscaping requirement and a 50% landscaping or open space requirement is I mean if you got to have a 50% requirement in there you're probably not going to make much of it or any of it open space and and if you do what what's the

so if I don't know that I totally understand your question but I think the purpose is that the you have a total amount that needs to be either landscaped or open natural open And that's to allow

flexibility in different parts of the town. Uh depending on what you know if you have a hillside that's natural that that counts towards your overall figure. So I my understanding is that that that open space figure is to allow some flexibility if there are natural parts of your um property that you still get credit for them that they don't have to be landscaped but they still count um okay my my thought on that is is for example 30% grade yeah that's kind of where when you when you start made his comment. That's kind of why I figured, okay, if you've got a 30% grade, you're not you're not supposed to be working on it anyway.

So, you get credit for it, though. Credit for that as open space. Yeah. Um Okay. Can we say in the conditions 40 or 45 and move it up that way? Just consider both. Okay. So, so you're saying that we Go ahead.

So, what you could do is recommend approval. So you have to recommend approval or not and then say we also recommend considering a 45% uh as the lowest tier as opposed to 40 and hopefully you also recommend that 5% tolerance at the thresholds but you could approve it you know as it is you know based on what Nile said then say we also recommend those two things or as many things as you want. So yeah, and again it's just a recommendation. Okay. Prove it up to 40 and then make a recommendation to consider a 45% and consider hopefully a 5% uh tolerance at the Yeah, maybe if I if we term it as a consider then okay

can I add just a quick um add on to to what null just mentioned? So null's made an application and said this is what I want you to approve or or review. So um as an applicant he he deserves the right to have a up and down yes or no on what he has presented to you. Right.

Um if in the course of this discussion you've come up with some ideas and null is amanable to those as the applicant and says oh yeah that's fine. I'm willing to amend my application in the way that you have have discussed like the 45% tier and and the um 5% administrative allowance for property size and and says that yes, that's my application. Then you could just make a a motion on that application, right? Yes, we approve this and send it to the town council. If null's like, no, I don't want you to I I don't agree with those. I want my original um application to stand. he deserves an up or down vote recommendation on his original proposal. Does that Okay. Yeah.

Um and and then just one procedural clarification. Um because there's only three of you today. You um Jennifer, you were you were saying, "Well, what if I want to vote no?" Um you can, but you for any motion to pass, you need at least three members of the planning commission to vote affirmatively. So essentially, you need to be unanimous in whatever decision you make tonight. Then the motion.

Yeah. Yeah. Any so when the the the town code says that uh the minimum number of yes votes required to pass any issue application or any other matter on which the planning commission vote is required as a majority of the members of the quorum but must be at least three. So okay. So passing it as is. So that passes, but then we can add additional considerations, not conditions. Is that what you're saying? Like, yeah, you you can see if if null says, I want this to be reviewed exactly as it is in my submission, he deserves an up or down vote on that. Okay.

Say, no, we don't like that, but we would like it if it were this way, and and make that town council. Or you could say, "Yeah, we're okay with that, but we'd like it even better if you did it this way." Or you could say, "Yeah, we like it as is, and we're just going to vote uh to recommend approval." But but he deserves the your recommendation on the proposal that he submitted, unless he chooses to to modify that here in the meeting tonight.

Okay. So, I guess we need to ask null if are you willing to amend it in any way based on what we've been talking about? Honestly, if I knew I had to get 100% votes tonight, I probably would have waited till next month, right?

