118 Lion Blvd PO Box 187 Springdale UT 84767 * 435-772-3434 fax 435-772-3952

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK MEETING ON WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 1, 2017, AT 5:00PM

AT THE SPRINGDALE TOWN HALL, 118 LION BLVD., SPRINGDALE, UTAH.

The meeting convened at 5:00 PM.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Liz West, Randy Taylor, Mike Marriott, Cindy Purcell, Joe Pitti, and Jerry Giardina.EXCUSED: Allan StakerALSO PRESENT: Director of Community Development Tom Dansie, Associate Planner Toni Benevento, and Deputy Town Clerk Katy Brown recording. Please see attached list for citizens signed in.

Mr. Dansie recommended to the Commission to switch the order of items as they appeared on the posted agenda. He felt that the Design/Development review process would most likely require less discussion and thought it would be prudent to leave more time for the Commission to discuss housing strategies.

Approval of Agenda: Motion made by Liz West to approve the agenda with Mr. Dansie’s recommendation of changing Item A1 Continued discussion on housing strategies to Item A2, and changing Item A2 Review of process for residential Design/Development Review application to Item A1; seconded by Mike Marriott. Taylor: AyeWest: AyePitti: AyeGiardina: AyeMarriott: AyeMotion passed unanimously.

Commission discussion and announcements : Ms. Benevento announced that she had accepted the position as Parks and Recreation Director effective November 15, 2017 but would continue to offer support to the Commission with the Virgin River Management Plan.

Mr. Pitti asked if the Associate Planner position had been posted yet. Mr. Dansie said they intended to post the opening very soon. He also wanted to express his

gratitude for the hard work and perseverance that Toni had shown during her time as Associate Planner and he wished her the best of luck in her new position.

Ms. West asked the current status of the Virgin River Management Plan Taskforce. Ms. Benevento said that an introductory conference call was scheduled for November 7th at 9am.

They would discuss recruiting other potential members of the task force.

Ms. West asked if the UDOT Project team had discussed getting a pilot car for the first car in line. Mr. Dansie offered to pass the concern along to the public involvement team and encouraged the

Commission to utilize the hotline which had been set up for the specific purpose Ms. West was describing. The number could be found on the home page at www.springdaletown.com

Discussion/Information/Non-Action Items: Review of process for residential Design/Development Review applications: Mr. Dansie reported that Mr. Pitti had suggested to alter the approval process for Residential Design Reviews, making them a staff level review and approval rather than having to involve the Commission on the process and ultimately rely on them for approval. Mr. Dansie asked the Commission to discuss and offer feedback on the proposed language that was supplied to the Commission in the packet materials.

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 1

Mr. Pitti noted that the recommendation was only for Residential Design/Development Review, not for Commercial.

Mr. Marriott asked how much time the Planning Department would save if the Commission approved the proposed change to the review process.

Mr. Dansie responded that the time saving element would be most pronounced in the process of composing staff reports, preparing packet materials, and distributing packet materials. He estimated an average of 2 hours saved per application that could be utilized doing other tasks.

Ms. West asked if a requirement could be added to ensure that the applicant submitted a complete application with all accompanying documentation. She recalled some instances where an applicant failed to provide necessary documentation to the Commission and ultimately extended the process unnecessarily.

Mr. Dansie agreed that language could be clarified to include a statement that any application which was found to be incomplete would not be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Pitti also mentioned that it was not customary for Planning Commission bodies to approve Residential Development.

Mr. Dansie confirmed that single-family residential development in most municipalities was indeed approved at the staff level.

Mr. Taylor asked if the term “multi-family” included duplexes. He wondered if duplexes would be included in types of development that would no longer be reviewed by the Commission.

Mr. Dansie confirmed that the current Town Code did not include duplexes under the definition of multi-family or single-family development. He encouraged the Commission to discuss whether or not they would like to review development applications for duplexes.

Mr. Taylor felt that duplex development deserved some scrutiny by the Commission. Mr. Pitti noted that the language allowed for the Director Community Development to forward

questionable or complex design proposals to the Commission for review and felt there was enough discretion at the staff level to make that determination.

Mr. Dansie clarified that the drafted ordinance language as-is would require a duplex development application to be reviewed by the Commission. He said that if that was the intent of the Commission, then no changes were necessary.

Ms. West asked staff to move the subject forward for a public hearing during the next regular meeting on November 15th.

Continued discussion on Housing strategies: Mr. Dansie said that the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance presented to the Commission was the same ordinance that the Commission had worked on extensively in 2014. At the time, it was presented to the Town Council for approval but ultimately put on hold until after the General Plan was updated. Mr. Dansie asked the Commission to review the language, make any necessary changes, and determine if they wanted to move forward with the ordinance.

Ms. West thought there were a few places where Conditional Use language needed to be removed since the Commission had voted recently to remove Conditional Uses. She was also concerned with the language “No structure or portion of the structure constructed after the effective date of this ordinance may be used as an ADU at any time prior to five years from the date of this construction (10-22-15C8).” She felt that it contradicted the Commission’s goal of trying to find affordable housing solutions for the community.

Mr. Pitti felt that there were other housing strategies pending that he was curious to see play out before the Commission tackled new solutions. He didn’t want the Commission to be swayed too heavily by the resident letters to the point that reactionary decisions were made. He also felt there was no guarantee that ADU’s would be affordable. He added that there had been discussion about a transit system

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 2

between Springdale and the outlying areas. He summarized that there were quite a few approaches that had not yet come to fruition and felt it would be prudent to thoughtfully watch how those would develop.

