Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
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
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
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
scroll up