But we we we still have the option, and I agree with Tom, we have to either approve it or disapprove it as is. And I was thinking that all along, but I think we still have the option to say we approve it as is. We would think it would be even better with these changes. So, let me ask a different question, Tom. Um, no recommending that we that he mod or that we modify the conditions of uh his submittal. Um, here what what I heard you say is we can't do that. Can he do that in this meeting or does he have to withdraw it and then resubmit it? No,

what I'm what I'm saying is my my whole point is null as an applicant has some due process rights, right? Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Great. This is different than you as a planning commission saying, "Hey, we're going to look at at landscape in the village commercial zone and we're going to come up with all these different ideas and we're we as a commission are going to come up with what we think is best." The process that null has has taken advantage of is filing an application, paying an application fee to have you review this proposal, right? He deserves to have that proposal have an up or down vote. If he says, "You know what? Yes, this is my proposal, but I want to modify it a little bit and I want you to consider this administrative allowance." He as the applicant has that right to do that, right? It's still his proposal, but but he he has and he can still do that in the meeting even. Sure. Yeah.

Okay. All right. That was my only question. Right. I didn't put it in the original proposal because I didn't want it to kill the deal. Otherwise, I would have put it in the original language. So, yeah.

So, I would vote as is and add the 5% administrative tolerance. Let me think about this for a second. So, so 10,780* 5%. So, you're talking 5 10 or 15 square feet of tolerance in a quarter acre lot. I'm thinking 5% sounds a little big to me.

Yeah. gives you I mean that means it's somewhere between you know 11,2 something and you know so I mean we can improve it as is

I'm tending towards approving it as is with a recommendation of the town council for minor changes um and that they consider and I'm willing to say yeah they consider a tolerance uh and that 5% was suggested or some other percentage might make more sense. Well, back up if I understood what Tom said. Um, we approve what null submitted. You recommend approval of what?

Recommend approving what null submitted or or that's it. And null has the opportunity to change his submitt if he wants to do that. So, it's not our choice to say we recommend approval of this with this following change. He's got to re he's got to make that request. Well, agreed. We don't but at least what I heard from Tom is that we can communicate to the town council that these are things we but after he tells us what he wants us to approve, then we can make a decision as to what to do, right? But I think you just said you don't want to change anything.

I don't want to go down 45% on the last tier and we're talking about such a small property. Of course, I want the 5% tolerance of the thresholds put in, but I didn't put it in the original language because I didn't want to kill the deal. So, I'm absolutely amunable to adding that to your positive recommendation. And then if you want to deny it, then I want to say no, I don't want to do that. So, he wants to know how we're going to vote before you decide how what the application. So, I just I just left it out because I didn't want to kill the deal because of it. But certainly, if you wanted to put that in, I am, you know, jumping for joy about that. So, yes, I would love it, you know, which we can do. Well, we we can make or recommend

we can make recommendations to the town council. Um, I think I'm of the mindset that personally I I think I I like the idea, willing to improve it as is and make some suggestions to the town council about minor changes and you know and I'm h happy to include this 5% tolerance. I'm not that and consider a we could even not give a number just say consider a somewhat higher percentage for the quarter rate a lot but we figure 40% seems small or we could even leave that

yeah I I guess uh well whatever yeah where you I I think uh you know we talked about the 45% for the quarter acre lot and if if null's you know what you said you your variance that you requested was 48.4%. Um that's higher than 40%. So that's higher than 45. It is. So that gets you what you want. What you wanted, right? Hopefully. Okay. It's still going to have to go more vertical at 48%. That was my original plan. I really like to get it to one story is is my ultimate goal. But

yeah, I mean above 45% even above 50% if I have to work with that, I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna do that. Uh but from a design point and the quality standpoint and you know following you know my vision of what I think the town wants and what people want the more latitude be better you know in that situation. So again I'm not a developer here so I'm not trying to just do the biggest you know thing on the planet that doesn't make any sense monetarily anyway. Yeah. Great. And given that he wants to leave the application as ising that's what we need approve or not

not to change. Gotcha. Back up. No one question. So your last statement was I I would that you want to amend your application to include the tolerance. Yes. Okay. Thanks. So we will consider that as part of the application. If you want to deny it, then maybe we talk about removing it. Let's take that. Well, Just keep standing like I'm staring at.

No, we're helping you get your stand goal here. Um, so I I think I'm comfortable approving it as amended and making a suggestion. I'm comfortable with that. Okay.

