Meeting: Planning Commission Meeting

Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?

Bookmarks
Transcript
Share
Favorites

Transcript search

Transcript

	Phantom Holiday.	00:00:01
	13th of January.	00:00:03
	June 23rd.	00:00:07
	Say that again so you'll see on the January 13th shows as red as a holiday.	00:00:27
	Yeah, yeah.	00:00:38
	Shaded red, the mass holiday. It's just written in red. That's just.	00:00:42
	Creative. Yeah.	00:00:48
	June 23rd.	00:00:50
	October 13th.	00:00:56
	So on November 4th, that's.	00:01:20
	Because of Election Day.	00:01:22
	What's the 11th?	00:01:29
	OK.	00:01:33
	I mean, schedule looks OK to me. Anyone else have any concerns about the schedule for next year?	00:01:36
	All right, well.	00:01:42
	We have to make a motion to approve.	00:01:44
	OK.	00:01:48
	We approve.	00:01:50
	All right, it's been motioned and seconded. Commissioner Barron. Commissioner Gong.	00:01:53
	Cunningham and Chair Roach votes aye. Don calendar set.	00:02:02
	OK. Next one is the ratification of prior approvals Planning Commission meeting minutes.	00:02:11
	I will just this is my fault. So we just have to ratify all of the minutes that were previously adopted because we failed to have	00:02:18
	a second. I should have warned you and I didn't. So we need and in all candor, once we get through all the action items other than	00:02:24
	when we get to meeting minutes, I'm like, OK, I'm done.	00:02:31
	I shouldn't have been. So we just need a motion. We're ratifying the prior approvals that were already done. So we just need a	00:02:38
	motion, We need someone to move, to approve, to ratify the prior approvals of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of the dates	00:02:44
	listed in the agenda and then we need a second to that motion.	00:02:49
	And then a roll call vote.	00:02:55
	And then I can get on to the training and get you out of here.	00:02:57
	So moved.	00:03:00
	All right, we got a motion. Do we have a 2nd, 2nd, 2nd? We call for vote Commissioner Cunningham.	00:03:03
	Commissioner Baron Aye, Chair Roach votes aye, Don.	00:03:13
	OK.	00:03:16
	6:45.	00:03:23
	All right. We have talked about conditional use permits before.	00:03:27
	And I'm going to bring them back up again because.	00:03:32
	And I'm not saying this is because you guys need it. I'm saying this because I have had.	00:03:36
	Multiple, our offices had multiple clients with challenges that arise because of planning, excuse me, conditional use permits and	00:03:41
	sometimes that involves litigation. And what I wanted to talk about was this Staker V Town of Springdale case. Let me give you a	00:03:49
	little bit of background on this and if you have questions stop in the middle here and we can we can address them.	00:03:57
	Staker was a developer property owner that owned a fairly substantial piece of property in the Town of Springdale.	00:04:06
	It was bordered by residential homes. It was in a village residential zone.	00:04:14
	OK. So homes on three sides of the property?	00:04:19
	He wanted to put an 83 lot, 83 space parking lot there for visitors that wanted to go to Zions National Park.	00:04:22
	83 parking spaces Commercial parking lot Pay to pay to park.	00:04:31
	Next to homes.	00:04:38
	Village residential zone OK parking lot was a conditional use in that area.	00:04:41
	And.	00:04:47
	Staker thought he had a sacred property owner thought he had a just a green light to put it there, because it was.	00:04:50
	Conditional use and why not? Let's put a parking lot there. There were commercial operations, small commercial retail kind of	00:04:57
	spaces for tourist, kind of tourist kind of knickknack shops and souvenir shops right across the street. But directly adjacent to	00:05:05
	this parcel, there are residential homes, the closest of which was 20 feet and that became important in this case.	00:05:12
	And I want to just in context with when you receive a staff report.	00:05:19
	From city staff, it will typically have findings for, especially when we have conditional uses like there'll be findings	00:05:24
	oftentimes even in other items that come up, you'll have findings in there and suggested findings. And and then you're also	00:05:31
	allowed to bring in your own findings, right? I mean, it's the authority is yours. Sometimes those are just, hey, this is what we	00:05:37
	thought. You can add that if you want. You can take it, you can leave it or you can add to it.	00:05:44
	But one of the reasons that they're in there is because in a conditional use, if a conditional use denial.	00:05:52
	Because most of the time.	00:05:57
	Approvals don't get challenged at least by the applicant. They can be challenged by others, but the applicant or developer usually	00:05:59
	is a challenging approvals on their conditional use. But the reason we put in findings for your benefit is their evidence, right?	00:06:05
	There's substantial evidence and what?	00:06:11
	What? Give me a second here, I'm going to find this.	00:06:19
	Substantial evidence is a defined term and it is a threshold right I.	00:06:23
	Substantial evidence? Give me a second. I've got it in here.	00:06:33
	Gotta find my notes here.	00:06:36
	It is, it is evidence where it's supportive, where a reasonable mind could reach that conclusion based on the evidence that was	00:06:41
	presented right. So sometimes, sometimes that may be. So in this particular case, the the applicant came in and wanted to put in	00:06:48
	this, put in this.	00:06:54
	Parking lot, commercial parking lot, and there's a couple of key things that were in the city code.	00:07:04
	It talked about what the purpose of the village residential zone was for.	00:07:10
	Umm, and it's quoted here. Give me just a second here.	00:07:17
	Valley Residential established to provide areas where residential uses may be harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural	00:07:22
	pursuits and intended to retain.	00:07:27
	Land in parcels large enough to provide efficient and attractive residential development which preserves the historic open	00:07:33
	agriculture and farm type impression of the area. That's what the valley, sorry, it was Valley residential, not village Valley	00:07:40
	residential is what they called it. But again, right across the street there was mixed uses some residential on top of retail. But	00:07:48
	on this particular side of the street there was no commercial, just residential. And he wanted to take this house down 80.	00:07:55
	Parking spots.	00:08:02
	Well, we get to that point where it goes before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission hears this and the Planning	00:08:04
	Commission goes over, OK, what do you want to do with this? We want 83 lots here. OK, what are the, what are the immediately, what	00:08:10
	do you think of when somebody's going to put 83 parking spots next to residential homes?	00:08:16
	Noise. Pollution. Noise. What else? Traffic. Traffic. What else? Safety. Safety. What else? Light. Light.	00:08:23
	OK. So now with your planning Commissioner hats on, what kind of ways could you mitigate that?	00:08:31
	Limit the hours. Limit the hours.	00:08:37
	Out of all up around it. Say it again.	00:08:42
	OK, green roof structure have to cover the entire thing so it looks like a giant hill and it's all underground.	00:08:47
	That that would be that would be a condition. I don't know if it'd be reasonable because it'd be but, but it would be a condition	00:08:56
	could be established setbacks so that there's a boundary to.	00:09:01
	The impact is lessened setbacks. Yep, all all good things.	00:09:07
	What if I tell you that there's 20 feet from the property line there is a house?	00:09:14
	Well, that doesn't mean the parking has to be at 20 feet. The parking could be further back into the property, so.	00:09:19
	OK, OK.	00:09:25
	Do you think you could do it harmoniously?	00:09:27
	No matter what, no matter the condition, or let's say you had unlimited ability to put conditions on it, could you do it	00:09:30
	harmoniously?	00:09:34
	Again underground.	00:09:38
	What's the property currently zoned Valley Residential part of that? OK, yeah. So there's a master plan.	00:09:41
	Yep, and the master plan does allow for commercial. It allows for.	00:09:47
	How did it? How did it put it? It allows for some commercial, but very minor commercial.	00:09:54
	So is there a commercial parking zone in this?	00:09:58
	So in this district, it's a conditional use. A commercial parking lot is a conditional use in the.	00:10:03
	In the Valley residential zone.	00:10:11
	So there's no other parameters within that definition that help in this discussion other than so in the court. The court and the	00:10:13
	city's attorneys quoted this. The zone was established. This is quoting from the general plan under this zone, established to	00:10:19
	provide areas where residential users may be harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural pursuits and intended to retain	00:10:26
	land parcels large enough.	00:10:32
	To provide efficient and attractive residential development which preserves a historic open agriculture and farm type impression	00:10:39
	of the area.	00:10:43
	Well, that's like saying you want to preserve the character of a city.	00:10:47
	Without any development, any discussion further, I mean, to me it doesn't really define the commercial parking lot. So the	00:10:51
	developer isn't bound to meet anything by what they're describing there, right? It's really kind of fuzzy, right? So you put it in	00:10:58
	well.	00:11:05
	So their John equivalent at Springdale Town wrote a memorandum.	00:11:13
	For Planning Commission's benefit or for their use in considering what conditions might be reasonable.	00:11:19
	And it's set forth, you know, what the city code standards were for light and light, you know, pollution onto neighboring property	00:11:28
	owners. It's set up a.	00:11:32
	You know, kind of.	00:11:39
	It had an estimation of what the traffic would be, the increase in traffic would be, it would have also had the general activity	00:11:41
	levels on the property compared to what it was now, and it also had an estimates on the noise impacts that it would have.	00:11:48
	And recommended that the Planning Commission should consider conditions that could help mitigate those impacts, such as screening,	00:11:56
	additional landscape buffers, other similar measures.	00:12:01
	So.	00:12:07
	And it said it said the lot. He did say that the proposed parking lot had the potential to generate the same amount of noise,	00:12:10
	noxious odors and.	00:12:14
	Light as any other parking lot might.	00:12:19
	And the Commission may wish to consider impose a condition such as limit the operation of hours.	00:12:23
	No operation of the parking lot from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM.	00:12:29
	So that was what it was suggested in there.	00:12:33
	Well, after hearing a lot of public opposition to this, largely coming from neighboring residential homes that did not want to, in	00:12:35
	A2 story home, look out on a parking lot when they've always looked out on a backyard of their neighbor, I didn't want to deal	00:12:44
	with that. So there was substantial opposition and the Planning Commission made a record and they made findings. They said that.	00:12:53
	They didn't think that they could adequately screen.	00:13:02
	The property with landscape screening from surrounding properties, including the nearby 2 story homes, one of which the closest of	00:13:06
	which was 20 feet from the property line. That was specific findings that they made.	00:13:12
	One of the other thing in the code, in their conditional use code, it said allowable land uses are established to avoid	00:13:20
	incompatible uses in close proximity and to preserve the peace, quiet and privacy in the residential zones.	00:13:27
	The Planning Commission made another finding that they could not preserve the peace, quiet and privacy in the residential zones	00:13:35
	and place and approve this parking lot right in the middle of this residential zoning between these residential homes.	00:13:42
	So they forwarded negative recommendation to the council.	00:13:50
