Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

5:00 p.m. and we are at the Canyon Community Center for the January 21st meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Kendall Sagers, Tom Dancy, and Robin Romero. On the dis we have Matt Frink with Zion National Park, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, and Kosh Bati, Terry Kruski, Rich Swanson, Tom Kennston, and Melissa Labour are out tonight. So, Kosh, I'd like to ask you if you can vote in tonight's proceedings. Thank you. And I'd like to ask for a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I move to we approve tonight's agenda.

I second. Motion by Paul, second by Kosh. All in favor? Jennifer I. All I k I. Motion passes. Does the town have any general announcements? Yes, we do. We have the historic presentation here at the community center January 30th at 2 p.m. That'll be a pretty exciting event, I think. And then January 31st, we will also be doing the reveation of willows at the river park at 100 p.m. And I think that will also be an exciting but maybe just a little dirty event.

Did you end up getting someone from the park to present? Okay, great. Thank you so much for getting me in contact with them. Of course.

Thank you. Are there any declarations of conflict of interest? Okay. So, for tonight's agenda, we have two action items. The first action item is a public hearing regarding ordinance 2026-02 amending chapter 10-247 of the town code regarding banner permits by adding additional permit requirements, general standards, and allowing banners in the pub the PU zone. Uh since this is a public hearing, we will be following public hearing guidelines beginning with a presentation by the staff and then the applicant presentation if there were to be an applicant and then questions from public body members, questions from the public. Motion to open public hearing. Public comment period. Motion to close public hearing. response from the applicant, planning commission deliberation, and then planning commission uh decision or action. And so we will start with presentation. I believe this is your item, Kendall. Kendall, so we'll hear from you.

Okay. Thank you. So staff is propon proposing changes to the banner permit standards, as you said, found in section 1024-7 of the town code. Currently, banners are allowed in the village commercial and central commercial zones. These proposed revisions would allow for banners to be displayed in the public use zone. We've also made further changes based on planning commission's feedback in the November meeting. These additional revisions enhance the clarity on application standards and general standards. The addition of safety standards include banners not interfering with free ingress, egress or openings required for ventilation and not obstructing the free and clear vision of traffic. I do want to point out that in a section C general standards it says banners are not subject to the general sign standards in section 10-24-3. banners are subject to the following general standards. And I apologize that should have been in red and underlined. That is a new addition, not a current one. We also received a public comment and the clerk's department did send that out when she received that.

Does the planning commission have any questions to the staff? Um before that since there's not technically an applicant there will be no presentation on that actually and then moving on to questions. I do have a question um for the staff. Um currently banners are allowed no more than 17 days and only at most four per year. Is that sufficient for the town to have banners at, for example, the community center or the

From what I've seen, I think it is sufficient. We only have Oh, I should have looked. We didn't have a ton of banner permits this year. I think maybe 15 or 20 at most. Um I I think it is sufficient, but if you believe more or less, we can update that. Well, um I think I think that's probably the right number for the public, but what I was wondering is for p for for public body purposes, for the town purposes, you know, do we want to have more opportunity to have or will we need more opportunity to have because we have a number of events here at the community center and other places? Is far enough? I mean, we've had zero, so maybe it is. I don't know.

Yeah, I I'm not sure. It it could be enough and we could always revisit that in another time to see if it if four is enough or if you want we can add add more uh allowed uses. I'm just not sure what the history of banner use is here. If you've experienced more typically from I'm sure it's very sporadic of how many applications you would get for a banner from one business, but does it come up very often that people want to to hang them more than four, five? I think there's maybe one property that would probably like to hang them up a little bit more um just from our past what we've seen in the past, but I think all the other businesses seem to be happy with that. They don't use all four. They use maybe two a year.