Okay. Is there a motion? Let me give this one a try. Okay. The the planning commission recommends the town council approve the ordinance amend amendment proposed by Mr. Noel Benson which would re revise section 1018 of the town code by introducing a tiered landscaping requirement in the village commercial zone. This is based on the following findings. Um the land use um it match it matches the land use or it supports the land use um and town appearance goals. Um especially sub goal three where the planning commission will update land use ordinance to make sure it stay it stays true to the intention of promoting mixed use Zion n or mixed use along Zion Park Boulevard while allowing development that meets the need the community needs and desires. Uh it also meets the economic goal uh sub goal A to enhance and support small and independent businesses that are unique to Springdale and help promote the small town and village character. Um in in making this approval, we re we make a couple recommendations to the town council. Well, actually just one that they review the the quarter acre um minimum of 40% and determine if that should be somewhat different or not.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. All I motion passes. Appreciate the latitude on the on the communication, guys. Thank you.

The second action item is a public hearing regarding zone change from the foothill residential zone to the foothill residential zone with the workforce housing overlay zone at 120 Kosava Drive, lot S, K A1. applicant is Kathy Lefave. The staff contact is Nyall Connelly and Nile will be presenting.

Thank you. So, uh this is another public hearing as you said. So, uh Miss Kathy Lefave has applied for the workforce housing overlay zone to be applied to her property at 120 Kosava Drive. Uh there's currently one single family home on her property. uh her proposal would be to add one additional single family home to the property and to to subdivide it. Uh this would be the new unit would be an ownership unit rather than a rental. Um if uh the zone changes approved, both the new home and the existing home would be deed restricted. Uh so that they must be occupied by qualified households and that's defined in um in the code in the workforce housing overlay chapter. That essentially means that they um they must be employed in either Springdale or Zion National Park and work a minimum of 30 hours per week over um over a year. Um so there's several standards which the workforce overlay uh zone application must meet. And so the staff report includes a table um for which lists these requirements and how the applicant intends to apply with each of those. Um and similar to uh to the public hearing we just had, um zone changes may be approved if they um if they promote the objectives and purposes of the general plan or if they are correcting manifest errors or to accommodate substantial changes in conditions that were not contemplated in the general plan. Um, so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

And before we move on to planning commission questions, can we hear the applicant presentation?

Kathy Lefave. Um, my husband is also one of the applicants as well, Dave Keruski. But I'm the one I think that you guys put forward. Um, I don't I'm not sure what to present to you guys and that I put everything in the application. Um, but that to say you I served 10 years on town council. Part of that was making sure Red Hawk happened and I think that that's a good step in the right direction for the town of Springdale. Our general plan states that it is a desire of this community and that's based on community feedback that we have a v variety of population. Right now we are fast approaching kind of more of a aged retired population and that it's not affordable to live in the town of Springdale. There's no low-income housing happening in Springdale. Red Hawk's not low-income housing. It's attainable housing. It's based on your wage. You know, even a waitress with a partner who might work at Zion National Park can't afford to live in the town of Springdale unless there is attainable housing. I wrote a letter in support of the workforce housing overlay zone when it was being presented. Part of my letter stated that I thought it was a little too dense. I thought that the number of units that could be on a oneacre parcel might be too much. Um, but I thought it was a great product to push forward. In our case, it's like I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I am an advocate for workforce housing in this community and so far only businesses have tried to provide housing for employees who live in Springdale. So, we're saying that we would subdiv subdivide our property and allow somebody who lives and work or doesn't live works in the community to