	The town council took that up and packed room as far as Springdale can be packed. You know, they had quite a few people there.	00:13:55
	That's actually important to know right there is that the Land use committee or land use authority is not the Planning Commission	00:14:04
	in this application, is the City Council. It is, yeah. That is. Otherwise you would end here. Yeah, it would have ended here,	00:14:10
	right. Well, they went before the town council. The town council agreed with the Planning Commission.	00:14:17
	And they said, look, we don't think we can harmoniously incorporate this into it. And the first thing that the developer did was	00:14:24
	he filed an appeal, right. So going before the Board of adjustment in their appeals board in Springdale and Springdale Board of	00:14:32
	adjustment agreed with there was substantial evidence and that those findings of and actually they if I remember right, they.	00:14:41
	The planning get necessary the the City Council actually.	00:14:52
	The proposed use They added additional findings. The proposed use will emit excessive noise from parking patrons and their	00:14:56
	vehicles.	00:14:59
	The proposed use. This was also another factor in their conditional use, Permit says if this proposed.	00:15:03
	Proposed use, conditional use is approved. Would it create a need for services that could not be realized within three months of	00:15:09
	approval or of of function? What does that what does that mean? Well, So what they, they made a finding said they would need a	00:15:15
	public restroom for 83 parking spots. It would be nearby that they couldn't they didn't have the money for and couldn't build	00:15:21
	within three months of approval of the construction of this project. So that was another finding that the council made in	00:15:27
	addition.	00:15:33
	To the ones that the Planning Commission had made.	00:15:39
	So let's see. And I think they might even.	00:15:42
	Yeah, they said that it would require public restrooms, which was a concern for public health purposes. They didn't want anybody.	00:15:48
	Lingering, you know, relieving on a tree. Yeah, yeah. Not using the restroom that wasn't there, but still using the restroom.	00:15:54
	Umm, let's see. So again, he appealed.	00:16:05
	He appealed that, you know, the conditional use standards that there were cited in there based that that city services that would	00:16:10
	not be available within three months and the ability to harmoniously integrate them with that and the other ones. He said that	00:16:16
	their decision was arbitrary and capricious, right? So he appealed that goes to the appeal authority of the Board of adjustment,	00:16:22
	right and.	00:16:28
	Umm.	00:16:35
	They made the, they made the findings that nothing was erroneous. They said that, well, substantial evidence requires that just a	00:16:38
	reasonable person could come to this conclusion. It doesn't mean that everybody would come to that conclusion or that nobody would	00:16:44
	come back. The reasonable person would come to that conclusion. And if, if there's sufficient evidence that an information, then a	00:16:50
	reasonable person could conclude that substantial evidence.	00:16:55
	And we're done. So the appeal authority also agreed with the town. So he came back, filed with the District Court. District Court	00:17:02
	looked at it and they said same thing.	00:17:08
	They said can a reasonable person.	00:17:14
	Come to the conclusion that there's not sufficient with 20 feet from the neighboring house that you could not harmoniously	00:17:18
	integrate an 83 stall parking commercial parking lot into residential property without interfering with the adjacent uses.	00:17:27
	And they came to the same conclusion. So District Court kicked it up and said sorry, done. So he appealed again to the Court of	00:17:36
	Appeals. So we're on 3rd appeal.	00:17:40
	Court of Appeals affirmed. And they went through and they said, look.	00:17:46
	You know, and I can see Angela doesn't like this. I'm, I'm wondering what's gonna happen at the end of the story because it feels	00:17:51
	like you're really building up to something awful. No Supreme Court.	00:17:58
	The important thing is, so here's the thing. So we have said over and over again, and I know I have said this over and over again,	00:18:05
	that conditional uses are approved, are permitted uses with conditions. They're not something that you can just back into.	00:18:13
	And say no, right? They're listed in the table of uses, so.	00:18:22
	This case is very controversial.	00:18:27
	Because parking lots and commercial parking lots in this zone were conditional uses.	00:18:30
	They had very strong language on on the on conditional uses, that conditional uses are only permitted. This is in their ordinance.	00:18:36
	If they will have, they can mitigate the impacts to the neighboring uses and mitigate and keep them residential private right.	00:18:42
	That was a big key to what the court said in the Court of Appeals.	00:18:48
	They used the code that was there, so code is very important. So anyway.	00:18:54
	My reason of sharing this is this is the kind of things that result in litigation so.	00:18:58
	They this got upheld all the way, but this is controversial because.	00:19:04
	There's.	00:19:13
	The controversy is that a lot of a lot of cities are using this.	00:19:14
	And not to say that it's not a precedent, because it is.	00:19:18
	But this goes against kind of what the legislature is doing, right? And it's saying what the issue is, becomes is your code is	00:19:22
	very important.	00:19:27
	On what it says and how it says it, that's one of the keys that we. So when we look at the standards that we're in evaluating	00:19:33
	standards in making conditional use permits.	00:19:39
	We need to follow the code.	00:19:45
	And if the code has it, and then we also need to back it up with substantial evidence, we need to make findings. Here's why we	00:19:47
	explain the recommendation.	00:19:51
	One of the ones I right now I have one and I talked about this a little bit last time just after with a couple of planning	00:19:56
	commissioners, but so I have there's a hotel that is wanting to locate in a relatively small town I.	00:20:02
	It's not on a highway. It's on a very, you know, it's a state road, but it's not a big state road. It's two lanes, right? They	00:20:10
	want to locate this like 9093 unit hotel.	00:20:15
	And it's about 500 feet from the nearest residence.	00:20:20
	And.	00:20:27
	We have a couple of residents that have found this case.	00:20:29
	And they're saying this is too close to the residential like.	00:20:34
	20 feet versus 500 feet, That's a world of difference.	00:20:38
	And, but, but, but here's the thing. They and and many of the planning commissioners are.	00:20:43
	How would I say this?	00:20:51
	Looking at ways to prevent it.	00:20:56
	Right.	00:20:59
	So what is city staff's job to do in that role? City staff's job is to so we've already identified a number of issues that and the	00:21:01
	impacts that this could have in a, in a small town like this.	00:21:07
	So what city staff is doing is we're taking those seriously. We're taking those concerns that have been raised, Noise, traffic,	00:21:14
	privacy. Those are the three big ones.	00:21:18
	And we are going and getting substantial evidence this was a concern, this was what we found.	00:21:25
	Police policing is another thing, calls for service for law enforcement purposes at a hotel, typically they are higher than it,	00:21:32
	you know, residents or some other issue. So anyway, we're looking at those. So we are gathering evidence to be able to address	00:21:39
	those concerns and providing in our staff report findings that will be defensible, substantial evidence, not because we have a	00:21:47
	predetermined outcome of what we want to do, but because we know that.	00:21:54
	Uses are.	00:22:02
	Often litigated or.	00:22:04
	Can be and it's. It's a.	00:22:06
	In certain uses in certain areas can be very controversial, so the point is that staff's job in this particular situation is to	00:22:11
	get the substantial evidence to allow the Planning Commission to make findings that can be supported.	00:22:19
	Question. So does Latma define the minimum that a mitigation?	00:22:27
	Standard or.	00:22:36
	No, no, has to be.	00:22:39
	Because if a neighbor doesn't like something, if they come and yell loud enough, that means that the standard changes because they	00:22:42
	are concerned and they're a reasonable person. But so no, Ludma does not get so you have, I mean, you have pretty standard ways	00:22:48
	and there's there's not a, there's not a universe of conditions that can mitigate things, right. So it doesn't say it has to be a	00:22:54
	minimum of 10 feet of a set back.	00:23:00
	Your your, your city code may have a minimum like that, yeah, but I'm just saying, does Ludmen define at such a point where	00:23:08
	there's a minimum?	00:23:11
	By which a mitigation tactic? No, and sometimes. So you have to be careful on the types of conditions you put. Also because	00:23:15
	there's a limit to exactions.	00:23:19
	And oftentimes those can be considered exactions. I mean, if you're, if you're saying, oh, you want to put 83, well you have to	00:23:25
	put an underground entrance that goes all the way over there. You have to have absolutely no decibels coming from it and it has to	00:23:29
	be underground and that residents has to stay. So if you want to put 83 on that property, it's got to be underground and you have	00:23:34
	to have a mile long tunnel to get to it that nobody can ever hear.	00:23:39
	Right. That's never going to get built, so there isn't a thing like.	00:23:44
	Can be measured that says you've met the standard, you've met the mitigation. Ludma does require that conditions, if you have	00:23:49
	conditions, they have to be objective.	00:23:55
	Right. You can't have subjective standards as far as conditions. They have to be objective. So if your ordinance says that, look,	00:24:01
	we can't do hotels next to residential unless they're at least 500 feet from the nearest residence, that's an objective standard	00:24:07
	and is defensible and you can uphold and it's easily measured. So nobody's going to be, no developer is going to come and say, I	00:24:13
	want that property, it's 300 feet, never mind. So second question.	00:24:19
	I understand that it's OK for the Planning Commission to an exact or enact.	00:24:26
	A condition or a standard mitigation? I'm really screwed up with my language here, but where they can say we want you to have at	00:24:33
	least 20 feet of set back.	00:24:38
	And can they put that into the findings and say that's yeah. Or is that and the reason why? Right. So you understand my question.	00:24:44
	Yeah. So if the set back says 10 feet, is that what you're saying ordinance says at least 10 feet and you're saying as they're	00:24:57
	discussing a different proposal, come up with this, We all agree 20 feet is probably enough.	00:25:04
	To me that again goes against what the ultimate Ludma direction was, that these have to be approved, that you can't change the	00:25:12
	standard.	00:25:17
	During the process, so those, so you have the ability to, yeah, it does make sense. You have the ability to Planning Commission to	00:25:22
	impose reasonable conditions.	00:25:27
	That are backed up by substantial evidence, right and substantial evidence that then I mean can we again it's based on it's fuzzy	00:25:33
	opinion.	00:25:36
	Sort of right. So for example, let's say, let's say that there is a proposal to build an accessory dwelling unit on a three acre	00:25:41
	lot on Walker Lane. And what's the what's the set back on something like that? John, do you know off the top of your head?	00:25:50
	In the backyard, it was probably like 4040 feet. OK, It'd be that big. OK, so they want to. What's the height limit on it? Do you	00:26:00
	know off top of your head?	00:26:04
	Probably 40 feet.	00:26:09
	So if you want to put 40 feet right there, but but there is a the neighbor has had a pool there for 50 years and you're saying,	00:26:11