I mean, I can see where, you know, in a business location where partic you know, you've got closer neighbors and that sort of thing, you don't want to get too crazy. um having lots and lots of banners, but in a in a public sense where, you know, the entire community, you know, there's events that are held here. There's one tomorrow night, for example, that, you know, might be um best advertised or or increase the advertisement by putting a banner up for it. Um it might be beneficial to have more. I don't know. I I had the same thought that four seemed somewhat limiting and it it was four for 17 days each with three weeks in between. I was trying to think if if it was still that criteria, how many would make sense? like even if it was bumped up to to I guess we can deliberate about this but thank you. Did you Okay. Uh and then my question was kind of along those lines in in in reference to the public comment letter that Jonathan Zambella set sent in. I had a few questions. Um first of all referring to the first item um he is addressing banners that are installed on with stakes and I'm wondering if that's been a common practice in the past.

We do have quite a few that use stakes. Okay. And I think that makes it so people can see it a little bit easier especially if the building is set back a little bit further from the Thank you. And then the next question um which may relate a little bit to the number of banners allowed per year. Um he is addressing the requirement of um let's see this is oh asking for the letter from the property owner and I know we've discussed this in the past and what the reasoning was behind that.

Yeah. So asking for a letter of authorization for property owners just ensures that the property rights remain with the property owner and not maybe potentially an organization that comes in and wants to use one of their four permitted banner uses if we didn't have that letter of authorization. An organization could just go place their banner at I see. Okay, thank you. And then um the last one, your opinion on whether a a photograph in place of a site plan would be beneficial.

I think with the site plan, it could be kind of up for interpretation on whether they want to send a picture of where they want the banner or if it's going to be an aerial view. So it can kind of show us where it is in location or sorry on the property to make sure that it's not in front of any ventilation or in the egress or anything like that. So it could be either but we do require the sign rendering and often with the sign rendering people will kind of impose it on the building so you can see where it would be located. Okay. So, um, language that maybe reference that could make sense. Mhm.

Okay. Are there any other questions? There are no public. So, no questions from the public. Uh, and since we have a public comment letter, do we open up public hearing or not? Okay. So, is there a motion to open public hearing? I move that we open the public hearing. Second. Motion by Paul, second by Kosh. All in favor? Jennifer I. Paul. I.

Motion passes. So, now we move into public hearing. I move that we close the public hearing. I second motion by Paul, second by Kosh. All in favor? Jennifer I. All I Kosh I.

Motion passes and there will be no response from an applicant and we can move into planning commission deliberation. So I guess maybe um continuing the discussion about the number of banners per year and thoughts on that like if is four a reasonable number? My thoughts on that on that are I mean if you count the number of events that that happen throughout the year. I mean they're posted on the little bulletin board out there but there's no you know people driving by don't really see that. You have to get up and walk into the community center to see it. There was some other advertisement but you know we've got you know any number of events going on throughout the year and it would seem to me that you know we might be able to benefit uh if if that's the int town's intent is to get increased participation. it might be beneficial to have the ability to put more than four banners a year. Um, that's just my thoughts. You know,

I I agree. I I think even six could be beneficial. Yeah. I mean, I there's I don't know. I mean, I suppose it's something that'll always be changed later, but um you know, six would be one every other month. Um, how many events do we have like that? I mean, different times a year we have more, but they could you know, if you have couple events in the same month, you could combine them on one banner theoretically. I don't know. And this is for banners for anything, right? So, it's a sale or a Yeah,

we got a sweet social, we got a star night, you know, tomorrow. We got a bunch of different things that, you know, people don't necessarily uh unless they read their emails or read their their mail, a lot of times that sort of just gets skipped over. Um there might be more opportunity for them to see it as they're conducting business in town if it's there. I guess the other question then too is um you know if we if we relax that do we um need to relax the 3-week interval for the town as well um maybe maybe not I don't know

with the three weeks in between yeah I mean I Guess I guess, you know, I would suggest maybe that we just allow one a month. Um, and you know, this is going to go to the council and council decides otherwise they can dial that back or increase it or whatever. At least we can bring it to detention. Um, I think it goes to the town, doesn't it? Does it go to the council or That's my thought. We're recommending Yeah. So, um, one per calendar month.

