Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

They still do it, you know. Contract it is. Ready? Okay. All right. It's 5:00 pm and we're at the Canyon Community Center for the November 19th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town, we have Robert Romero, Tom Dansancy, Nile Connelly, and Kendall Savers. On the dis we have Matt Fank, the Zion National Park rep, Kosh Pate, Jennifer McCulla, myself, Tom Kenston, Paul Zimmerman, Melissa Labour, and Rich Swanson. I'd like to ask for a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I move we approve tonight's agenda.

Second. Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. All in favor? Kosh. Would you Kosh? I. Yeah. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. Melissa. I. Rich. I. All right. Thank you. Um, I I need to get um either Kosh or Melissa to vote tonight. Um, who shall it be? Kosh, if you'd vote tonight and Melissa, you'll next time if you would. Thank you. Uh, does the town have any general announcements?

We do. Um you the the commission may be aware of some significant personnel changes in the town staff um that we wanted to to make you all aware of. Um one is um town clerk Aaron Emerson um is will be leaving the town effective the end of November. Whoa. And um yesterday Robin Romero was officially appointed to be the new town clerk. So congratulations

um and we will be sad to miss uh Erin, but she's she's going to be doing great things. So um Robin will carry on starting November 29th. She better. Well, we're gonna miss um Erin. Yeah, Robin, welcome. Yeah, I'm looking forward to working with you. Yeah, except she's gonna leave and we'll get somebody else. Um the other uh personnel change, which you may or may not be aware of, is um town manager Rick Wixom will be leaving the town middle of February. Whoa.

Um and so that will be that'll be a change for the for the town as well. And Um he's going on to do great things as well, but um in starting in February, middle of February, that will be a personnel change as well. Wow, those are big changes. Any idea who will replace Rick? Um I think there's going to be a a um vacancy announcement and recruitment and then the the council will just go through the process of finding uh someone to fill that vacancy. I see. Wow. Wow. Big changes. Um, anything else?

It's all I've got. Okay. Um, does anyone have any potential conflicts they like to disclose with tonight's agenda? All right. Not seeing any. The first agenda item is a discussion to revise chapter 1021 of the town code. relating to the repair and refurbishment of non-compliant buildings. And Nile, I believe this is yours if you have an introduction.

Yes. Thank you. So, this item is a continuation of a discussion that the commission has had over the last few meetings. Um just to give a quick recap. Uh in September the town council made an interpretation of the code uh which found that uh one a building is not considered to be removed if the foundations are remaining. And two, uh, the entire removal or replacement of walls or other building elements which are damaged due to water, rot or other deterioration could come under the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair. And so um that interpretation is is binding. However, um recognizing the ambiguity in the code on these points or the potential ambiguity, the town council gave direction to the planning commission to clarify these two definitions. So, building removal and uh ordinary maintenance and repair. Um and so in doing that, this afforded the town a six-month period uh during which um excuse me any applications that come forward within that period. Um decision on that can be deferred until these terms are clarified and then once the six month elapses which is would be in March 2026 then the town uh must act upon any applications on the basis of of that interpretation by the council. So, in recent meetings, the commission has looked at some different ways that these terms could be defined and to address any ambiguities there. Um, the

pack of material for this meeting included a guide from the Utah Land Use Institute on non-compliant buildings and non-conforming uses. And so the intention of providing that to the commission was to give you more um background on on these topics in um general planning practice and kind of the legal um case law etc that surrounds this. Just to give you you know some more information on that. Um just before I finish just um you'll be aware that the second item on tonight's agenda is a discussion on non-complying buildings in the commercial zone. And so that's a related item. Um but our recommendation is that for this particular item the commission focus on defining these two terms and then have that broader discussion. um during the second item. That would be what we would recommend. And um I'd be happy to answer any questions on this.

Any questions for N? I just wanted to mention um in the packet there's a lot about non-conforming uses and also the attachment of um the Utah land use institute and we are strictly discussing buildings not uses. I just want to clarify that.

Yeah, good clarification. Yeah. Yeah. It's the non-compliant buildings that's the topic. one one m main takeaway from a from the Utah Land Use Institute page two that says there's a well accepted premise to land use law that nonconformity should be eliminated over time. So, you know, that kind of sets the tone for the meeting. I think that we need to um um you know to keep that in mind. I know there was a letter uh that came in comment letter um so um hope everyone's had a chance to read that as well. I I actually find that comment sort of vague. Yes, I get it that it would be nice to get rid of the buildings, but I struggle with the fact that I've had this building forever. I want to keep it. I understand that I can't expand on it, but I really have a hard time saying I can't if it needs major work. I have a hard time saying you can't do major work on it to keep it safe and up to code where possible. So, I I feel those two are conflicting a little bit. And I guess that comes back to what Tom Bansy mentioned last meeting that it sort of gets to the core of the land use um law with um you know the um the new um ordinances that we have in place to um control growth and and to

to ensure If the town is u of the this the the type of has the type of construction look we may we we have the village we build a village that we want for the future and so there is a lot of conflict with that I agree it's and to me it's very hard to to define removal now without discussing the commercial buildings but I think that's something would that you know the town has suggested I think something that we need to try and do tonight. And now I think the definition that we used in the last meeting came from the um the hazard u the the flood hazard ordinance and we we repurposed that for the removal.

Yes. So let me find so there was two parts to it and let me just put my get my hand on those. Um, thanks. Yes. So, um, when we were talking about building structures being removed, um, as you say, we were borrowing borrowing a concept, uh, that's in our flood ordinance, uh, that comes from FEMA and this 50% value um, concept. So, that's what we're borrowing for removal. Um and we also uh were looking at um see yeah then for the ordinance ordinary maintenance and repair the definition in the in the draft ordinance the last time uh talked about replacement of uh surface material. So roof surface materials but not replacement of structural uh replacement of wall cladding but not framing elements um and those sorts of things. So it the ordinary maintenance and definition repair or ordinary maintenance it's a repair definition was more specific to how a building is constructed. That's how we drafted it last time. So Rich, I know you made a comment last meeting about that. Do you have any

suggestions for um a different way to to define that? No, unfortunately I don't. I've been thinking about this, but it seems like there's always a case, for example, I need to put a fireproof roof on. I think I mentioned this last time. that's going to cause me to restructure the roof because I'm putting on cement tile instead of um shingles. But according to the way it's written, that would be touching framing and that would not be allowed.