	OK, 40 feet is the standard. Can you move it on the other side where there's no you're not looking over the neighbors pool?	00:26:17
	Right. And the answer is, well, no, we can't move it there, but we can move it further away from that so that we're not, you know,	00:26:25
	that our accessory dwelling unit isn't that close to it.	00:26:30
	So we can move it so it's 100 feet from it instead of.	00:26:35
	So not the other discussion. The Commission can add additional conditions that don't change the the standard of the law the way	00:26:38
	it's the way you're describing it. Yeah, Yeah. You have the ability to do that as a Planning Commission, to impose reasonable	00:26:44
	standards and then explain, but have a reason for it, not just well.	00:26:51
	You know, and it could be as simply as gosh, there is some really historic trees that are right there on the across adjacent to	00:26:59
	the neighbor's yard.	00:27:02
	On their not on their property line, but on the other property line. Gosh, be ashamed to lose that tree, you know, invading its	00:27:06
	root space, you know, anyway, those kind of things, something like that. You could you could typically work out with the with the	00:27:13
	with the applicant. And so reasonable isn't based on the outcry of the neighborhood. Not necessarily, no, but but, and I'm not	00:27:21
	saying that that the neighbors shouldn't be considered, but.	00:27:28
	The but you shouldn't have the same application with 20 people that show up and they're angry about it.	00:27:36
	Denied and then the same application, different property, but same application, same use, same zone, same other, all other things	00:27:43
	are the same. But nobody showed up to say no. And you approve that one, right? Your decision should still be consistent based on	00:27:49
	the standards, right? And it's not to say you can't consider them. But if you say, gosh, there's a house within 20 feet is A2	00:27:55
	story house within 20 feet, there's no way we can't see a reasonable way to mitigate the invasion of privacy and the loss of	00:28:01
	privacy and the loss.	00:28:07
	Quiet enjoyment of your property.	00:28:13
	With that distance, but if it's 500 feet from the hotel.	00:28:15
	I think you're going to have a harder time believing. I'd say it's, I don't know, because.	00:28:20
	Yeah.	00:28:26
	I think you're on the right track with something that's kind of important with conditional uses. Whenever we create a zone with a	00:28:27
	bunch of standards based upon a land use, Homes have lots of standards, Business office buildings have lots of standards, height	00:28:32
	set back massing, lot coverage.	00:28:38
	Whenever you have a conditional, use.	00:28:43
	Those uses might be so dynamic that there's no way to create a standard for one that covers everything. So we're like, what the	00:28:46
	Planning Commission figured out.	00:28:51
	So in that case for that reason.	00:28:58
	It might be different for a different type of application.	00:29:02
	That's why we have conditional uses that say parking lots. Yeah, but they're conditional. We'll let the Planning Commission based	00:29:05
	upon public comment.	00:29:09
	Work those conditions out those standards. So you'll pull you'll raise your hand and say that's arbitrary and don't do that or no,	00:29:14
	I know you won't, but as long as there as long as your conditions as you know is set.	00:29:20
	With a reasonable finding.	00:29:27
	That does the applicant have to agree to those conditions though? Like it's not something where we're like, OK, well we've heard	00:29:30
	the public input and we've heard from the applicant, but we feel like because of these conditions we need to put this extra	00:29:36
	constraint on there with our recommendation.	00:29:42
	I mean, do they have to agree? Yeah, no.	00:29:50
	So we can appeal it. Yeah, they do have an option to appeal it if they don't like it. So I can give you another example, a recent	00:29:53
	one. So Planning Commission here is a conditional use for a short term rental, right?	00:29:59
	The applicant says we bought this property to do a short term rental. We are planning on living here during summers but then rent	00:30:07
	it out during, you know, fall, fall, winter, spring and.	00:30:14
	So they said we're not in the application. They said our plan to use. Like what is your plan to use of the property or do you plan	00:30:22
	on living in it? Yes, I do. When? OK, so they put that they're going to live there from June 1st to October 15th. So the Planning	00:30:26
	Commission said they gave an approval, but they said they can't rent it from June 1st through October 15th because that's what	00:30:31
	they said.	00:30:35
	There's no basis for that other than they put it in the application. There's no basis for a restriction on it. I mean, they had	00:30:42
	off street parking, they had, you know, they still had to comply the noise ordinance. They still, you know, all the other	00:30:47
	requirements of that. But just saying because they said that in their application doesn't mean that the Planning Commission can	00:30:52
	impose that as a restriction.	00:30:57
	It's just not reasonable.	00:31:03
	There's no what, what are they trying to protect against that on October 16th wasn't there on October 15th or vice versa, right,	00:31:05
	right. So that's just kind of an example of kind of when you're making now and I recognize that. Well, then why did they put in	00:31:10
	their application?	00:31:16
	If they had an attorney advising them, they probably wouldn't have put.	00:31:23
	Asian. But anyway, this just kind of one of those things. And So what what we're seeing is we're having a lot of cities just say,	00:31:26
	well, isn't it just easier not to have conditional uses in our code?	00:31:33
	Too. But one of the things is you know.	00:32:10
	To make it simple, you've got to be very careful when you make your permitted and.	00:32:14
	Permitted uses use tables on your zones, but that is 11. Particular way of dealing with it is just to remove conditional uses from	00:32:20
	zones altogether.	00:32:25
	So can I ask a question?	00:32:30
	Can money ever be used as a mitigation? Like, I mean, clearly this guy had a lot of money. Could he have said, I will share 10% of	00:32:33
	the profits with neighbors, 20 percent, 30%, and just find the number in which people were like, yeah, you know what? That	00:32:39
	mitigates my concerns, so.	00:32:46
	That's a good question.	00:32:54
	So, I mean, the city probably wouldn't interfere with contract relations, but if you're going to do that.	00:32:57
	I wouldn't want to have that brought up at a council meeting or a Planning Commission.	00:33:02
	I mean, it just sounds like you're buying their piece, right?	00:33:07
	I mean, you are, but that's also, but also it also gives room for blackmail, right?	00:33:11
	Yeah, I'm gonna show up unless you that's why I was wondering if if it could be a formal mitigation. It's like he's gonna plan X	00:33:17
	number of trees, he's gonna have this set back and he has agreed to share. That's different than just cause. So I've never seen it	00:33:22
	that way, but the planting of the trees, yes.	00:33:27
	Sharing revenue? No.	00:33:34
	Well, and that could get real sticky from an enforcement standpoint, Yeah. Like, I mean, how do you prove that he made 1.6 million	00:33:38
	this year versus one point, you know, 5 million like shorted me $10,000, I mean, at that, at that point?	00:33:46
	Why wouldn't you just buy the property next door and.	00:33:54
	You know, be done with it. If that was, if that was the only thing the court did, talk a little bit about that that.	00:33:58
	That neighbor opposition is not alone is not substantial evidence.	00:34:05
	Right. You can't just say, well, the neighbors didn't want it, so we denied it. So how do you use that reasonable?	00:34:11
	Standard if a person just complaints that they feel like they're going to be impacted.	00:34:17
	Well, you've got, we have our meetings are always with people who feel like they are being impacted. So I don't know how you can	00:34:24
	address that. I mean, let's say.	00:34:31
	And you could put an extra 50 feet on the set back and people will still say I'm being impacted.	00:34:38
	So is that reasonable And.	00:34:44
	So I guess that's up to the Commission as a whole right to make that determination. So I guess I'm asking for you to make sure	00:34:46
	that we do the exactly the right way every time. No, I know I'm being facetious here, but I, you know, that's the kind of	00:34:52
	direction I think. So we're not wandering around kind of. So hopefully that's why we have these trainings, so we can have that	00:34:58
	conversation and it's not.	00:35:05
	In the heat of the of the of the comments from the neighbors, because you want to, you want to have a neighborhood get really	00:35:12
	angry if you ever get there. You feel like you're getting to that point.	00:35:17
	You're just throwing up your hands, trained. If Kim will come up with a decision, you don't have to make one in that meeting.	00:35:22
	Nothing is forcing you to make one there. Yeah, he could continue it, cool it down. You could even continue it. You can take a	00:35:29
	recess. Direct staff For more information on whatever this issue might be. Well, I appreciate that, but I'm also would like to be	00:35:36
	able to feel confident in making a decision that isn't going to be challenged. I know that's not a guarantee, but that we are	00:35:43
	acting with some wisdom and that just because the neighborhoods upset about something doesn't mean that.	00:35:50
	The additional 10 feet that we've granted with the conditional use permit isn't sufficient.	00:35:57
	To mitigate that impact.	00:36:02
	Are you? So? I mean, here's an impossible example if I'm understanding what you're saying. Like, um.	00:36:04
	There's AI, think the.	00:36:10
	There's an empirical sort of average that says an additional residential as six car trips per day.	00:36:14
	You know, and then so we have sort of some empirical thing to say. This is about the impact. So it could be something like here's	00:36:20
	the average noise of this, use this. So you're being logical though.	00:36:26
	In a neighborhood.	00:36:32
	The best way to mitigate their impact is not to do it. It's yeah, no change, right? That's right, don't change anything. So to me,	00:36:35
	that's, that's where Ludman came in and says that's unacceptable. Well, it's 'cause you're balancing property rights, right? And	00:36:40
	so.	00:36:44
	I can't tell you. I cannot count the number of times I've heard, well, this is going to affect my view. This is going to affect my	00:36:50
	view. This is going to affect my view. It is. It absolutely is. They're not wrong. That's not a recognized property, right in	00:36:55
	Utah.	00:36:59
	It is in New York, but in New York City, but it isn't here.	00:37:04
	So you can actually buy the view shed and limit the size of a building next door to you. If you buy the airspace above it, you can	00:37:08
	pay money for that. It's a recognized right?	00:37:13
	That you can, that you can buy, but it isn't here. So you can see my concern is that it's undefinable at this point obviously	00:37:20
	because.	00:37:25
	But it depends on the I don't want to kind of just start to throw stuff at the wall and hopefully see what sticks because I would	00:37:31
	rather be more proactive and what the staff has done is always excellent to try and help with the neighborhood discussions.	00:37:39
	You know, in that discussion, show the logic in how the code was prepared and the thought process that went into it.	00:37:47
	And that may alleviate most of their concerns, we hope. But yeah. And the one thing that, you know, unfortunately.	00:37:56
	You know, with the changing.	00:38:05
	How do I say this the changing?	00:38:07
	Approach to property rights that our legislature is adopted in the last decade.	00:38:10
	Especially in the last five years that it's a moving target and so.	00:38:17
	Almost every session we come back after the session is over and OK, we've got the following list of of city codes that need to be	00:38:22
	amended to comply with state law. Well, my history is is anytime you have these kind of discussions with Springdale, Legislature	00:38:28