obtain that parcel and build a home. We're willing to deed restrict our home. That means that our home can only ever be sold to somebody who works as defined in the town full-time or a park employee. We're okay with that. We sat down as a family and we talked about it. You know, my children of Dave and I's children will eventually inherit our property. It makes it not as valuable. We're like, we're all okay with that. our direct neighbor, Teresa Silcox, who has her son, his girlfriend, and their son living in the property, are in favor of it and have written a letter of recommendation. Um, there have been a few other people who have written letters of recommendation. Jonathan Zambella had wrote to you and had some concerns. You know, how does this potentially create a precedent? I think it's a good precedent to set. It's allowed in Foothill residential zone, which could be far more dense than what we're proposing. I'd like to set a precedent that in Foothill residential, maybe it shouldn't be eight per acre. Maybe it just should be one per acre, one per however we've divided it. We wouldn't want to impact our neighbors any more than just divided in two parcels. Um, I think that it's going to be like I'm going to just take the microphone down because I know you guys I know there are going to be a lot of questions and I got a lot of comments and I just kind of came and spoke from my heart. Um, you know, part of that is I've been a supporter of workforce housing. Another thing is that I think that a consideration because this is a legislative matter. I could meet all the requirements that you request and because I didn't wear the right outfit tonight, you could just throw it out. I mean, it's not I it's for you guys to decide, is it appropriate in this situation? And in every situation, I

think you have to look at it differently. For our situation where I stand, when we stand in our backyard, we can look across the river and we can see two homes. And those homes both are, you know, larger homes than ours. They both have guest houses. They both have outbuildings. We have a small footprint on our two acres. We have a small single family resident. We don't have a guest house. We don't have outuildings. So, I don't think it's any more of an impact visually to neighbors traffic-wise than putting a guest house, but it allows somebody who works in our community to have an opportunity to live here. Jonathan Zambella's um comments, I think two might have said, you know, it's a a way to profit. We're not going to profit from this. We're willing to reduce the value of our home. Um and you know, I think that it's a positive thing. Um I'm nervous. I'm not usually nervous. I think I'm nervous because there's only three and you all have to vote in favor of it. So, it makes it a little more nerve-wracking. Um, so I don't I guess I don't know. Is there anything else?

So I'll sit down and you guys can ask questions. Take the mic. No, I'm just seasoning. Um, are there questions from the planning commission to either the staff or the applicants?

I have a question for the staff. Um, so, uh, the the staff notes indicate that, uh, that a second home would come through in a normal DDR at some point when that is applied for. Um, I also ask about the subdivision. Um, because there are some requirements relative to the subdivision uh, in this ordinance. Um, is that also would that also come through as a separate item? Yeah. So the subdivision would come forward um subsequent to an approval and that would go through the subdivision process which does come to the town c or to the planning commission not the town council

right we would go through the planning we would again recommend to the town council. So no or actually no the the town council is not involved subdivisions. It's just the planning because so at this point I can defer any concerns I have about the requirements that the ordinance states about what needs to be in the subdivision documentation until that presentation comes. Yes. I think tonight your decision is based on uh is this an appropriate location? um is you know the number of units appropriate and that's that's kind of what you're looking at. Yes.

I'm sorry I didn't think to say that in the proposal we gave you kind of a concept. We haven't hired anybody to design a home. It it wouldn't look like a rectangle box. It would fit within all the 30% grades and requirements and everything. and we'd bring that proposal back for approval in front of the planning commission. Okay. So, actually, I want you to stay for a second. So, I have a question on that. Um, so yeah, the the the box that's drawn that's No, that's just a concept of it's a concept. It's a concept of where it's going to be, just where it would sit. It's also quite small. It's about under a thousand square feet, which is not part of your plan, I take it that.

No. So you you would might expect it to be some size different than 1400 or 1500 square feet small. It needs to be a small footprint. You know, our home is a small footprint. You know, maybe it's 2,000 square feet, but it's not going to be a large home. It's not going to be a 5,000 foot guest house type thing, but that has to come back before you guys as well. And we didn't pay to design the home and bring that forward because we weren't sure if Right. Well, it impacts sort of our thinking here in that one of the requirements is that the home blend in with the other homes in the neighborhood.