Are we in the discussion part now? Okay. Um I just want to make sure we're done with questions. Um, so we're referring to the ordinary maintenance and repair definition, right? Yeah, we can. Yeah. Um, and was that was is that what you were referring to? Yes, but I would consider that any upgrades for the fact of safety or Yeah. You know, just it's getting old, deframing is old and it's sagging, right? You may have to fix it. And I

I see that being very limiting in that the way that was written. And so I'm not hearing that there's um anything about upkeep and repairs um that keep the property safe and habitable, including um keeping up with all of the plumbing, water. That seems to me that it would make sense to have some of that in ordinary maintenance and repair that it's a completely functional building. And and to your point, in that case, putting on, for instance, a fires safe roof would fall under keeping the property safe. And I could see there would be a number of things that would fall into one of those areas.

So just to come in on that point, um the existing code does allow for um building safety and building code upgrades. I'm just finding the words here. Um, so the term shall also apply to the rehabilitation of a building or structure which is in disrepair for the purpose of making the structure safe and sanitary in accordance with the local building code. So upgrades to to bring it in into compliance with the building code are already um allowed within that definition as it's drafted or as it's written in the code at the moment. And so it wouldn't be considered an upgrade. It could be considered just maintenance in that in this case.

Yeah. I I think if it was if there was a building code violation and there was improvements that needed to be done to bring that into compliance with today's building code that would be allowed under ordinary maintenance and and repair as as we have it now.

Thank you. So, not to be nitpicky here, but theoretically I could put on a light roof, which is a a shingle roof, which is in the codes, or I could do a better job, maybe it looks better to me to put in a um, you know, cement tiles, but that's going to cause me to restructure. Technically, I don't have to do that because code says I don't have to do that, but it might I'm sort of taking that option away from people. Yeah. I mean, it talks about bringing things into compliance with the with the building code. It doesn't I suppose you're talking about kind of going even further, you know, doing a more enhanced version than the minimum. And yeah, maybe that that's not included by this perhaps. Yeah. May I would like to add that you should not once you want to start adding on or changing the u the structure of the house then I think we're in a different ballpark where maybe the 50% rule starts applying. I'm just saying if you're not altering the footprint of the house or the general look of the house you know adding second story would be changing the general look or adding a huge addition

not adding the non not adding to the nonconformities. Correct.

So, I'm I'm a little bit confused because when I read the um proposed language for 10218, you know, it says the term ordinary maintenance and repair includes A through E. And then under section A and then section A is alterations and alterations states that a single family dwelling having nonconforming aspects may be altered or added to such alteration or addition will not result in expansing expansion of any existing nonconformities or creation of new nonconformities. So, I'm not sure how it's a problem if they want to put a new roof on and they have to replace some of the roof structure underneath. Yes, it uh it now is possible as an alteration as opposed to maintenance, but they can still make the change without an issue from what I agree unless I'm mistaken.

So, maybe I'm confused, but I got part of that was you could not touch the uh the framing. So if there was an issue with the frame, what it does is it it categorizes them as either a maintenance

or an alteration. And if you do if you change the structure, the framing of the roofing structure or whatever, then that's an alteration. But you can still make an alteration if you don't expand the nonconformity. So if it's a setback nonconformity, you can still, you know, fix some of the studs, but you can't move any closer to the road or the neighbors or whatever. So, but aren't we talking about what it what it means to I guess where I'm stuck is I thought we're talking about what it means to like take down the house or demolish the house, right? Well, that's that's separate from you know your your hypothesis that somebody just wants to put roof on the house.

Is it because then I'm touching framing and we were saying you can't touch framing that becomes demolition. Well, you can touch framing with with some limitations, but you know there's the the removal definition of removal is something that we separate from that discussion we need to decide on is what constitutes a removal because I think to me it's fairly clear if you remove the house, if you're non-conforming, you remove the structure completely and want to build a new one, you should be building to the same standards that everybody else around you has to build to, not what you used to have just because you happen to have So I'm in disagreement of that. If my house burns down, that's a different I'm allowed to put it back on the same foundation. So

if I want to do something before my house falls down and do a good job because if I'm going and touching a portion of my house because it's rotting, I'm putting that money in. I want to do everything. I'm not going to change the non-conforming area. But I have a hard time saying that isn't allowed. Well, I I don't have a hard time saying it's not allowed because you've had the benefit for years of having a non-conforming structure that your neighbors haven't allowed to have. Maybe I bought the house three years ago. Well, it doesn't. So, I haven't had it that long. Whichever. Or I have had it that long. Why all of a sudden when I bought the house, this was legal and now it's not legal and you're telling me I cannot maintain my home that I've loved for 15 plus years? No, you you purchased the house when it was non-conforming and

Okay, let's say I purchased it conforming. When I bought the house, it was conforming and I've enjoyed it for 15 years and now it's not conforming and I have an issue because my salt wall is totally rotten

and I have to replace it. And if I'm like if I'm putting that much money in, I want to do a little bit more gutting. I realize I can't change the footprint or the style of the house. But if I'm in there, I want to bring as much up to code as possible, which which might mean reinforcing walls, you know, adding better um HA, you know, HVAC electrical, which might mean changing some of the framing. So, that that's my two cents. I just have a hard time saying that if I've owned this house for 15 years and it needs work, extensive work that now I'm limited or I have to do it over a period which is even dumber to me two years because then I can say I'm doing half this year and half next year that it seems like an undue burden to put on homeowners. Well, the I mean I guess the the reason that burden exists in some municipalities is because um people have effectively utilized that to get around the rules that say if you remove your house, you can't rebuild it the old way. You got to build it to new code. And so I don't think it was the intention of the code writers to necessarily allow that, but that's how it's sort of evolved out now.

That was an example in the last meeting how you could get around this. So, I'm just sure bringing that up. It is a way to

I I hear what you're saying and I'm I too am having a hard time wrapping my head around that. Same same ideas.

Do we need a a distinction between residential and commercial or is it um would that help or or not? I'm not sure. Well, even in a even in a residential neighborhood, I guess, you know, um simplifying the argument and saying it was just in a residential neighborhood, you know, you got somebody that's had a house that's different than everybody else's and it was constructed previously constructed into a different uh code at the time or lack of code at the time. Um, and it's subsequently uh they've decided that they don't like the house and they want to tear it down and and rebuild it. Why?