	comes in and says we're gonna take away that authority from the city. So you can't do that anymore, you know? Well, yeah, And	00:38:33
	that's.	00:38:39
	Yeah, I mean, it it, it kind of, you know, some, some, there's some cynics out there that have said there's too much, too much	00:38:45
	money that can sway the legislature. Look who is in charge of the legislature.	00:38:51
	You have a developer driven legislature, of course they're going to do that.	00:39:00
	And developers are usually have some pretty deep pockets that they're willing to assist.	00:39:06
	With campaign contributions, but.	00:39:12
	But no, that's it's, you're not wrong. It's, it's one of those things that as you approach looking at conditions and conditional	00:39:15
	uses, you've just got to approach it carefully. And, and so you have the discussion, you say, gosh staff, we'd really like you to	00:39:21
	come back and propose some.	00:39:26
	You know, bring back some, some, some.	00:39:33
	Either propose or bring back some conditions that can help us mitigate this, that we can recognize that there's nothing, as John	00:39:36
	wisely pointed out.	00:39:40
	You can continue an item to the next meeting, give you guys a breather, give you guys a chance to think it through.	00:39:45
	Give staff some chance to give you some guidance on it.	00:39:51
	And you know, if you're feeling that way, I know I can't think of too many times that's happened in holiday recently.	00:39:55
	Umm.	00:40:02
	But I know the holiday.	00:40:04
	Holiday Hills project.	00:40:07
	Attempts to change that into a bigger project, different project, and modify the STMP that was.	00:40:10
	Conditional use permits for retaining walls.	00:40:19
	I have permits for retaining walls.	00:40:25
	Five times a month. 6 * a month.	00:40:29
	At minimum, so you are seeing.	00:40:32
	Retaining wall conditional use permit on every single agenda.	00:40:34
	And it turned out that we are basically following a very similar pattern with every single one of those.	00:40:38
	Applications.	00:40:43
	So the chair at the time was basically telling staff to tell the council look.	00:40:45
	We're seeing a pattern here. It draws out community fervor. We're applying the same standards. Let's just amend the code to say	00:40:51
	retaining walls have these standards and that's what you get.	00:40:56
	And that happened, there's been Commissioner, the council was able to change the code based upon the Commission's work on	00:41:02
	conditional use permit. So if you ever get one in the future, if there's any conditional use permit that you have a trouble with.	00:41:09
	And you feel like the standards should be pretty well set in stone.	00:41:18
	Then maybe there should be a permitted use with standards, or not a use at all.	00:41:22
	Yeah. And a good example of that would have been.	00:41:27
	45 minutes, I'll be quick.	00:41:31
	About five years ago, application on the corner of where the old Jasmine restaurant used to be.	00:41:34
	The request there was for indoor storage.	00:41:41
	Indoor storage is a conditional use permit in our code.	00:41:44
	Planning Commission reviewed that application at least four times in their Planning Commission meetings.	00:41:47
	Subsequently denied the request based upon the fact that they couldn't apply a condition that would block or otherwise mitigate	00:41:54
	the loading and unloading zone where you bring your U-Haul truck to the.	00:42:00
	Building unload your stuff.	00:42:08
	Noise idling, so they denied it.	00:42:10
	And took it to the council and down on appeal Council. Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial.	00:42:15
	And subsequently wrote out in.	00:42:20
	Inside storage uses from our code.	00:42:23
	So in that situation.	00:42:26
	The condition that couldn't apply to couldn't be applied to mitigate the impact, so therefore it was denied.	00:42:30
	Council upheld an appeal in that case. That process worked.	00:42:37
	Well, for those residents.	00:42:42
	Not so well for the applicant.	00:42:44
	They went to cities.	00:42:46
	Well, it seems like we've had.	00:42:50
	I would say significantly less cup's and.	00:42:53
	Things of that nature on the agenda and this year versus the last couple years I can recall before that.	00:42:59
	Carry Injustice does a great job. They both do a great job when those applicants come to their counter asking for direction. I	00:43:06
	have this use. Looks like it's conditional. What's the process? And they'll run through the process with them.	00:43:12
	Sometimes they're like.	00:43:19
	Let me rethink my my plan of attack.	00:43:21
	Ideally you would rather have permitted uses that have built in standards.	00:43:26
	Rather than to get you away from all of this.	00:43:30
	It's just not. It's not feasible in every. You can't. You can't think of everything.	00:43:34
	In the code. But that was the old way of writing that used to be called exceptions. That was the old in the old days of writing	00:43:40
	code.	00:43:44
	Exceptions turned into conditional use per conditional uses.	00:43:47
	It was a set of land uses that were.	00:43:52
	Not well thought out from my point of view, and studied in a way that you could actually apply a set of standards that could take	00:43:56
	you into, you know.	00:43:59
	20 years for a city.	00:44:04
	As a cop out.	00:44:07
	That's my personal.	00:44:09
	Bonus Brad started off. I think you guys do a great job of.	00:44:12
	Researching and giving us all the data so we don't have to think that hard.	00:44:17
	At least for me, I don't know, maybe you guys think a lot. I'm just like, OK, great.	00:44:22
	We do get curveballs occasionally in our beatings.	00:44:28
	Not too often, which is.	00:44:32
	Why? We have our public meetings so that we can get that feedback. Sometimes we do miss things and don't realize what some of the	00:44:34
	impacts might be, and so it's nice to have that second check with both the Commission and the public involved.	00:44:41
	Transparency is the name of the game in this.	00:44:49
	Question, I know you guys want to go home. Are the impacts that we consider always?	00:44:57
	Local, because it's always the neighbors who show up.	00:45:04
	But for example, we're building this thing, it's going to impact.	00:45:09
	Home prices.	00:45:13
	Umm, is that an impact that we consider not, I mean, not just for the neighbors saying like my home price, home value is going to	00:45:15
	go down, but like, oh, it makes more rental units and that opens up the market for whatever. Is that an impact that we consider	00:45:21
	like a positive impact? Well, hopefully if it, if it draws home prices down, if it's a nuisance type of use, that shouldn't have	00:45:27
	been a conditional use in that zone to begin with.	00:45:33
	That may be erroneously there.	00:45:40
	If that's the case.	00:45:43
	I haven't seen so I've seen residents suggest that when they come in there's a conditional use. They say this is going to affect	00:45:46
	home values.	00:45:51
	I don't know how many appraisals you guys have read on residential appraisals.	00:45:57
	I've never once seen, I mean, I've seen there's a drug house on this lot next door, next door that will affect your home value,	00:46:02
	right? I have seen that noted in residential appraisals before.	00:46:08
	But I've never seen.	00:46:15
	There are rental units.	00:46:17
	Nine blocks away that have more calls for service than other rental units.	00:46:20
	Like those don't take residential appraisals, don't go, don't go that I don't know, Granular isn't even the right word. But don't	00:46:25
	go that far afield to look for reasons to reduce the price.	00:46:31
	Care centers.	00:46:39
	Elderly care centers when they're going into residential ish type neighborhoods. That's top five comment. It's going to drop home	00:46:40
	prices and it doesn't. I'm thinking of the two that were recently built, the 1:30.	00:46:46
	9th and 27th and.	00:46:52
	The other on 56 and Highland Drive.	00:46:54
	I'm not.	00:46:57
	Censure. Haven't heard of a anecdotal evidence saying that property values have dropped.	00:46:58
	What about rehab facilities?	00:47:04
	Rehab is different animal federally protected, that's protected federally and kind of, yeah, I don't think by law you can't, you	00:47:07
	can't say that this effects home prices.	00:47:12
	In fact, those will never even come to you. They go straight to administration. How much money did West Valley have to spend over	00:47:18
	their decision over rehab center?	00:47:23
	It was huge. Yeah. It went to federal court and they were just up in the night. They just really were. And and they're, and I	00:47:28
	think it was the City Council, when it got to them, made all these on the record comments that killed them in federal court.	00:47:35
	Absolutely should have bound their mouths with tape and set up.	00:47:42
	Yeah, it's a fascinating case going to a couple of the players and they're they're one of their.	00:47:52
	Turnings was just shaking his head the whole time, just going, you know, and he had done the right thing and, you know, met with	00:47:58
	some people over lunch and did everything he could to, you know, individually. So it wasn't a meeting. And you said, you know, at	00:48:04
	least think about these kind of questions. Don't ask those kind of questions. Don't kind of say these kind of words and that and	00:48:10
	threw it out the window and did it. Oh, man, it was just rude.	00:48:16
	Yeah, that's sometimes. What is it Sometimes, you know, you can be told the stove is hot over and over and over and over again.	00:48:24
	But until you touch it, oh, yeah, you're right, It is hot.	00:48:28
	Who hasn't seen a wet paint sign and said it's not really wet?	00:48:34
	Good point. So next week, Thursday, next week is City Council that we're invited to attend. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have asked.	00:48:41
	Are you done? We're done. OK.	00:48:46
	Yeah, you're invited to attend. We're going to have a presentation from our consultant, Logan Simpson.	00:48:53
	On the general plan update, so that will be done in the Council work session.	00:48:58
	A little bit later in the in that meeting agenda.	00:49:05
	So you can make it great. You can sit in and listen to that presentation.	00:49:09
	I think it's a good That would be a good start to get your feet wet in this update.	00:49:14
	Is there like a time certain when that will happen or is it just going to happen sometime in the meeting?	00:49:18
	It should be pretty.	00:49:25
	I think that agenda is set. That meeting is really long. As soon as I get the agenda, I'll make sure I forward it all to you.	00:49:28
	Yeah. Nothing worse than sitting in our meeting when you don't know when your item is coming up. And believe me, I know.	00:49:34
	Do we need to have a SEC, a separate approval for the October or what? Yeah, the October 29th minutes. Thank you for that	00:49:41
	reminder. So if you notice on your agenda, October 1st and 29th was on there for ratification. Only the first meeting minutes was	00:49:49
	ratified. The 29th is actually a new set of minutes you need to approve.	00:49:56
	The only reason why they were in there is because during that meeting you approved the September 3rd.	00:50:04
	Without the second.	00:50:10
	So this 29th meeting minutes need to be approved and seconded as well.	00:50:12
	At the very very very end of your packet.	00:50:17
	Yeah, I didn't look at that at all. We can put them on the next meeting. That's not a big deal. Yeah, I mean, I'd like to look at	00:50:20
	them anybody else? And we'll be careful to 2nd them so that we don't have to ratify them later.	00:50:26
	On the note of seconding things, when you adjourn, that also needs a second.	00:50:33
	We have never actually really adjourned. We've spent it 1 long meeting.	00:50:40
	All right, well, if that's all we have for the night then.	00:50:46
	Would someone like to make a note? Can I make a motion to adjourn?	00:50:51
	I'll second that. Hey, we got a second. All in favor say aye aye done.	00:50:55
	Hey, good luck.	00:51:05
	Bureaucracy.	00:51:07
	I got a job.	00:51:15