It will be for it will be consistent with the size of the homes in the neighborhood. It will be consists 3200 square feet including the garage and the pool as Mark measured it. He measured the swimming pool that which is just again part of landscaping. Our home is a small footprint. Teresa Silox's home is a small footprint. We have no intention of having that home mimic what got put up on top of the hill. I wouldn't think the town would want that. 5,000 square foot and it has a separate garage that's huge. I mean, it's enormous and it's a second home. That I would not want to be held to that standard. I think that that would be

I guess my question was more along the sense of is its smallness going to stand out in amongst these homes that are 3,000 square feet. Well, we have a we haven't designed the size of it. The exterior will match the exteriors of the existing homes, the use of rusted metal and stone and glass. Um and um Ellen McKenna would be the choice to design it. She's got a beautiful sense of designing. Mark Fenamp, you know, we've had him look at the property. Yeah, it'll be consistent with what's going on in the neighborhood. Not to devalue anybody else's property. Any other questions before I sit? I

for the planning I mean for the staff just confirming that the listed development requirements can be added to during the development process. Is that correct to include like the town color palette and all of those kinds of things? Yeah. And so that that probably doesn't need to be added as a condition because any any design development review application will automatically be subject to all of those standards. Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. Can I So, so your the specific concern about the color palette, that was something that was brought up in an email from another commissioner. Yes.

Um, so Nile is correct that during the design development review process, typical things like lighting and height and size and setbacks will come up. Um, the color palette and design standards are not applicable to homes or or structures which are less than 3,000 square feet, which it sounds like would include this. So if that is something that you want to make sure is included, you can because this is a legislative process through the zone change, you can say we want to make sure that Does the planning commission have any other questions for the applicant or the staff? Are there any questions from the public? for the applicant or the staff. Okay. Was there any questions? No. Okay. Is there a motion to open public hearing?

Make a motion to open public hearing. Do we have a second? Second. Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? Terry. I. Jennifer I. Paul. I. Motion passes. Moving into public comment period. We got quite a few letters and we really appreciate the input and the perspectives and we are open to public comment at this time. Is anybody planning on speaking? Okay.

Benson. Um I just want to say the workforce housing overlay zone uh ordinance I think is a real scary ordinance with density and setbacks and all those things. this application doesn't trigger any of those issues that I see and for me I fully support uh the application. Thanks. Thank you.

Any other comments from the public? Is there a motion to close public hearing? Make a motion to close public hearing. Second. Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. All I. Motion passes. Is there a response from the applicant?

Kathy Lefave. Thank you. Um, you know, there were several people and actually there's a few letters that I know got mailed that didn't hit your desk and I appreciate people in the community speaking out and saying this is something we can support. Just think it's really important as a community when we can when we have the opportunity to allow somebody who works in our community to be part of the fabric of our community. I'm a firm believer that those people who serve us our meals when we go to the restaurant are a viable part of our community. They make a difference. They're the future. They're the people who might have children running up and down the street. So, I hope that you guys will can support this application. I think it's a positive thing. Thank you.

Okay. Moving into planning commission deliberation. Yes. Okay. Lost track here. Sorry. You did. Okay. That's right.

I guess I'll start. Um I understand some of the concerns that were brought to the attention um regarding this overlay zone. Um, however, this seems like an ideal situation that fits right into what is intended and meets the requirements. And I too am a huge proponent of attainable housing and definitely support it when it makes sense. And I believe that with all of the requirements that are in place, um, and what we've heard today, the intentions and like I said, meeting all the requirements, I I support it.

Overall, I I agree. I I I think um this is the kind of um the kind of proposal we would want for a workforce housing overlay zone. Um and it's I'm would be very concerned about the high density that's allowed in a foothill residential zone, but this is a density that I think makes sense. Um, I viewed the property and it looks like a a house could be placed there um without interference with really any of the neighboring houses. Um, yeah, go ahead.