That's sorry, that's different. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the house needs work. I should be able to invest the money and do this one time to make that house if Yeah.

As long as I don't change the size or the look of the house. If it's an alteration and you know outside the definition of a complete removal whatever removal whatever we determine that is then they then you can do that. But if we you know I think that the uh one item of business here is to determine what is what constitutes demolition or a total demolition or you know where's the threshold. You got to pick somewhere. So where's the threshold that says okay, you know, if you're basically ripping the whole thing out and starting over, then you ought to be my my view is you ought to be held to the same standard everybody else in the community has to build that house. If you choose to keep the old house and you want to, you know, little by little renovate the thing and bring bring it more current, then that's f, you know, that's fine. You can do that as a as alterations. But when you get to the extreme that you basically just wipe the thing off and you're going to start over, then you should start over. and be held to the same standard your neighbors have.

I mean, and and that kind of points to why the definition of removal is important, right?

Because if if we we use the definition we talked about last time, to me, it's kind of arbitrary and we talked about cost of um the cost of reinstating those elements of the building which have been removed. I mean, to me, it's kind of an arbitrary definition because you know that the building might have a certain value, but it's going to cost you more to to rebuild the half that you remove. Um, so it seems kind of um kind of arbitrary. I don't know if we can use a different definition, but I I guess what I'm suggesting is that we we we try to determine what what is a removal. Do we want to make it um give homeowners the more of the ability to rebuild when they remove or do we want to to keep it more strict to where if they they have a problem or if they they want to rebuild then then the the code dictates that they have to uh comply with the the new ordinance. What would be helpful for me would um if anybody has an example of what that might look like. So say somebody's the majority of the walls in their home are rotting. The for whatever reason the framing is rotting or there's mold throughout the um and so there's more than 50% that has to be removed. Um or maybe it's so much of the house that it does all have to be taken down. So involuntary um no matter what that situation might be that they they have to tear so much out and and rebuild. What would be the nonconforming

ordinances that you see um that they would be able to continue with if if they were able to stay non-conforming? So the individual ordinances Yeah. I just because if it's on if it's this if it's you know not current setbacks but it's being built on the same foundation which would be acceptable right? Depends. I mean that's what we're trying to figure out is

well right. So what you're saying is like if if it came to that point, wipe out the foundation and everything and and start brand new. Okay. Um so there could be some kind of exception where it could be this basically the same foundation. Yeah. That's

the most the most uh forgiving definition that I found. Um I'll just read it if that's okay. The partial building removal involves selectively removing specific parts of a structure such as walls, floors, outdated extensions, or nonstructural interiors while preserving the rest of the building and its structural integrity. So, you're taking it down to the point to where you have integrity, whether that's a concrete foundation or a, you know, a brick structure underneath and then you're rebuilding on that. That's kind of what this says. So it could in theory be defined as partial building removal can remain non-conforming with the original ordinance requirements and in place and then if it was complete removal

and yeah then current there are communities that that have adopted a you know codified it such is um they can remove everything except one the studs in one wall. Yeah.

They take everything else down. As long as they've got one wall standing, they can build back up around it and that's okay. And then even go some even go to the extreme where um once they're done with say threequarters of it um and they've got this one wall they can tear that wall down and then now rebuild that and effectively they've incrementally rebuilt an entirely new building on the spot and gotten around the way their their rules were set up that said no you can't just do a complete removal. I'm not suggesting that we we should adopt that, but that's how some communities have taken that off. In that example, are they allowed to change they're leaving on one wall, but are they allowed to change the exterior footprint of the house? I think

to some extent in some in some areas they can. Yes. And and I'm definitely saying we should not allow that. I'm just saying if you keep the same footprint. Well, and and it begs the question, do we do we want one rule for residential structures and another rule for commercial structures? You know, because the commercial structures in my mind have more bearing on the village field. I thought that's about in the future. They have more area for has the um the commercial structures have more effect on the village field. I thought our second agenda item was addressing commercial structures. It is. Yeah. Okay.

I was talking I'm talking about the definition of a removal. Um Okay. Do do we feel comfortable with having one definition is what I'm asking. I'd like to explore one definition because I'm not sure. I would make the same arguments for commercial. If I have a commercial property, I've been running a business there forever. You know, some of these lots are small. It's going to be hard to get the setbacks. You're going to you have to renegotiate parking and everything else, right? Yeah.

Can I suggest something if that would be okay? Um, just going back to uh Jennifer's comment a few moments ago about um examples being helpful. Um, I wonder would it be helpful if um at staff for the next meeting. We created some hypothetical examples of different scenarios and then you could discuss those or do a straw poll on them. I I think some of these concepts uh we're discussing or they're quite hypothetical. So it's it's a little bit difficult to

that would be for me. Yeah. But but perhaps if if I could create, you know, a bunch of different scenarios and then you have a little bit more meat on on the discussion and know what you're actually comfortable with and what you're not. Yeah, that that might help.

I wonder if there's any examples of other communities that have done something similar to what we're talking about. Um, you know, that that might give us some guidance as well. Yeah, we can see if if there's other things going on around the state. Yeah. And I still feel a little confused on exactly what we're trying to accomplish. Are we trying to accomplish making sure that the non-compliant buildings eventually get phased out? Are we okay with allowing non-compliant buildings to to remain but not grow? And in addition to that, it everything's going to be non conforming at some point. Like

it's just as to when like an ordinance change or addition is going to make any building non-conforming. So I you can't I don't think ever get rid of all of them, right? No, but I think I I mean I don't think it's it's the town's intention to, you know, change the rules just for the sake of changing the rules and to make everybody's home or business non-compliant so that it gets changed over time. But, you know, but in instead, I think, you know, we have a general plan that says, you know, these are the things that we desire to see in our community. And um and there's guidelines set forth that say, okay, we recognize that some things are non-complying now. and part of the rules that are set forth or that says, okay, if you're non-compliant, you can continue to be non non-compliant, but if you make significant changes to it, remove it, you know, rebuild it, whatever, then you've got to come up to the same standard that everybody else does. And and you know, that I guess that's what we're trying to, you know, determine now is what are some of the details of those rules so that it's fair as we go forward and it's not unreasonable. Um because things, you know, people do want to change things over time and buildings deteriorate or or fall out of use or, you know, whatever for whatever the reason. But um but because they existed um at some point time in the past doesn't mean that they should always continue to exist in the future. Um prime example is dinosaurs. If dinosaurs continue to exist today, we'd have some significant problems. Um, maybe not a good thing that they continue to exist.