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

Agenda
Packet
Minutes
Transcript

* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document

Transcript search

Transcript

	Phantom Holiday.	00:00:01
	13th of January.	00:00:03
	June 23rd.	00:00:07
	Say that again so you'll see on the January 13th shows as red as a holiday.	00:00:27
	Yeah, yeah.	00:00:38
	Shaded red, the mass holiday. It's just written in red. That's just.	00:00:42
	Creative. Yeah.	00:00:48
	June 23rd.	00:00:50
	October 13th.	00:00:56
	So on November 4th, that's.	00:01:20
	Because of Election Day.	00:01:22
	What's the 11th?	00:01:29
	OK.	00:01:33
	I mean, schedule looks OK to me. Anyone else have any concerns about the schedule for next year?	00:01:36
	All right, well.	00:01:42
	We have to make a motion to approve.	00:01:44
	OK.	00:01:48
	We approve.	00:01:50
	All right, it's been motioned and seconded. Commissioner Barron. Commissioner Gong.	00:01:53
	Cunningham and Chair Roach votes aye. Don calendar set.	00:02:02
	OK. Next one is the ratification of prior approvals Planning Commission meeting minutes.	00:02:11
	I will just this is my fault. So we just have to ratify all of the minutes that were previously adopted because we failed to have	00:02:18
	a second. I should have warned you and I didn't. So we need and in all candor, once we get through all the action items other than	00:02:24
	when we get to meeting minutes, I'm like, OK, I'm done.	00:02:31
	I shouldn't have been. So we just need a motion. We're ratifying the prior approvals that were already done. So we just need a	00:02:38
	motion, We need someone to move, to approve, to ratify the prior approvals of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of the dates	00:02:44
	listed in the agenda and then we need a second to that motion.	00:02:49
	And then a roll call vote.	00:02:55
	And then I can get on to the training and get you out of here.	00:02:57
	So moved.	00:03:00
	All right, we got a motion. Do we have a 2nd, 2nd, 2nd? We call for vote Commissioner Cunningham.	00:03:03
	Commissioner Baron Aye, Chair Roach votes aye, Don.	00:03:13
	OK.	00:03:16
	6:45.	00:03:23
	All right. We have talked about conditional use permits before.	00:03:27
	And I'm going to bring them back up again because.	00:03:32
	And I'm not saying this is because you guys need it. I'm saying this because I have had.	00:03:36
	Multiple, our offices had multiple clients with challenges that arise because of planning, excuse me, conditional use permits and	00:03:41
	sometimes that involves litigation. And what I wanted to talk about was this Staker V Town of Springdale case. Let me give you a	00:03:49
	little bit of background on this and if you have questions stop in the middle here and we can we can address them.	00:03:57
	Staker was a developer property owner that owned a fairly substantial piece of property in the Town of Springdale.	00:04:06
	It was bordered by residential homes. It was in a village residential zone.	00:04:14
	OK. So homes on three sides of the property?	00:04:19
	He wanted to put an 83 lot, 83 space parking lot there for visitors that wanted to go to Zions National Park.	00:04:22
	83 parking spaces Commercial parking lot Pay to pay to park.	00:04:31
	Next to homes.	00:04:38
	Village residential zone OK parking lot was a conditional use in that area.	00:04:41
	And.	00:04:47
	Staker thought he had a sacred property owner thought he had a just a green light to put it there, because it was.	00:04:50
	Conditional use and why not? Let's put a parking lot there. There were commercial operations, small commercial retail kind of	00:04:57
	spaces for tourist, kind of tourist kind of knickknack shops and souvenir shops right across the street. But directly adjacent to	00:05:05
	this parcel, there are residential homes, the closest of which was 20 feet and that became important in this case.	00:05:12
	And I want to just in context with when you receive a staff report.	00:05:19
	From city staff, it will typically have findings for, especially when we have conditional uses like there'll be findings	00:05:24
	oftentimes even in other items that come up, you'll have findings in there and suggested findings. And and then you're also	00:05:31
	allowed to bring in your own findings, right? I mean, it's the authority is yours. Sometimes those are just, hey, this is what we	00:05:37
	thought. You can add that if you want. You can take it, you can leave it or you can add to it.	00:05:44
	But one of the reasons that they're in there is because in a conditional use, if a conditional use denial.	00:05:52
	Because most of the time.	00:05:57
	Approvals don't get challenged at least by the applicant. They can be challenged by others, but the applicant or developer usually	00:05:59
	is a challenging approvals on their conditional use. But the reason we put in findings for your benefit is their evidence, right?	00:06:05
	There's substantial evidence and what?	00:06:11
	What? Give me a second here, I'm going to find this.	00:06:19
	Substantial evidence is a defined term and it is a threshold right I.	00:06:23
	Substantial evidence? Give me a second. I've got it in here.	00:06:33
	Gotta find my notes here.	00:06:36
	It is, it is evidence where it's supportive, where a reasonable mind could reach that conclusion based on the evidence that was	00:06:41
	presented right. So sometimes, sometimes that may be. So in this particular case, the the applicant came in and wanted to put in	00:06:48
	this, put in this.	00:06:54
	Parking lot, commercial parking lot, and there's a couple of key things that were in the city code.	00:07:04
	It talked about what the purpose of the village residential zone was for.	00:07:10
	Umm, and it's quoted here. Give me just a second here.	00:07:17
	Valley Residential established to provide areas where residential uses may be harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural	00:07:22
	pursuits and intended to retain.	00:07:27
	Land in parcels large enough to provide efficient and attractive residential development which preserves the historic open	00:07:33
	agriculture and farm type impression of the area. That's what the valley, sorry, it was Valley residential, not village Valley	00:07:40
	residential is what they called it. But again, right across the street there was mixed uses some residential on top of retail. But	00:07:48
	on this particular side of the street there was no commercial, just residential. And he wanted to take this house down 80.	00:07:55
	Parking spots.	00:08:02
	Well, we get to that point where it goes before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission hears this and the Planning	00:08:04
	Commission goes over, OK, what do you want to do with this? We want 83 lots here. OK, what are the, what are the immediately, what	00:08:10
	do you think of when somebody's going to put 83 parking spots next to residential homes?	00:08:16
	Noise. Pollution. Noise. What else? Traffic. Traffic. What else? Safety. Safety. What else? Light. Light.	00:08:23
	OK. So now with your planning Commissioner hats on, what kind of ways could you mitigate that?	00:08:31
	Limit the hours. Limit the hours.	00:08:37
	Out of all up around it. Say it again.	00:08:42
	OK, green roof structure have to cover the entire thing so it looks like a giant hill and it's all underground.	00:08:47
	That that would be that would be a condition. I don't know if it'd be reasonable because it'd be but, but it would be a condition	00:08:56
	could be established setbacks so that there's a boundary to.	00:09:01
	The impact is lessened setbacks. Yep, all all good things.	00:09:07
	What if I tell you that there's 20 feet from the property line there is a house?	00:09:14
	Well, that doesn't mean the parking has to be at 20 feet. The parking could be further back into the property, so.	00:09:19
	OK, OK.	00:09:25
	Do you think you could do it harmoniously?	00:09:27
	No matter what, no matter the condition, or let's say you had unlimited ability to put conditions on it, could you do it	00:09:30
	harmoniously?	00:09:34
	Again underground.	00:09:38
	What's the property currently zoned Valley Residential part of that? OK, yeah. So there's a master plan.	00:09:41
	Yep, and the master plan does allow for commercial. It allows for.	00:09:47
	How did it? How did it put it? It allows for some commercial, but very minor commercial.	00:09:54
	So is there a commercial parking zone in this?	00:09:58
	So in this district, it's a conditional use. A commercial parking lot is a conditional use in the.	00:10:03
	In the Valley residential zone.	00:10:11
	So there's no other parameters within that definition that help in this discussion other than so in the court. The court and the	00:10:13
	city's attorneys quoted this. The zone was established. This is quoting from the general plan under this zone, established to	00:10:19
	provide areas where residential users may be harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural pursuits and intended to retain	00:10:26
	land parcels large enough.	00:10:32
	To provide efficient and attractive residential development which preserves a historic open agriculture and farm type impression	00:10:39
	of the area.	00:10:43
	Well, that's like saying you want to preserve the character of a city.	00:10:47
	Without any development, any discussion further, I mean, to me it doesn't really define the commercial parking lot. So the	00:10:51
	developer isn't bound to meet anything by what they're describing there, right? It's really kind of fuzzy, right? So you put it in	00:10:58
	well.	00:11:05
	So their John equivalent at Springdale Town wrote a memorandum.	00:11:13
	For Planning Commission's benefit or for their use in considering what conditions might be reasonable.	00:11:19
	And it's set forth, you know, what the city code standards were for light and light, you know, pollution onto neighboring property	00:11:28
	owners. It's set up a.	00:11:32
	You know, kind of.	00:11:39
	It had an estimation of what the traffic would be, the increase in traffic would be, it would have also had the general activity	00:11:41
	levels on the property compared to what it was now, and it also had an estimates on the noise impacts that it would have.	00:11:48
	And recommended that the Planning Commission should consider conditions that could help mitigate those impacts, such as screening,	00:11:56
	additional landscape buffers, other similar measures.	00:12:01
	So.	00:12:07
	And it said it said the lot. He did say that the proposed parking lot had the potential to generate the same amount of noise,	00:12:10
	noxious odors and.	00:12:14
	Light as any other parking lot might.	00:12:19
	And the Commission may wish to consider impose a condition such as limit the operation of hours.	00:12:23
	No operation of the parking lot from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM.	00:12:29
	So that was what it was suggested in there.	00:12:33
	Well, after hearing a lot of public opposition to this, largely coming from neighboring residential homes that did not want to, in	00:12:35
	A2 story home, look out on a parking lot when they've always looked out on a backyard of their neighbor, I didn't want to deal	00:12:44
	with that. So there was substantial opposition and the Planning Commission made a record and they made findings. They said that.	00:12:53
	They didn't think that they could adequately screen.	00:13:02
	The property with landscape screening from surrounding properties, including the nearby 2 story homes, one of which the closest of	00:13:06
	which was 20 feet from the property line. That was specific findings that they made.	00:13:12
	One of the other thing in the code, in their conditional use code, it said allowable land uses are established to avoid	00:13:20
	incompatible uses in close proximity and to preserve the peace, quiet and privacy in the residential zones.	00:13:27
	The Planning Commission made another finding that they could not preserve the peace, quiet and privacy in the residential zones	00:13:35
	and place and approve this parking lot right in the middle of this residential zoning between these residential homes.	00:13:42
	So they forwarded negative recommendation to the council.	00:13:50