No, I I was just going to say I agree and I think you know the the public feedback that we've received has been predominantly in favor of this as well. So if if we got nothing else, I can make a motion if you want. I'm happy to make a motion if you guys are ready. Let's take turns. Yeah. Yeah. And then include Do you have something else? Yeah. That's perfect. So, if we're ready for a motion,

so I move that the planning commission recommends the town council approve the zone map amendment application which would apply to workforce which would apply the workforce housing overlay zone to the property at 120 Kosava Drive. This recommendation is based on the following findings. The change supports chapter 3 housing of the town's general plan under subgoal A, maintain Springdale's character as a rural residential community and sub goal B, promote community character by providing opportunities for more key contributors to to the community to live full-time in the community. It supports Springdale Town Code Chapter 13, article G, workforce housing overlay zone, an ordinance adopted to help facilitate the available availability of attainable housing options for employees working in Springdale and Zion National Park. In adopting the WHZ, the town found that having employees of local businesses live in the community strengthens the community and adds to the town's village character. This zone change will resemble two lots and and no more. Each with a two-bedroom home and each housing two adults and each requiring qualified occupancy of actively employed adults in the town supporting sections 3, four, and five and are compliant with the town color palette. Both lots will be deed restricted in accordance with the workforce housing overlay zone. A restrictive covenant will also be filed with the Washington County Recorders Office that stipulates the units must be sold or rented to qualified households. And furthermore, in accordance with 1013G12A, a development agreement or 10 to 1312, a development agreement will be entered into with the town and recorded the county of Washington recorder office stipulating the same.

Is there a revision to the motion? Yes. Is that not your intent? Okay.

I'm I'm willing to modify my Okay. motion to make them two or threebedroom. That good? I Okay. I I'm just wondering if it's even necessary to put that strike to strike it. Yeah. And then that cannot be because we will review that in the PD. Okay, that's fine. Okay. So, so I'll strike the with a two-bedroom home and each housing two adults but requiring qualified documents to active employed adults will remain.

Okay. Is everybody clear on the motion? Is there a second? I will second the motion. All in favor? Have discussion but I don't have any discussion but Okay. Actually, I was going to but you you included the development agreement and that would have been my comment. So, okay. Uh, so Terry I Jennifer I all I um motion passes.

Okay. Action item number three is a public hearing ordinance 202609 amending chapter 10-21-8 of the town code relating to maintenance and repair of non-complying buildings and inserting a new section of code dealing with involuntary removal of a non-complying building. Staff contact is Nile Connelly and Nile will be presenting.

Thank you. Yes. So on to the third public hearing of the evening. Uh this relates to non-complying buildings. Um so look if we look back to last fall when this started just to recap on this um this topic arose uh after a question for an or this question arose following a request to the town council to interpret uh a section of the code in the non-complying in the non-complying chapter of of the code. Um, and when the town council made that interpretation, at the same time, they instructed the planning commission to look at this issue um, and look at the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair and and and try and kind of make this a little bit more clear. So, the commission has worked on crafting ordinance language to uh to address this over the last number of months. Um the proposed language uh clarifies or adds clarification to the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair. Uh the language also adds a new section which addresses circumstances that we've termed um involuntary removal. So that's addressing situations that maybe don't fall into the catastrophe realm, but maybe exceed ordinary maintenance and repairs. Um, so this language, you're familiar with it because it was brought to you last month, but there's a few additions and revisions have been made to it based on the feedback at the last meeting. Um and so for this evening, it's um over to you to make a recommendation to the town

council on whether this should be adopted or um or not. Okay. Um so that is the applicant presentation as well. Does the planning commission have any questions? I don't Are there any questions? No. Okay. Any um questions from the public? Is there a motion to open public hearing? I move that we open public hearing. Second. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry? I. Jennifer I.

All I. Motion passes. Public comment period. We did receive a letter and thank you for the input from the public and my comments. Um Oh, any are there any other public comments? I move we close the public hearing. Second motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Motion passes. Is there any response from the applicants? Okay, now moving into planning commission deliberation.