Yeah, I was just trying to uh address what Rich was asking like is is the ultimate goal and I I wouldn't say that's the ultimate goal though, right? It's no but I think that I think the general plan is fairly clear and that you know the reason we have land use ordinances and whatnot is to encourage you know I don't want to necessarily call it conformity but you know the the plan the vision that the town sees for what we want this uh the village atmosphere that we see projecting into the future and you know it's it's our responsibility to try and help you know u figure that out and codify it as time goes on. So,

unfortunately, that's not a general statement because I'm going to take the lot size in Foothill Residential. If I have a one acre lot that was defined before 1992, I can always build a house on it. There's no that's never going to get phased out. Today, I need two acres to build a house, but if it was defined, that lot was defined before 1992, it's never going to be phased out. I can always build a house on a oneacre lot. So I I cannot say all our new ordinances are being phased out. They're not. And what about what about a case um in uh Florida? There was a a guy that was a friend of the family in turning, very wealthy, but he bought a big mansion on the river and then he got into it and he discovered it was riddled with termites. So, he had to tear it down and rebuild it. It wasn't a problem because he could build on the same footprint. But in this case, if we had someone that ran into that problem, they would have to comply with all the current ordinances. So, it would be totally different. So, could that be considered a catastrophe like a fire or an earthquake?

I I like that example. I would I would agree with that that that would be a catastrophe. Well, one one could argue in that and I mean, I guess it gets down to specifics, but one could argue that, you know, if you're doing appropriate maintenance and and prevented maintenance on your home, you would you would be conducting permanent inspections and that sort of thing on an ongoing basis. You have some visibility that there's bugs eating your house and there's parts of it that need to be fixed and fix those over time and not wait until the entire thing is about ready to collapse underneath you. There's a there's a lot of indicators that would, you know, as time goes on that would lead you to think that maybe got to do something about this.

Um quite often that comes to pass when somebody's lived in a house for you know a lifetime or whatever that the estate sells it, somebody new buys it. They don't do due diligence um inspecting it and get into it and go, "Oh my gosh, this thing's really bad." But but it's not u while it's financially catastrophic and probably maybe it's not catastrophic in the same context that a fire or flood is where you know one day your house is there and you're enjoying life and the next day it's completely gone. How about black mold? Because that's a little bit harder to to identify. Yeah.

But it is but it is possible to identify it. you can identify mold in your home and there are there are very good indicators of that over time. So I it'd be hard to envision a a situation where all of a sudden you just realize that your home was completely covered with mold and you never you had no no clues, you know. No, I I think that can happen. You take down your kitchen cabinets, find out they're all moldy and back. Yeah. Then you start digging. Matter of fact, PEX, the reason I had to replplumb my house is not PEX. I had this polybutane that kids pinhole leaks. Yeah.

They're gonna leak behind a wall and create black mold and now I have to do major work and I had no idea this thing had a little pinhole leak. Yep. So, so there are situations where I don't think, but that didn't happen. U presumably that doesn't happen throughout your entire home because for one thing there's not plumbing throughout your entire home. There's parts of your home that are not plumbed. Um, at least mine is anyway. You know, kitchens, bathrooms, that sort of thing. Yes, maybe. But, you know, garages don't have a lot of pling them all the time. Sometimes they do, but anyway, I don't want to argue details about that.

I mean, I get these questions are all good. I think we're talking about basically the scope of the issue and you know and what could hap what's the worst that could happen to someone and you know the benefits of the general plan. A lot of work's been done in into that document and um you know um I personally wouldn't want to see some somebody you know have a catastrophic failure of a new home that they bought that they couldn't rebuild. But um you know like Paul's you know Paul's saying it's like buyer beware. you need to do your diligence right

before you, you know, there home inspectors that you can get to do that for you. But I think some um examples that N could put together to help us move forward with this. Kosh, do you have any anything to contribute or or Melissa? Have we beat this to death enough or we ready to move on? Okay.

Well, we beat it enough for now. For now. Yeah. It's always next time. All right. Then the next agenda item is the discussion of renovation of non-compliant buildings in the commercial zones. And Tom, I believe this is your item.

It is. It is. Thank you, Tom. Um, so this this is another area of of non-compliant structure law. So, we're just we're just going wild with non-compliant structures tonight. Everybody's, you know, dream is to spend an evening talking about non-compliant structure law. Um, so this is but this is a a a distinct as as Nile mentioned in in his intro. This is a distinct and separate issue from what we've just discussed. What you've just discussed is removal of a building and ordinary maintenance and repair when a building falls into some sort of disrepair. Right? And that and you had a great conversation on that. We would suggest now that you you say okay that's separate. the issue that we are now talking about are buildings particularly in the commercial zones that maybe are in perfect working order, right? They're but they're just old and they're non-compliant. Um, as as Paul mentioned, the the town's general plan and our land use ordinances are forwardlooking, and the general idea is that over time, as properties develop or redevelop, they develop in compliance with the current land use standards, which uphold the vision of the general plan. So the town is constantly moving towards um achieving the vision in the general plan understanding again that we'll never get there, right? Because uh the town is constantly revising its ordinances and so there are always going to be properties that are in some amount of of non-compliance because every time the planning commission changes an ordinance or the town council changes an ordinance based on the planning commission's recommendation, you're creating non-compliant properties. So recognizing that this is not like a one-time fix, we're going to we're going to solve it and woohoo, we don't have any more non-compliant buildings and we're all good, right? This is this is going to be a continual issue. So the