	The town council took that up and packed room as far as Springdale can be packed. You know, they had quite a few people there.	00:13:55
	That's actually important to know right there is that the Land use committee or land use authority is not the Planning Commission	00:14:04
	in this application, is the City Council. It is, yeah. That is. Otherwise you would end here. Yeah, it would have ended here,	00:14:10
	right. Well, they went before the town council. The town council agreed with the Planning Commission.	00:14:17
	And they said, look, we don't think we can harmoniously incorporate this into it. And the first thing that the developer did was	00:14:24
	he filed an appeal, right. So going before the Board of adjustment in their appeals board in Springdale and Springdale Board of	00:14:32
	adjustment agreed with there was substantial evidence and that those findings of and actually they if I remember right, they.	00:14:41
	The planning get necessary the the City Council actually.	00:14:52
	The proposed use They added additional findings. The proposed use will emit excessive noise from parking patrons and their	00:14:56
	vehicles.	00:14:59
	The proposed use. This was also another factor in their conditional use, Permit says if this proposed.	00:15:03
	Proposed use, conditional use is approved. Would it create a need for services that could not be realized within three months of	00:15:09
	approval or of of function? What does that what does that mean? Well, So what they, they made a finding said they would need a	00:15:15
	public restroom for 83 parking spots. It would be nearby that they couldn't they didn't have the money for and couldn't build	00:15:21
	within three months of approval of the construction of this project. So that was another finding that the council made in	00:15:27
	addition.	00:15:33
	To the ones that the Planning Commission had made.	00:15:39
	So let's see. And I think they might even.	00:15:42
	Yeah, they said that it would require public restrooms, which was a concern for public health purposes. They didn't want anybody.	00:15:48
	Lingering, you know, relieving on a tree. Yeah, yeah. Not using the restroom that wasn't there, but still using the restroom.	00:15:54
	Umm, let's see. So again, he appealed.	00:16:05
	He appealed that, you know, the conditional use standards that there were cited in there based that that city services that would	00:16:10
	not be available within three months and the ability to harmoniously integrate them with that and the other ones. He said that	00:16:16
	their decision was arbitrary and capricious, right? So he appealed that goes to the appeal authority of the Board of adjustment,	00:16:22
	right and.	00:16:28
	Umm.	00:16:35
	They made the, they made the findings that nothing was erroneous. They said that, well, substantial evidence requires that just a	00:16:38
	reasonable person could come to this conclusion. It doesn't mean that everybody would come to that conclusion or that nobody would	00:16:44
	come back. The reasonable person would come to that conclusion. And if, if there's sufficient evidence that an information, then a	00:16:50
	reasonable person could conclude that substantial evidence.	00:16:55
	And we're done. So the appeal authority also agreed with the town. So he came back, filed with the District Court. District Court	00:17:02
	looked at it and they said same thing.	00:17:08
	They said can a reasonable person.	00:17:14
	Come to the conclusion that there's not sufficient with 20 feet from the neighboring house that you could not harmoniously	00:17:18
	integrate an 83 stall parking commercial parking lot into residential property without interfering with the adjacent uses.	00:17:27
	And they came to the same conclusion. So District Court kicked it up and said sorry, done. So he appealed again to the Court of	00:17:36
	Appeals. So we're on 3rd appeal.	00:17:40
	Court of Appeals affirmed. And they went through and they said, look.	00:17:46
	You know, and I can see Angela doesn't like this. I'm, I'm wondering what's gonna happen at the end of the story because it feels	00:17:51
	like you're really building up to something awful. No Supreme Court.	00:17:58
	The important thing is, so here's the thing. So we have said over and over again, and I know I have said this over and over again,	00:18:05
	that conditional uses are approved, are permitted uses with conditions. They're not something that you can just back into.	00:18:13
	And say no, right? They're listed in the table of uses, so.	00:18:22
	This case is very controversial.	00:18:27
	Because parking lots and commercial parking lots in this zone were conditional uses.	00:18:30
	They had very strong language on on the on conditional uses, that conditional uses are only permitted. This is in their ordinance.	00:18:36
	If they will have, they can mitigate the impacts to the neighboring uses and mitigate and keep them residential private right.	00:18:42
	That was a big key to what the court said in the Court of Appeals.	00:18:48
	They used the code that was there, so code is very important. So anyway.	00:18:54
	My reason of sharing this is this is the kind of things that result in litigation so.	00:18:58
	They this got upheld all the way, but this is controversial because.	00:19:04
	There's.	00:19:13
	The controversy is that a lot of a lot of cities are using this.	00:19:14
	And not to say that it's not a precedent, because it is.	00:19:18
	But this goes against kind of what the legislature is doing, right? And it's saying what the issue is, becomes is your code is	00:19:22
	very important.	00:19:27
	On what it says and how it says it, that's one of the keys that we. So when we look at the standards that we're in evaluating	00:19:33
	standards in making conditional use permits.	00:19:39
	We need to follow the code.	00:19:45
	And if the code has it, and then we also need to back it up with substantial evidence, we need to make findings. Here's why we	00:19:47
	explain the recommendation.	00:19:51
	One of the ones I right now I have one and I talked about this a little bit last time just after with a couple of planning	00:19:56
	commissioners, but so I have there's a hotel that is wanting to locate in a relatively small town I.	00:20:02
	It's not on a highway. It's on a very, you know, it's a state road, but it's not a big state road. It's two lanes, right? They	00:20:10
	want to locate this like 9093 unit hotel.	00:20:15
	And it's about 500 feet from the nearest residence.	00:20:20
	And.	00:20:27
	We have a couple of residents that have found this case.	00:20:29
	And they're saying this is too close to the residential like.	00:20:34
	20 feet versus 500 feet, That's a world of difference.	00:20:38
	And, but, but, but here's the thing. They and and many of the planning commissioners are.	00:20:43
	How would I say this?	00:20:51
	Looking at ways to prevent it.	00:20:56
	Right.	00:20:59
	So what is city staff's job to do in that role? City staff's job is to so we've already identified a number of issues that and the	00:21:01
	impacts that this could have in a, in a small town like this.	00:21:07
	So what city staff is doing is we're taking those seriously. We're taking those concerns that have been raised, Noise, traffic,	00:21:14
	privacy. Those are the three big ones.	00:21:18
	And we are going and getting substantial evidence this was a concern, this was what we found.	00:21:25
	Police policing is another thing, calls for service for law enforcement purposes at a hotel, typically they are higher than it,	00:21:32
	you know, residents or some other issue. So anyway, we're looking at those. So we are gathering evidence to be able to address	00:21:39
	those concerns and providing in our staff report findings that will be defensible, substantial evidence, not because we have a	00:21:47
	predetermined outcome of what we want to do, but because we know that.	00:21:54
	Uses are.	00:22:02
	Often litigated or.	00:22:04
	Can be and it's. It's a.	00:22:06
	In certain uses in certain areas can be very controversial, so the point is that staff's job in this particular situation is to	00:22:11
	get the substantial evidence to allow the Planning Commission to make findings that can be supported.	00:22:19
	Question. So does Latma define the minimum that a mitigation?	00:22:27
	Standard or.	00:22:36
	No, no, has to be.	00:22:39
	Because if a neighbor doesn't like something, if they come and yell loud enough, that means that the standard changes because they	00:22:42
	are concerned and they're a reasonable person. But so no, Ludma does not get so you have, I mean, you have pretty standard ways	00:22:48
	and there's there's not a, there's not a universe of conditions that can mitigate things, right. So it doesn't say it has to be a	00:22:54
	minimum of 10 feet of a set back.	00:23:00
	Your your, your city code may have a minimum like that, yeah, but I'm just saying, does Ludmen define at such a point where	00:23:08
	there's a minimum?	00:23:11
	By which a mitigation tactic? No, and sometimes. So you have to be careful on the types of conditions you put. Also because	00:23:15
	there's a limit to exactions.	00:23:19
	And oftentimes those can be considered exactions. I mean, if you're, if you're saying, oh, you want to put 83, well you have to	00:23:25
	put an underground entrance that goes all the way over there. You have to have absolutely no decibels coming from it and it has to	00:23:29
	be underground and that residents has to stay. So if you want to put 83 on that property, it's got to be underground and you have	00:23:34
	to have a mile long tunnel to get to it that nobody can ever hear.	00:23:39
	Right. That's never going to get built, so there isn't a thing like.	00:23:44
	Can be measured that says you've met the standard, you've met the mitigation. Ludma does require that conditions, if you have	00:23:49
	conditions, they have to be objective.	00:23:55
	Right. You can't have subjective standards as far as conditions. They have to be objective. So if your ordinance says that, look,	00:24:01
	we can't do hotels next to residential unless they're at least 500 feet from the nearest residence, that's an objective standard	00:24:07
	and is defensible and you can uphold and it's easily measured. So nobody's going to be, no developer is going to come and say, I	00:24:13
	want that property, it's 300 feet, never mind. So second question.	00:24:19
	I understand that it's OK for the Planning Commission to an exact or enact.	00:24:26
	A condition or a standard mitigation? I'm really screwed up with my language here, but where they can say we want you to have at	00:24:33
	least 20 feet of set back.	00:24:38
	And can they put that into the findings and say that's yeah. Or is that and the reason why? Right. So you understand my question.	00:24:44
	Yeah. So if the set back says 10 feet, is that what you're saying ordinance says at least 10 feet and you're saying as they're	00:24:57
	discussing a different proposal, come up with this, We all agree 20 feet is probably enough.	00:25:04
	To me that again goes against what the ultimate Ludma direction was, that these have to be approved, that you can't change the	00:25:12
	standard.	00:25:17
	During the process, so those, so you have the ability to, yeah, it does make sense. You have the ability to Planning Commission to	00:25:22
	impose reasonable conditions.	00:25:27
	That are backed up by substantial evidence, right and substantial evidence that then I mean can we again it's based on it's fuzzy	00:25:33
	opinion.	00:25:36
	Sort of right. So for example, let's say, let's say that there is a proposal to build an accessory dwelling unit on a three acre	00:25:41
	lot on Walker Lane. And what's the what's the set back on something like that? John, do you know off the top of your head?	00:25:50
	In the backyard, it was probably like 4040 feet. OK, It'd be that big. OK, so they want to. What's the height limit on it? Do you	00:26:00
	know off top of your head?	00:26:04
	Probably 40 feet.	00:26:09
	So if you want to put 40 feet right there, but but there is a the neighbor has had a pool there for 50 years and you're saying,	00:26:11