Referring to a maximum potential build-out study that had been conducted by the Town some time ago, Mr. Pitti asked if the resulting sustainability threshold of 1800 residents had been recently reviewed. He was concerned about how increased density might affect the bottom line of the potential build-out of Springdale and the community at large.

Mr. Dansie agreed that any changes to density standards would affect the build-out potential. He thought it would be interesting for the Commission to review and noted that any data would be anecdotal without any official data on how many ADU’s were currently being utilized.

Mr. Taylor was concerned that the ADU ordinance would block existing structures from certain uses. Mr. Pitti offered that if the resident built the ADU with a certain use in mind and later changed the

use, it would need to be approved.

Ms. West was in favor of moving forward with ADU’s and felt that the housing opportunities in Springdale would only be more demanding as time went on.

Mr. Marriott recommended moving forward with 1000 sq. ft. limit Mr. Giardina asked if existing structures could be grandfathered in and not be subject to newly

imposed limitations. Mr. Dansie replied that the Commission could set those provisions as they saw fit. Mr. Pitti was not in favor of grandfathering anything in and felt that the property owners got their

opportunity to discuss their intentions for their property during the initial application process.

Mr. Marriott asked if a business license would be required. Mr. Dansie agreed to do some research on the state requirements for rentals in relation to ADU’s.

Ms. West asked staff to look into the business license process for ADUs, if any, and revise the limit to 1,000 sq. ft. The Commission would discuss the ordinance further at a subsequent meeting.

Cottage Housing – Mr. Dansie said that cottage housing allowed for lower development costs. The current ordinance allowed cottage housing to be developed in the Valley Residential and Central Commercial zones. The ordinance would allow up to six cottages per acre, but no more than twelve cottages in any single development, with some design requirements and limitations. The Commission had worked on the subject extensively in the past.

Ms. West asked if the minimum land area requirement in the Valley Residential zone was the same for both Cottage Housing Overlay and Planned Development Overlay zones.

Mr. Dansie said that since there were two separate overlay zones being envisioned, the minimum requirement would not apply to the Cottage Housing Overlay zone. To offer more clarification on the difference between the two zones, he explained that the Planned Development Overlay zone allowed people to cluster together to allow for more open space. He cited examples such as Anasazi Plateau, Gifford Park, and Moenave that had followed closely the standards of the Planned Overlay zone. The proposal for cottage neighborhoods was similar but contained additional design standards intended to produce more modest scale housing projects.

Mr. Taylor shared two edits: 10-13E-6F needed to read “Cottage Housing” instead of “Planned Development” zone 10-13E-10A “yard setbacks” should say “setbacks,” striking the word “yard.” Mr. Dansie agreed with the edits.

Ms. West asked if 10-13E-9A should read “up to six cottages” instead of “shall be six cottages” Mr. Dansie agreed to clarify the statement that six cottages would be a maximum per acre, but

that number was not mandatory.

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 3

Ms. West wondered if the Commission needed to discuss a potential ordinance that protected and preserved open space in regards to high-density developments.

Mr. Taylor felt that discussions regarding open space were out of place when discussing promoting small scale developments on a small piece of ground.

Mr. Dansie mentioned that there was a 40% landscape requirement which included a commons area.

Mr. Marriott suggested requiring one or the other, a 40% landscape requirement or commons area, but not both. He felt the two requirements would be hard to meet on a one-acre plot.

Mr. Dansie agreed with Mr. Marriott and felt the language could be clarified.

Ms. Purcell asked if the Commission’s approach to the development proposal would be different if it was in a known wildlife travel corridor.

Mr. Dansie reported that there were general standards for wildlife travel corridors. He added that the proposed overlay zone would allow the Town much more freedom to create new language to include standards for wildlife corridors.

Mr. Pitti suggested to start with clarifying open space in terms of a cottage neighborhood and look into other considerations, such as wildlife corridors.

Mr. Dansie suggested engaging wildlife biologists to assist the Commission.

Ms. West felt that the zone changes were needed but some details were missing and more discussion was needed. The Commission agreed to continue discussion in subsequent meetings.

Multi-Family Housing Overlay Zone (MFHOZ): Mr. Dansie reviewed the staff report he supplied to the Commission and asked them to discuss the language found in the proposed multi-family overlay zone. He mentioned that the main considerations should be reviewing the location criteria and development criteria that would need to be met to apply the MFHOZ.

Mr. Taylor asked how many buildings total could be developed. Mr. Dansie replied that a total of eight units per acre could be developed, but that included wide

latitude for the Town to make determinations on density following a site-specific analysis.

Mr. Pitti felt that 6,000 sq. ft. building size was incongruent and counter-intuitive to the standards and objectives in the General Plan.

Ms. West felt that there was need for Multi-Family Housing which was established in the General Plan but questioned smaller building size as a way to achieve that goal. She also liked that site-specific considerations were up to the discretion of the Town.

Mr. Pitti asked for clarification on the objective and intent of the ordinance for the MFHOZ. Mr. Dansie said the intent was to promote more rental options rather than owner-occupied

housing.

Mr. Taylor asked if it was possible to prevent the units from being listed for sale so they could remain rental properties

Mr. Dansie said that typically the Town could not discriminate in regards to the nature of the occupant, but through a zone change process, and because it would fall under discretionary approval and was providing an added property right, the Town had the opportunity to restrict the units to rental only and could therefore restrict them from becoming nightly rentals.

Mr. Pitti suggested that any increased density bonuses, if allowed, should be in effect during the first phase of development. He was wondering if the review process could include requirements for timeline.

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 4

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 5

Approved Minutes of Springdale Planning Commission November 1, 2017 Page 6