issue the the question is then is what to do about it, right? Are you okay um letting the the natural evolution of buildings in the commercial zones evolve and and as they fall as as a as a property owner elects to redevelop them, they come into compliance, recognizing that that could take some time, right? Do you want to do something that catalyzes that process and speeds it up um and and and maybe incentivizes a property owner in the commercial zones to redevelop their properties? Maybe not in complete compliance with current standards, but something that's closer to compliance with current standards, right? or do you want to do something um uh even even different than that and and change our zoning or as as Tom mentioned there was a comment letter that that suggested another zoning tool where we could adopt like a a a legacy zone. Do you want to do something like that that that kind of removes the non-compliance altogether and effectively effectively legalizes these properties so that they are no longer non-compliant? So there's a lot of issues, a lot of of strategies that you can dis you can discuss. Before getting to that, however, in the staff report, um I think it's important before we start talking about those strategies for you as a commission just to have a more of a philosophical background discussion so that we know which direction to go, right? We we don't want to start clinging on to strategies or tools until we know which direction we we we want to go so that we can choose the appropriate tools. So to help that that conversation, I've suggested in the staff report three questions that you could have a discussion amongst yourselves, the kind of philosophical questions. Um I'll bring them up on the screen here. Um and this could help you

um as a commission determine kind of where you want to go with this issue. So here here are the three here are the three questions for you uh that that we suggest that you consider. Um one is number one, how much difference should be given to current zoning standards when considering non-compliant properties? To what extent is it permissible and justifiable to deviate from the town's long-standing vision for the development of the community to incentivize the redevelopment of non-compliant properties? Um, again, the whole the whole concept of zoning and land use is that as properties develop, as they redevelop, they're going to be done that development or redevelopment is going to be done in a way that promotes the objectives of the land use ordinance and of the general plan. Um, and that's that's kind of o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o over the over the the past 30 years of history in in Springdale, that's what we've been working towards, right? So, how much do you want to how much difference do you want to give to that versus how much do you want to deviate from that and and and and change things up and give more more um allowance to to the redevelopment of non-compliant buildings. So, that's that's issue number one. Um issue number two is um what's our timeline? How how important of of of an issue is this for us? Is this something that we want to to to act on right away? Um either because we we're in a we are anxious to um kind of get more properties in compliance with the code or because um we we feel it's important for property owners to to give them more allowance to redevelop the property. What is our sense of urgency there? Um if this is not something that is super urgent for you, then our current status quo is just fine, right? If this is something if this is something that is urgent to the commission for whatever reason either as a benefit or as a as an incentive to property owners or um to to help um

bring about the vision of the general plan then let's that's important to know right how what what is the timeline um and the third thing for you to consider is um are some of these non-compliant properties may actually add to the character of the town um some of the eclectic nature of development over the years that's not consistent with the with the current zoning standards. Maybe that's maybe that's something that that is beneficial to the town. Um so are there any aspects of current non-compliant buildings that you think hey maybe these are okay? Um understanding the answers to those questions will then help you as a commission know which path to go down. So I'd recommend you do that before jumping on any one of those paths because without knowing where you want to end up, you're likely to jump on the wrong path. So th that's a that's a suggested um framework for your for your initial discussion tonight.

I have two questions. Um you mentioned encouraging and incentivizing businesses for incremental change to get towards compliance. What would that look like and like an incentive for them? Yeah. So again, this is this is kind of getting towards a little bit more potential tools and strategies. Yeah.

Um but you know, something that that could be and some things that have been floated around in previous meetings are well may hey, maybe a a property is non-compliant with the setback by a huge amount, right? Maybe if they can come into 50% compliance with the setback and they're willing to I don't know do more landscape or reduce a building height or reduce reduce building size something along those lines. um maybe that's something that you want to consider, right? So that that would be a strategy. Again, however, before jumping on that on that path, I think it's important for the commission to to have a discussion about well just how important is it for us to provide that incentive for a property owner to redevelop the property. Yeah, I was just trying to understand if we would even go on that path. Like if would there be any incentive that would even be worthwhile for a business to I and I guess maybe there is without knowing really what that would even be.

Yeah. And I think it's it's really property specific too, right? Yeah. I mean there there are some properties that are close to being compliant but not quite. um and and maybe the the the hardship for them to redevelop in conformance with the current zoning standards is not great versus another property that would could be significantly out of compliance and development within the current zoning standards would be would be super super hard for them and and maybe an incentive there would be more enticing to the property owner.

Okay. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. if there would even be any incentive that would be worthwhile for some business that had to spend a lot of money. Um, okay. And then, um, as far as timeline goes, I was just wondering if there were any specifics as to, um, why it's on why we're discussing it now and it's on the agenda now, like if there was some urgency to to have it come up.

Yeah, great question. So unlike the timeline that Nile mentioned with the previous issue that that there is some urgency in there is no particular urgency with this. This was an a discussion item that was discussed in our um generation of potential planning commission work meeting items um earlier this year and this is just kind of next on the priority list and it happened to coincide with with this other work. So that's why it's on the agenda now but there is no particular sense of urgency.

Okay. Thank you. So, do the same rules apply for businesses that, you know, if I don't touch anything, it can it can stay. It's a non-compliant building. And then don't we have the same problem with what is normal maintenance versus I'm redeveloping the property? Yeah. But again, I would leave that for your discussion that you just had with Nile. Okay.

This is this is my building is fine. I I you know, there is no black mold. There are no termites. I've done my due diligence. We're we're good, but this just isn't working for me for whatever reason, and I want to I want to take it down and and build something new. Right now, there's a strong financial disincentive not to do that for certain properties, particularly those that are in gross non-compliance, right? Why would I take this down when rebuilding is going to significantly impact how I can develop the property? I'm just going to keep my non-conforming building, non-compliant building. I might not like it, but it's fine. I'm just going to keep it because it it it offers me more economic viability than if I were to redevelop in compliance with the code, right? Are you okay with that? If so, then we're like, okay, there's there's not much to see here. let's let's move on, right? Or are you like, well, no, we we think that maybe we want to to um catalyze the redevelopment of these of these properties and and is there a pathway that we should be looking at to make that happen?

Do you because I don't have any off top of my head. Do you have any examples of incentives that have been proposed by

I can maybe give an example of something that's occurred in recent history that took a non-compliant building um as an example the Bumbleberry. Now, it's not going to meet all of the criteria because it was destroyed by fire as opposed to just it didn't suit the needs of the owner. Um although one could argue that it probably didn't suit all of the needs of the owner at the time. Um so fire destroyed the building and they rebuilt the building in in the same space but um to a more compliant not completely compliant uh you know uh state that would have been required if it was just a blank piece of land and they had to build a building on it. So that goes to the back to the question that I was trying to answer or ask is if it gets burned down, I have full right to rebuild it the way it was. I'm trying to figure out what incentives could we are possible that would encourage someone to adopt the standards when they legally don't have to.