	OK, 40 feet is the standard. Can you move it on the other side where there's no you're not looking over the neighbors pool?	00:26:17
	Right. And the answer is, well, no, we can't move it there, but we can move it further away from that so that we're not, you know,	00:26:25
	that our accessory dwelling unit isn't that close to it.	00:26:30
	So we can move it so it's 100 feet from it instead of.	00:26:35
	So not the other discussion. The Commission can add additional conditions that don't change the the standard of the law the way	00:26:38
	it's the way you're describing it. Yeah, Yeah. You have the ability to do that as a Planning Commission, to impose reasonable	00:26:44
	standards and then explain, but have a reason for it, not just well.	00:26:51
	You know, and it could be as simply as gosh, there is some really historic trees that are right there on the across adjacent to	00:26:59
	the neighbor's yard.	00:27:02
	On their not on their property line, but on the other property line. Gosh, be ashamed to lose that tree, you know, invading its	00:27:06
	root space, you know, anyway, those kind of things, something like that. You could you could typically work out with the with the	00:27:13
	with the applicant. And so reasonable isn't based on the outcry of the neighborhood. Not necessarily, no, but but, and I'm not	00:27:21
	saying that that the neighbors shouldn't be considered, but.	00:27:28
	The but you shouldn't have the same application with 20 people that show up and they're angry about it.	00:27:36
	Denied and then the same application, different property, but same application, same use, same zone, same other, all other things	00:27:43
	are the same. But nobody showed up to say no. And you approve that one, right? Your decision should still be consistent based on	00:27:49
	the standards, right? And it's not to say you can't consider them. But if you say, gosh, there's a house within 20 feet is A2	00:27:55
	story house within 20 feet, there's no way we can't see a reasonable way to mitigate the invasion of privacy and the loss of	00:28:01
	privacy and the loss.	00:28:07
	Quiet enjoyment of your property.	00:28:13
	With that distance, but if it's 500 feet from the hotel.	00:28:15
	I think you're going to have a harder time believing. I'd say it's, I don't know, because.	00:28:20
	Yeah.	00:28:26
	I think you're on the right track with something that's kind of important with conditional uses. Whenever we create a zone with a	00:28:27
	bunch of standards based upon a land use, Homes have lots of standards, Business office buildings have lots of standards, height	00:28:32
	set back massing, lot coverage.	00:28:38
	Whenever you have a conditional, use.	00:28:43
	Those uses might be so dynamic that there's no way to create a standard for one that covers everything. So we're like, what the	00:28:46
	Planning Commission figured out.	00:28:51
	So in that case for that reason.	00:28:58
	It might be different for a different type of application.	00:29:02
	That's why we have conditional uses that say parking lots. Yeah, but they're conditional. We'll let the Planning Commission based	00:29:05
	upon public comment.	00:29:09
	Work those conditions out those standards. So you'll pull you'll raise your hand and say that's arbitrary and don't do that or no,	00:29:14
	I know you won't, but as long as there as long as your conditions as you know is set.	00:29:20
	With a reasonable finding.	00:29:27
	That does the applicant have to agree to those conditions though? Like it's not something where we're like, OK, well we've heard	00:29:30
	the public input and we've heard from the applicant, but we feel like because of these conditions we need to put this extra	00:29:36
	constraint on there with our recommendation.	00:29:42
	I mean, do they have to agree? Yeah, no.	00:29:50
	So we can appeal it. Yeah, they do have an option to appeal it if they don't like it. So I can give you another example, a recent	00:29:53
	one. So Planning Commission here is a conditional use for a short term rental, right?	00:29:59
	The applicant says we bought this property to do a short term rental. We are planning on living here during summers but then rent	00:30:07
	it out during, you know, fall, fall, winter, spring and.	00:30:14
	So they said we're not in the application. They said our plan to use. Like what is your plan to use of the property or do you plan	00:30:22
	on living in it? Yes, I do. When? OK, so they put that they're going to live there from June 1st to October 15th. So the Planning	00:30:26
	Commission said they gave an approval, but they said they can't rent it from June 1st through October 15th because that's what	00:30:31
	they said.	00:30:35
	There's no basis for that other than they put it in the application. There's no basis for a restriction on it. I mean, they had	00:30:42
	off street parking, they had, you know, they still had to comply the noise ordinance. They still, you know, all the other	00:30:47
	requirements of that. But just saying because they said that in their application doesn't mean that the Planning Commission can	00:30:52
	impose that as a restriction.	00:30:57
	It's just not reasonable.	00:31:03
	There's no what, what are they trying to protect against that on October 16th wasn't there on October 15th or vice versa, right,	00:31:05
	right. So that's just kind of an example of kind of when you're making now and I recognize that. Well, then why did they put in	00:31:10
	their application?	00:31:16
	If they had an attorney advising them, they probably wouldn't have put.	00:31:23
	Asian. But anyway, this just kind of one of those things. And So what what we're seeing is we're having a lot of cities just say,	00:31:26
	well, isn't it just easier not to have conditional uses in our code?	00:31:33
	Too. But one of the things is you know.	00:32:10
	To make it simple, you've got to be very careful when you make your permitted and.	00:32:14
	Permitted uses use tables on your zones, but that is 11. Particular way of dealing with it is just to remove conditional uses from	00:32:20
	zones altogether.	00:32:25
	So can I ask a question?	00:32:30
	Can money ever be used as a mitigation? Like, I mean, clearly this guy had a lot of money. Could he have said, I will share 10% of	00:32:33
	the profits with neighbors, 20 percent, 30%, and just find the number in which people were like, yeah, you know what? That	00:32:39
	mitigates my concerns, so.	00:32:46
	That's a good question.	00:32:54
	So, I mean, the city probably wouldn't interfere with contract relations, but if you're going to do that.	00:32:57
	I wouldn't want to have that brought up at a council meeting or a Planning Commission.	00:33:02
	I mean, it just sounds like you're buying their piece, right?	00:33:07
	I mean, you are, but that's also, but also it also gives room for blackmail, right?	00:33:11
	Yeah, I'm gonna show up unless you that's why I was wondering if if it could be a formal mitigation. It's like he's gonna plan X	00:33:17
	number of trees, he's gonna have this set back and he has agreed to share. That's different than just cause. So I've never seen it	00:33:22
	that way, but the planting of the trees, yes.	00:33:27
	Sharing revenue? No.	00:33:34
	Well, and that could get real sticky from an enforcement standpoint, Yeah. Like, I mean, how do you prove that he made 1.6 million	00:33:38
	this year versus one point, you know, 5 million like shorted me $10,000, I mean, at that, at that point?	00:33:46
	Why wouldn't you just buy the property next door and.	00:33:54
	You know, be done with it. If that was, if that was the only thing the court did, talk a little bit about that that.	00:33:58
	That neighbor opposition is not alone is not substantial evidence.	00:34:05
	Right. You can't just say, well, the neighbors didn't want it, so we denied it. So how do you use that reasonable?	00:34:11
	Standard if a person just complaints that they feel like they're going to be impacted.	00:34:17
	Well, you've got, we have our meetings are always with people who feel like they are being impacted. So I don't know how you can	00:34:24
	address that. I mean, let's say.	00:34:31
	And you could put an extra 50 feet on the set back and people will still say I'm being impacted.	00:34:38
	So is that reasonable And.	00:34:44
	So I guess that's up to the Commission as a whole right to make that determination. So I guess I'm asking for you to make sure	00:34:46
	that we do the exactly the right way every time. No, I know I'm being facetious here, but I, you know, that's the kind of	00:34:52
	direction I think. So we're not wandering around kind of. So hopefully that's why we have these trainings, so we can have that	00:34:58
	conversation and it's not.	00:35:05
	In the heat of the of the of the comments from the neighbors, because you want to, you want to have a neighborhood get really	00:35:12
	angry if you ever get there. You feel like you're getting to that point.	00:35:17
	You're just throwing up your hands, trained. If Kim will come up with a decision, you don't have to make one in that meeting.	00:35:22
	Nothing is forcing you to make one there. Yeah, he could continue it, cool it down. You could even continue it. You can take a	00:35:29
	recess. Direct staff For more information on whatever this issue might be. Well, I appreciate that, but I'm also would like to be	00:35:36
	able to feel confident in making a decision that isn't going to be challenged. I know that's not a guarantee, but that we are	00:35:43
	acting with some wisdom and that just because the neighborhoods upset about something doesn't mean that.	00:35:50
	The additional 10 feet that we've granted with the conditional use permit isn't sufficient.	00:35:57
	To mitigate that impact.	00:36:02
	Are you? So? I mean, here's an impossible example if I'm understanding what you're saying. Like, um.	00:36:04
	There's AI, think the.	00:36:10
	There's an empirical sort of average that says an additional residential as six car trips per day.	00:36:14
	You know, and then so we have sort of some empirical thing to say. This is about the impact. So it could be something like here's	00:36:20
	the average noise of this, use this. So you're being logical though.	00:36:26
	In a neighborhood.	00:36:32
	The best way to mitigate their impact is not to do it. It's yeah, no change, right? That's right, don't change anything. So to me,	00:36:35
	that's, that's where Ludman came in and says that's unacceptable. Well, it's 'cause you're balancing property rights, right? And	00:36:40
	so.	00:36:44
	I can't tell you. I cannot count the number of times I've heard, well, this is going to affect my view. This is going to affect my	00:36:50
	view. This is going to affect my view. It is. It absolutely is. They're not wrong. That's not a recognized property, right in	00:36:55
	Utah.	00:36:59
	It is in New York, but in New York City, but it isn't here.	00:37:04
	So you can actually buy the view shed and limit the size of a building next door to you. If you buy the airspace above it, you can	00:37:08
	pay money for that. It's a recognized right?	00:37:13
	That you can, that you can buy, but it isn't here. So you can see my concern is that it's undefinable at this point obviously	00:37:20
	because.	00:37:25
	But it depends on the I don't want to kind of just start to throw stuff at the wall and hopefully see what sticks because I would	00:37:31
	rather be more proactive and what the staff has done is always excellent to try and help with the neighborhood discussions.	00:37:39
	You know, in that discussion, show the logic in how the code was prepared and the thought process that went into it.	00:37:47
	And that may alleviate most of their concerns, we hope. But yeah. And the one thing that, you know, unfortunately.	00:37:56
	You know, with the changing.	00:38:05
	How do I say this the changing?	00:38:07
	Approach to property rights that our legislature is adopted in the last decade.	00:38:10
	Especially in the last five years that it's a moving target and so.	00:38:17
	Almost every session we come back after the session is over and OK, we've got the following list of of city codes that need to be	00:38:22