So, we spent some time working on this one. I think we're we've got what we're looking for and I'm pretty happy with where we're at. I agree too. We discussed this very thoroughly and I feel like the added language has helped clarified ordinary maintenance repair and also addresses catastrophic events within that. So I'm I feel really good with after all of our long discussions where we are at.

Is there a motion?

Me take this one. Go for it. The last one. Okay. I'll make motion that the uh planning commission recommends the approval of the proposed changes to chapter 10218 and the insertion of a new paragraph 10-21-9 into the town code as discussed at the planning commission meeting on April 15, 2026. This motion is based on the following findings. This ordinance revision clarifies ambiguities in the requirements related to maintenance, repair, alteration, and improvements of non-complying buildings and structures. This mainten this ordinance revision also makes allowances for circumstances where a non-compliant building or structure has declined over time rather than by a catastrophic event and requires extensive improvement beyond the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair. It defines the requirements and conditions that must be met to allow rebuilding any non-compliant aspects of the previous structure. Is there a second?

Second. Is there any discussion? Motion by Terry. Second by Paul. All in favor? Terry? I Jennifer I. All I. Motion passes. You can.

I'm sorry. I meant you too. I'll ask you next time. Moving on to item four, public hearing regarding ordinance 2026-10 amending chapter 10-21 of the town code relating to renovation and redevelopment of non-complying buildings in the commercial zones. Staff contact is Nyall Connelly and Nyall will be presenting.

Thank you. So another public hearing and uh this also relates to non-complying buildings but specifically this is looking at non-complying buildings in the central commercial and village commercial zones. Um the intention of these amendments is to enable the downtown to retain its vitality and its special character um while recognizing that part of its special character includes a lot of non-conforming buildings. um at the same time um not wanting to discard development standards that have been thoughtfully crafted over many years. And so that that was kind of the intention of these revisions. Uh the proposed language would allow reconstruction of buildings within those zones which are non-compliant with minimum setbacks and maximum building sizes so long as the properties are brought into compliance with all other uh town ordinances that apply. Uh the language also addresses uh nonconforming uses um which may be paused during construction. Um so the as before the commission has has seen this language before um but some additions and revisions have been made um following your direction at the last meeting. Um so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Does the planning commission have any questions for Nile?

I I I guess I have a question that's kind of for all of us. At one point we had discussed that they would be allowed to do this once. Is that still in it says that in there? Okay. I just missed that. Okay. Point G. Yeah. They get one pass at this. Yeah. Okay. So given there are no Public commentary ends here. There are no I think we still have a public hearing. We still need to do a public hearing. Yeah. Motion to open public hearing. Make a motion to open public hearing. I already did that. Oh, you did. I will I will second the motion. Sorry. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry? I. Jennifer I.

Paul. I um all in motion passes. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second given that there's nobody here. Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Motion passes and we can move into planning commission deliberation. I think this has been well deliberated and well thought out and carefully crafted and it looks pretty good. We did a pretty good job. Yeah,

I agree. We did spend a lot of time again thoroughly going over every point and I think we the changes effectively detail the conditions of non-compliant buildings and the requirements for compliance with all other applicable land use regulations. And we I think we did a really good job in trying to balance um the the non-compliance part with um keeping in mind the other current um regulations that would need to be required which is reflected in all of the language. So I feel really good and comfortable with where it's at. It's my turn.

Your turn.

I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed changes to 10 chapter 1021 by insertion of new paragraph chapter 102110 into the town code as discussed at the commission meeting on April 15, 2026. This motion is based on the following findings. Uh it supports the general plan chapter 1 land use and town appearance. Sub goal A, maintain Springdale's identity as a unique village with a spectacular scenic setting and preserve the town's distinctive and small community feel and apparent atmosphere. And sub goal B to ensure new development is compatible with the town setting at the entrance design national park consistent with the town's architectural heritage and complements the existing development in the area. That's it. I'll second.

Okay. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry? I. Jennifer I. All I. Motion passes.

Move we adjourn. There. Second motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry. I. Jennifer I. All I. Meeting is adjourned.