Well, in their case, they decided to be more compliant. And I think, you know, I I don't know, you you guys might have a better idea of some uh things that they were allowed to do that they wouldn't necessarily have been allowed to do if they built it or or wouldn't have been as useful to them if they had built it exactly the same as it was. So, I I agree. I mean, I think it'd be great to try to incentivize Yeah.

businesses, you know, to adopt some new codes. I don't have a clue right now what those incentives would look like. So, and again, we can talk about that, right? But I I think in order to before we pursue that and what incentives might be available and again, you've got a comment letter that that suggests one potential strategy and and there there are any number of others that we could discuss. I think it's important as a commission for you to come to to some kind of understanding about what the nature of the problem is. Is it really a problem that needs to be solved? um and if so what are the issues that we're trying to solve and then that that would help us um know which direction to go if we want to look at incentives if we want to look at a complete different zoning framework um what what the what the the pathway we want to go would be but I I think before we even start down that it's important for the commission to say yeah this is a problem and here's the the nature of the problem or yeah you know what we don't really think this is a problem and and we there's that this isn't something that we really need to spend time on.

I would say it's a nice to have. I'm having a hard time justifying if it's a problem.

I would say that I do think that there are some non-compliant buildings that fit in with the goals of our general plan and that the town character. Um, and I don't see it as a problem being that needs to be solved right now. And I lean towards moving forward and for now at least allowing the current structure of the ordinances just play out over time. We love Springdale, right?

Yeah. Yeah. And I look at this picture of the non-compliant buildings that's in our packet and I think that is a beautiful charming town and I don't see any reason to have to change that.

What about buildings that are not being used? Um, you know, there's a an old art gallery that we all know which one it is. I mean, should we have different rules for them for buildings that are being underutilized or not used at all that are just boarded up hesitate to use the word derelch but um from the perspective of being non-compliant because I would say yes in general but I'm um

like some sort of different rules to push those buildings into better compliance either being used uh some way or uh to be demolished and and returned to you know vacant land. I could see the benefit in that if that is something that we could specify. Yeah,

I think some somehow I think that's a different thing than what we're talking about. Because if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you know there's a there's a building that's non-compliant and not being utilized but but just allowed to sit there and for lack of a better terminology look ugly. We don't like it. Can we you know demand that it be removed somehow? I don't think there's necessarily a way to do that right now, but I'm not sure that's the the you know the intention of this discussion because that could be the case with a conforming building as well. Could be true.

Yeah. So, not that it's not potentially an issue, but I mean there's there's other um you know, it's interest one of the things interesting to me is you know, if I look at and and by the way, thanks for putting me this list together of all of these nonconforming buildings. It's really been helpful um to me anyway. Uh but as I look down this list and I and I look at which is the most non-compliant building in town um and that being the Zion Pizza Noodle building which is the old church

in my opinion is probably the most uh village historic building in town as well. and to see that changed or to be eliminated because it was non-compliant or because the owner decided that they couldn't make it functional for them and so they had to change the character that would be a significant loss to the community. Um agreed.

So, you know, somehow trying to figure out um you know, kind of do what Tom is saying. Let's let's try and ask ourselves the questions of okay, what are the what are sort of the parameters? You know, there's one case where we'd say, "Hey, maybe we'd be willing to or in my opinion, certainly be willing to make some concessions to help them achieve something better for them, but yet retain the village character of that particular structure." And, you know, as you go down the list, there's probably others. Most of the most of these um are, you know, non-compliance. You know, if you look at well, most of them are parking area setback non-compliance issues. Um, if you were to try and redo the commercial nature of the building, um, they'd have to put more parking in to to make it work. Um, but there's a there's a number of them that are building size, you know, and if depending upon, you know, what so maybe we could look at it from the standpoint of, okay, if maybe it's not compliant with building size, but what are the characteristics of the building that make it uh more um acceptable from a village character or from other general plan guidelines to to be willing to maybe make some additional concessions on it, but and keep That's that height requirement potentially or size requirement.

What kind of objective criteria could we use for that? And you mentioned the word historic. Yeah. And I think that's an important one. I don't know how many buildings would qualify. You know, I don't know when these buildings were built. I believe the church is one of the older ones. Yeah.

In town. I mean, I recognize, you know, the Pioneer Lodge is is one of the older buildings in town. Um, and it recently underwent renov renovation, but it was mostly, is my understanding, interior renovation, um, to make the property more suitable for people being inside the thing. But they they pretty well tried to stay uh away from changing anything in the outside of the property because uh to do so would have made them required them to make it much more compliant and potentially more unusable because they don't have the parking. They don't have some of the other um landscaping for example. You know, they don't have a place to put that because there's not enough places to park the cars. I agree with what Jennifer said right now. I don't see a huge need, but I do want to be somewhat forwardlooking and there's no reason a business is going to make a change without some incentive. I mean, if they have an incentive to get closer, if they're doing a remodel like the Pioneer Lodge, I'm just going to throw that out because they just did one. Maybe they could have done a little more if there was an incentive to do something, but I don't know what that's why I was asking about incentives. I guess the way it is now, it's like if they do a major renovation, then they've got to be compliant in all um you know, in all the setbacks and the parking setbacks and the landscaping percentage and all that. Uh, so I'm sure they're very cautious about what they do because there's no

mechanism to allow them to do part of the, you know, pick on one or two things to make it more compliant. They've got the whole thing to deal with all at once.

Think very nicely said. Yes, that is my concern. kind of clued you. But yeah, I have a question for staff, too. I'm just curious those properties that are um under the um the settlement agreement, will they are they out of compliance? Will they have are they uh uh legally protected going forward? Yeah, great question. So, um once they once they receive a certificate of occupancy, they they've um they've utilized the entitlements given to them by the by the settlement agreement. Um and and it kind of depends. Some some of the settlement agreements specifically say this, some of them it's it's more implied. Once you get a certificate of occupancy, you you've you've satisfied the the entitlements given to you in that settlement agreement and you become a non-compliant structure. Okay?