	amended to comply with state law. Well, my history is is anytime you have these kind of discussions with Springdale, Legislature	00:38:28
	comes in and says we're gonna take away that authority from the city. So you can't do that anymore, you know? Well, yeah, And	00:38:33
	that's.	00:38:39
	Yeah, I mean, it it, it kind of, you know, some, some, there's some cynics out there that have said there's too much, too much	00:38:45
	money that can sway the legislature. Look who is in charge of the legislature.	00:38:51
	You have a developer driven legislature, of course they're going to do that.	00:39:00
	And developers are usually have some pretty deep pockets that they're willing to assist.	00:39:06
	With campaign contributions, but.	00:39:12
	But no, that's it's, you're not wrong. It's, it's one of those things that as you approach looking at conditions and conditional	00:39:15
	uses, you've just got to approach it carefully. And, and so you have the discussion, you say, gosh staff, we'd really like you to	00:39:21
	come back and propose some.	00:39:26
	You know, bring back some, some, some.	00:39:33
	Either propose or bring back some conditions that can help us mitigate this, that we can recognize that there's nothing, as John	00:39:36
	wisely pointed out.	00:39:40
	You can continue an item to the next meeting, give you guys a breather, give you guys a chance to think it through.	00:39:45
	Give staff some chance to give you some guidance on it.	00:39:51
	And you know, if you're feeling that way, I know I can't think of too many times that's happened in holiday recently.	00:39:55
	Umm.	00:40:02
	But I know the holiday.	00:40:04
	Holiday Hills project.	00:40:07
	Attempts to change that into a bigger project, different project, and modify the STMP that was.	00:40:10
	Conditional use permits for retaining walls.	00:40:19
	I have permits for retaining walls.	00:40:25
	Five times a month. 6 * a month.	00:40:29
	At minimum, so you are seeing.	00:40:32
	Retaining wall conditional use permit on every single agenda.	00:40:34
	And it turned out that we are basically following a very similar pattern with every single one of those.	00:40:38
	Applications.	00:40:43
	So the chair at the time was basically telling staff to tell the council look.	00:40:45
	We're seeing a pattern here. It draws out community fervor. We're applying the same standards. Let's just amend the code to say	00:40:51
	retaining walls have these standards and that's what you get.	00:40:56
	And that happened, there's been Commissioner, the council was able to change the code based upon the Commission's work on	00:41:02
	conditional use permit. So if you ever get one in the future, if there's any conditional use permit that you have a trouble with.	00:41:09
	And you feel like the standards should be pretty well set in stone.	00:41:18
	Then maybe there should be a permitted use with standards, or not a use at all.	00:41:22
	Yeah. And a good example of that would have been.	00:41:27
	45 minutes, I'll be quick.	00:41:31
	About five years ago, application on the corner of where the old Jasmine restaurant used to be.	00:41:34
	The request there was for indoor storage.	00:41:41
	Indoor storage is a conditional use permit in our code.	00:41:44
	Planning Commission reviewed that application at least four times in their Planning Commission meetings.	00:41:47
	Subsequently denied the request based upon the fact that they couldn't apply a condition that would block or otherwise mitigate	00:41:54
	the loading and unloading zone where you bring your U-Haul truck to the.	00:42:00
	Building unload your stuff.	00:42:08
	Noise idling, so they denied it.	00:42:10
	And took it to the council and down on appeal Council. Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial.	00:42:15
	And subsequently wrote out in.	00:42:20
	Inside storage uses from our code.	00:42:23
	So in that situation.	00:42:26
	The condition that couldn't apply to couldn't be applied to mitigate the impact, so therefore it was denied.	00:42:30
	Council upheld an appeal in that case. That process worked.	00:42:37
	Well, for those residents.	00:42:42
	Not so well for the applicant.	00:42:44
	They went to cities.	00:42:46
	Well, it seems like we've had.	00:42:50
	I would say significantly less cup's and.	00:42:53
	Things of that nature on the agenda and this year versus the last couple years I can recall before that.	00:42:59
	Carry Injustice does a great job. They both do a great job when those applicants come to their counter asking for direction. I	00:43:06
	have this use. Looks like it's conditional. What's the process? And they'll run through the process with them.	00:43:12
	Sometimes they're like.	00:43:19
	Let me rethink my my plan of attack.	00:43:21
	Ideally you would rather have permitted uses that have built in standards.	00:43:26
	Rather than to get you away from all of this.	00:43:30
	It's just not. It's not feasible in every. You can't. You can't think of everything.	00:43:34
	In the code. But that was the old way of writing that used to be called exceptions. That was the old in the old days of writing	00:43:40
	code.	00:43:44
	Exceptions turned into conditional use per conditional uses.	00:43:47
	It was a set of land uses that were.	00:43:52
	Not well thought out from my point of view, and studied in a way that you could actually apply a set of standards that could take	00:43:56
	you into, you know.	00:43:59
	20 years for a city.	00:44:04
	As a cop out.	00:44:07
	That's my personal.	00:44:09
	Bonus Brad started off. I think you guys do a great job of.	00:44:12
	Researching and giving us all the data so we don't have to think that hard.	00:44:17
	At least for me, I don't know, maybe you guys think a lot. I'm just like, OK, great.	00:44:22
	We do get curveballs occasionally in our beatings.	00:44:28
	Not too often, which is.	00:44:32
	Why? We have our public meetings so that we can get that feedback. Sometimes we do miss things and don't realize what some of the	00:44:34
	impacts might be, and so it's nice to have that second check with both the Commission and the public involved.	00:44:41
	Transparency is the name of the game in this.	00:44:49
	Question, I know you guys want to go home. Are the impacts that we consider always?	00:44:57
	Local, because it's always the neighbors who show up.	00:45:04
	But for example, we're building this thing, it's going to impact.	00:45:09
	Home prices.	00:45:13
	Umm, is that an impact that we consider not, I mean, not just for the neighbors saying like my home price, home value is going to	00:45:15
	go down, but like, oh, it makes more rental units and that opens up the market for whatever. Is that an impact that we consider	00:45:21
	like a positive impact? Well, hopefully if it, if it draws home prices down, if it's a nuisance type of use, that shouldn't have	00:45:27
	been a conditional use in that zone to begin with.	00:45:33
	That may be erroneously there.	00:45:40
	If that's the case.	00:45:43
	I haven't seen so I've seen residents suggest that when they come in there's a conditional use. They say this is going to affect	00:45:46
	home values.	00:45:51
	I don't know how many appraisals you guys have read on residential appraisals.	00:45:57
	I've never once seen, I mean, I've seen there's a drug house on this lot next door, next door that will affect your home value,	00:46:02
	right? I have seen that noted in residential appraisals before.	00:46:08
	But I've never seen.	00:46:15
	There are rental units.	00:46:17
	Nine blocks away that have more calls for service than other rental units.	00:46:20
	Like those don't take residential appraisals, don't go, don't go that I don't know, Granular isn't even the right word. But don't	00:46:25
	go that far afield to look for reasons to reduce the price.	00:46:31
	Care centers.	00:46:39
	Elderly care centers when they're going into residential ish type neighborhoods. That's top five comment. It's going to drop home	00:46:40
	prices and it doesn't. I'm thinking of the two that were recently built, the 1:30.	00:46:46
	9th and 27th and.	00:46:52
	The other on 56 and Highland Drive.	00:46:54
	I'm not.	00:46:57
	Censure. Haven't heard of a anecdotal evidence saying that property values have dropped.	00:46:58
	What about rehab facilities?	00:47:04
	Rehab is different animal federally protected, that's protected federally and kind of, yeah, I don't think by law you can't, you	00:47:07
	can't say that this effects home prices.	00:47:12
	In fact, those will never even come to you. They go straight to administration. How much money did West Valley have to spend over	00:47:18
	their decision over rehab center?	00:47:23
	It was huge. Yeah. It went to federal court and they were just up in the night. They just really were. And and they're, and I	00:47:28
	think it was the City Council, when it got to them, made all these on the record comments that killed them in federal court.	00:47:35
	Absolutely should have bound their mouths with tape and set up.	00:47:42
	Yeah, it's a fascinating case going to a couple of the players and they're they're one of their.	00:47:52
	Turnings was just shaking his head the whole time, just going, you know, and he had done the right thing and, you know, met with	00:47:58
	some people over lunch and did everything he could to, you know, individually. So it wasn't a meeting. And you said, you know, at	00:48:04
	least think about these kind of questions. Don't ask those kind of questions. Don't kind of say these kind of words and that and	00:48:10
	threw it out the window and did it. Oh, man, it was just rude.	00:48:16
	Yeah, that's sometimes. What is it Sometimes, you know, you can be told the stove is hot over and over and over and over again.	00:48:24
	But until you touch it, oh, yeah, you're right, It is hot.	00:48:28
	Who hasn't seen a wet paint sign and said it's not really wet?	00:48:34
	Good point. So next week, Thursday, next week is City Council that we're invited to attend. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have asked.	00:48:41
	Are you done? We're done. OK.	00:48:46
	Yeah, you're invited to attend. We're going to have a presentation from our consultant, Logan Simpson.	00:48:53
	On the general plan update, so that will be done in the Council work session.	00:48:58
	A little bit later in the in that meeting agenda.	00:49:05
	So you can make it great. You can sit in and listen to that presentation.	00:49:09
	I think it's a good That would be a good start to get your feet wet in this update.	00:49:14
	Is there like a time certain when that will happen or is it just going to happen sometime in the meeting?	00:49:18
	It should be pretty.	00:49:25
	I think that agenda is set. That meeting is really long. As soon as I get the agenda, I'll make sure I forward it all to you.	00:49:28
	Yeah. Nothing worse than sitting in our meeting when you don't know when your item is coming up. And believe me, I know.	00:49:34
	Do we need to have a SEC, a separate approval for the October or what? Yeah, the October 29th minutes. Thank you for that	00:49:41
	reminder. So if you notice on your agenda, October 1st and 29th was on there for ratification. Only the first meeting minutes was	00:49:49
	ratified. The 29th is actually a new set of minutes you need to approve.	00:49:56
	The only reason why they were in there is because during that meeting you approved the September 3rd.	00:50:04
	Without the second.	00:50:10
	So this 29th meeting minutes need to be approved and seconded as well.	00:50:12
	At the very very very end of your packet.	00:50:17
	Yeah, I didn't look at that at all. We can put them on the next meeting. That's not a big deal. Yeah, I mean, I'd like to look at	00:50:20
	them anybody else? And we'll be careful to 2nd them so that we don't have to ratify them later.	00:50:26
	On the note of seconding things, when you adjourn, that also needs a second.	00:50:33
	We have never actually really adjourned. We've spent it 1 long meeting.	00:50:40
	All right, well, if that's all we have for the night then.	00:50:46
	Would someone like to make a note? Can I make a motion to adjourn?	00:50:51
	I'll second that. Hey, we got a second. All in favor say aye aye done.	00:50:55
	Hey, good luck.	00:51:05
	Bureaucracy.	00:51:07
	I got a job.	00:51:15