So, in like I said, in some of the settlement agreements that we have, that's explicit, right? Once you boom, once you get your certificate of occupancy, great. Then 20 years down the road, you want to do something different. That's fine. But now you've got to comply with the ordinance.

Okay? It would it be worthwhile for us to take um some time for us to each of us to familiarize familiarize ourselves with some of these properties and go and take a look at them and say okay what's you know understand what the little check marks on this paper are, you know, um, you know, their front setbacks, side setbacks, uh, parking area, landscaping, you know, and try and understand and then and then I I don't know if we can necessarily rank them, but, you know, maybe try and get a feeling for does this property as it exists now contribute to the v village character of the community? um or u so that we can have maybe a more meaningful discussion as we go forward about what are the desirable aspects of doing this.

I think that's actually a really good idea because that that um inventory that I put together that was you know that was as as much as I could do in the in the period from the from two weeks ago to to now. But it doesn't it it just says yes there's there's a non-compliant right uh aspect here. It doesn't talk about the extent of that non-compliance. Yeah. And some of them may be out of non-compliance by two or three feet on the front setback. Yeah. Some of them are like grossly out of compliance, but that that chart doesn't doesn't give you that. So, I think that's a really good idea, Paul. Yeah. Um to to see and and that that could help inform the commission's discussion as well.

I I presume that's something we could do individually or maybe we do a caravan and wander around town and, you know, that' probably be harder to orchestrate, but might be more beneficial. Yeah, we can. We've done that in the past where we do um mobile meetings. The clerks love that. Yeah. And um

um but but we we've certainly done that in the past and we'd be happy to. So we can do it um all together as a as a group. We've also done like um groups of two commissioners before where we we go out with groups of two and and staff can go with you on that. You're welcome to do it individually. We're happy to support you in whatever you think would be most beneficial to the commission. I'm just uh brainstorming here, but back to null's uh comment letter about the legacy zones. When we caravan, maybe we could come to a conclusion that some of these criteria are more acceptable than others. And so we could possibly clear up um you know say a parking setback or something if it's a legacy um issue um that um we could implement a portion of his suggestion. Um I don't know. I'm just bring that that up as a possibility.

Yeah. I I I think examining all all properties in light all potential solutions would be fantastic. Obviously, if you want to make formal conclusions about the merit of any one of those, it should be done in a in a public meeting, not you know, not in a in a field trip, but but yeah, that that would be fantastic. And do you know right off hand with um the Bumbleberry, I know he came into more compliance when he rebuilt. Do you know the specifics of that? Yeah. So, he um the the old Bumbleberry was right up on the front sidewalk, so it had a zero setback.

Um and it it did not meet any of our that's a little harsh, maybe. It didn't meet many of our it failed to meet a a variety of our design standards, I guess I should say.

Um and also the building is much too large. So when it was rebuilt, um the property owner voluntarily moved it back off the street. So it doesn't quite meet the required front setback for the central commercial zone, but at least it's further from the street than it was before. Um and the property owner also implemented many of our design standards in terms of breaking up the facade and breaking up the roof line. Again, not into complete compliance with all those, but but more in compliance. It still exceeds the building size allowed for the for the the zone and um but it's it's it's it's definitely in more compliance than it was prior to the fire. I wonder if that example could be used as sort of a template to to look at specifically what was done uh to make it more fit more into the ordinances so that we might have something to look at in terms of um formulating a solution for other properties in town. The the other question that I would have was was there some incentive for him to make those changes and become more compliant other than he's just a nice guy.

The the town didn't offer him any additional incentives. Yeah. It was it was a decision on the part of the property owner to say I'm I want to do what I can Yeah. to help promote the town's um right

desired development pattern. So the so the um I mean I threw that out as an as an example, but the the uh deficiency in the example is that there was no incentive that the town offered to say, "Hey, if you if you do these things, then we'll give you something else." So we might want to think about what kinds of incentives would be uh beneficial to to somebody that was making such a change that we could do maybe do more of in the future if we wanted to. Correct. Yeah, like I said, there's a number of of strategies. There's incentives. Yeah, there's a whole new zone. Yeah,

like a legacy zone that that was in the comment letter. Then there's the the concept of, well, hey, if if um a building with reduced setbacks is is actually consistent with the town's character, maybe we look at a wholesale change to the to the central commercial zone. Now, that would be a very dramatic departure from what we've been doing for the past 30 years, but that's, you know, these are these are all options. That's why I I I think before jumping on to any one of these options, yeah,

it's important just for the for the commission to say what is the nature of the problem and and how big of a problem is it and how how how how far do we want to deviate? How far how much does the problem if there is a problem deviate a departure from our current status quo? So, I I'm struggling if I walked down the street and looked at these, I'm sort of struggling with what I'm doing. And and just to give you an example, if you look at your figure one, I think we can all agree that the Zion Pizza Noodle, the old church is almost historic building, man. That it's got good setback. Maybe it doesn't meet code, but it's got pretty good setback. Probably not great parking, but you know, that's village character. on the other side of the street. You know, that's probably closer to Rodcom, more like a strip mall type look that I would say. It doesn't have the setback. It doesn't have the character we're looking for. And I can say that, but I'm not sure what to do with that information. Or you're saying we should go out and look at that spreadsheet, which is a great idea. I just don't know what input I would be providing. I'm I'm kind of with Jennifer. It's kind of like I I like the look of the town and I'm familiar with the different buildings and I I sort of it's part of my experience now. So I I would be uncomfortable with telling whoever owns the strip mall that they need to move it back by 15 feet.

Well well some aspects of you know what we have in particular that building is a probably a good example of it is you know a walking community if you will. So that rather than, you know, have a bunch of, you know, um, places where you drive your car wherever you want to go and you got to park, you know, you can actually get out and stroll around. We got bus service through town, um, that's free. And so, um, why do we have why do we, if that's the case, why do we need a huge setback in front of the building? It makes it more difficult for the pedestrians to wander into the building and and do commerce or whatever, right?

Uh, so there may be beneficial aspects of doing that. And then you know the other thing is you know we've got we've got in addition to that that setback we've got ordinances that restrict parking in front of the building. So you you have to move the building back but you can't put anything functional there. And what's the purpose of that if we uh you know obviously you put maybe put landscaping that might enhance the the beauty of the town in some areas but maybe if if you look at it from a through a different lens and you say hey but in the central commercial district we'd like people to kind of wander through town and and participate in the in the businesses that are there and right

and uh contribute to the community in that f fashion. So, you know, I don't know. There's different aspects to it that we probably just need to go out and look at it and kind of and and the central commercial zone was intended for business. So, we we want it to be more of a more activity, a denser area, you know, with closer shops and restaurants,

uh, versus the village commercial which is more of a transition. Um, so are we uncomfortable with the the way it's built out? I'm not, but I could see it being built differently, but I don't think there's an urgency uh in my mind anyway to to get it done right away. You know, I'm not seeing an urgency either. this one. But there's two things I was commenting is, you know, if we had if that structure burned down, I think I heard a good point that, you know, maybe we should put it back the same way. There might be reasons for it or do we incentivize going closer to what, you know, a bigger setback, more structure of the house?

And I'm not sure. I I don't think we should. I think like you said, especially in the the downtown area, the tightness is probably good. Maybe that should be an overlay zone, something to think about because what we're probably really trying to do is keep the village commercial area is supposed to be a stepping stone to the commercial. And I think we're losing some of that. So, we want to, you know, make sure that the non-conformant buildings that are further from the main downtown there more incentive to change those just a thought than there is in the track downtown area.

Yeah. And part of that um that um field trip we're talking about we could look at that too. It's like this is we could even take pictures. These are pictures in the central commercial zone and these are pictures in the village commercial. Do they look different? And you know, do we want to be more um you know, ownorous on one zone than the other? And another issue with the strip mall is that they I don't know, do they have property in back where they could push it back a little bit? I don't know. Yeah, there.

Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So again, just be clear, I'm not saying we should do anything about it. I'm just trying to bring up things for us to look at. Yeah, good ideas. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, sorry. Can I just chime in really quick? Yes, sir. I I think another good thing for the commission to look at if we do decide to do a field trip are properties that have been recently developed in compliance with the central commercial zoning standards. So you can get an idea of okay here's here's what the the our our current zoning standards the development style that that is resultant of our current standards.

Is this what we want right? is is this it should be hopefully if we've done our jobs right it should be an improvement over um what you know what what could have been developed otherwise but that would be another thing for you kind of as a as a reality check just to say let's look at what's been developed recently in compliance and check to see if our ordinances are actually functioning the way that we think they are and and I would suggest that we make sure that that's as separate from developmental agreement or settlement agreement property correct changes. Yep. Absolutely.

Okay. It's been a good discussion. Any more? I I give a thumbs up to the field trip. Okay. All right. This last agenda item is the discussion of potential revisions to the code regarding banner permits. And Kendall, I believe this is your item. Can you hear me? Hello. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I'm happy to report that this item is not about non-complying buildings tonight.

So, staff is proposing changes to the banner permit standards found in section 10 247 of the town co code. The goal is to improve the clarity and broaden the allowed zoning areas for banner placement. Right now, banners are allowed in the village commercial and the central commercial zones. The proposed revisions would allow banners to continue to be in those zones, but also be allowed in the public use zones. So areas such as the town hall, the community center, um the fire station, areas like those and it would help with more effective communication and identification of community events that are held at these locations. So planning commission, you should review these proposed ordinance revisions. If the commission is supportive of these changes, staff will schedule a public hearing to allow the commission to make a formal recommend recommendation to the town council. Thank you. Um I have a couple of comments. What the first one I guess is I have no real problem with saying we ought to allow it in the public use zones. That makes sense to me. Um the concerns I have with regard to the proposal is that um I think there's maybe some things left out when I you know I went back and looked at okay, you know, how is a banner not a sign? And if I go and look at the sign uh restrictions or whatever, there's a number of things that sort of got left left out on banners. And maybe that's intentional because they're short term, but I'm going to I'm going to raise them here. One is under 10243A1, uh the need to conform to the town's color palette. Um 10243A2 is you can't have fluorescent colors or flashy stuff on them. 10243 A8 you can't put it near an

intersection in a manner that obstructs the free and clear vision of traffic. Um 10243B4 uh it can't impede ingress or egress of the establishment in any way. Uh 3B5 is they can't interfere with ventilation. You know if they got some kind of air conditioning system and the banner gets in the way of it and potentially could be a fire hazard or something. And 3B8 1024 is it must be wind load compliant so it doesn't rip half the building off or the you know that sort of thing. So um it seems like we maybe should go back and look at each of those things and see if it's important to add those two uh as restriction to this. Most of them are I mean there's a couple of them that are uh color palette and colors but most of them are safety issues I think. Yeah. So, right now banners are allowed to be any color. They do not need to comply

Yeah. with that. Um, and I think it's helpful because it's only 17 days. So, a lot of our a lot of our businesses right now, just for an example, Zion Prospector, they have the same banner that goes up every single year. It's a final sale banner. And I think they just find that helpful that they're able to use the same banner over and over. Um, but we can certainly look at having that comply with the color palette and we can look at having it comply with any safety standards if that's something.

Yeah, I'm not I'm not necessarily, you know, advocating that they need to comply to the color standards because there are short, you know, there's only a couple of weeks there and so I guess we can deal with it and maybe, you know, there's they're celebrating something or inviting some new special thing happening or whatever and so it's probably maybe interesting or worthwhile to to allow those things, but the safety standard seems like we should have those things in place. Maybe I agree with that. I I I think we don't need to put the color okay in there, but I I think yeah, the safety standards is a good idea. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't have any comments. I think this uh looks like a good ordinance change to me.

Okay, thank you.

So, will you update that proposal and get back to us or move on to somebody else? Yes, I'll I'll update it and bring it back to you. Thanks. Okay. Are we ready to come back to public hearing, you think, or? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. All right. Uh, moving on to the consent agenda. I move that we approve the consent agenda. All right. Motion by Paul. Can I get a second? A second. Motion by Paul, second by Jennifer. All in favor? I. Jennifer I. Tom. I. Paul. I. Rich. I. All right. Motion to adjurnn. I make a motion to adjurnn. Second.

Motion by Jennifer, second by Paul. All in favor? H I. Jennifer I. Tom I. Paul I. Rich I. All right. Thank you. Cool.