Yeah, maybe. And then could I say something regarding that? If you were to allow one per calendar month, um there's that, I don't know, potential problem of a banner starting at the end of January and then going into February, but then that count as two months or just the January and then February could have one. I was going to suggest if if we lean towards one still have like a two week in between period. Yeah.

And just give a numerical number rather than per a time instead of one per month. You can make it 12 or make it 10 whatever something for the year with two weeks in between at most. Yeah, I think there's a um I think a few different ways that that could be worded that would um have the same result. Um but if it were one per calendar month with two weeks in between with a max of 14 days, then it would Yeah. Do you see any issues with with that.

I think I think the only issue I like I had pointed out was just the overlapping in each calendar month. Yeah. And I think that would alleviate it.

Yeah. And as to the you know whether the property owner should be authorizing and I think that's the appropriate thing to do that the property owner needs to authorize it. If a tenant wants to submit an application, the property owner needs to authorize it. I think is ultimately they're responsible for what happens with that banner. Can I just make sure that I we we understood what the the proposed revision that you suggested, Jennifer, that you so you're suggesting 12 banners per year and the time frame in between banner display periods is two weeks and the maximum display of any single banner is also two weeks.

Yeah. So all all three of those standards would be slightly adjusted. Yes. Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean, I don't have a problem if you keep the display period at 17 days to be compatible with the public stuff, but whichever. I just thought by shortening that a little bit. Um, well, I mean, they don't have to they don't have to put it up 17 days, right? 14 days a week period. 14 days. Yeah, 17 days. They'd have, you know, be another 14 before they knew the next one.

I was just thinking if we were, it might help to balance the time out of banners being hung. If we were adding more, taking a few days off of each one, we'll reduce the overall just maybe balance it out a little more. So, I have a question. Is is it going to be like a hard and fast rule or can exceptions be made if requested? Yeah.

Not to say that they couldn't get a variance, but they'd have to request a variance to do it, I guess. Are there I besides that alteration, all of the other changes and adjustments um make sense to me. Are there any others that Kosh are there any others items within that ordinance and in the changes that we're proposing that you

uh I can't think of anything else Are we ready for a motion?

Um, yeah. I would move that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed changes to chapter 10-24-7 of Springdale Town Code regarding banners to discussion of the planning commission meeting on January 21st, 2026 with the following modification that the public uh what's it the public uh zone banners, the ones for the for the for the town. Um the periods be modified to be a maximum of 17 day or 15 day, excuse me, 14-day display um 12 per year and a two week or 14 day period between the display of each of the banners.

Is there a second? I second. All in favor? Jennifer I has a question. Oh, sorry. I just want to make sure that I again I should have clarified this earlier. I just want to make sure that we're recording this correctly. Paul, your mo motion would only apply to banners in the public use zone and other banners would be subject to the standards that are currently drafted. Is that that is correct? Right. Okay. That that is the intent of the motion. That's correct. Um all I Jennifer I hash.

Motion passes. Okay, moving on to action item two is a request for encroachment into side setback pursuant to section 10-11B7 on parcel S141G1A located at 44 Hummingbird Lane. Applicant is Ten uh Ken Tyler. Staff contact is Tom Dancy. And Tom, do you have a presentation for us?

Um, yes. So, um, this is an application that is a little bit unique in that, um, what the commission is being asked to approve tonight is a reduction in setbacks, but you you are not, this is an application that is subject, the development rather, is is being proposed through a grading permit that the that staff is the approval authority on, not the planning commission. So your appro what you're being asked to re review and approve tonight is merely a reduction in setbacks and not the overall project or development. So but for your information what the overall project or development is is the um development of a of a new access to a property at 44 Big Springs Road, excuse me, Hummingbird Lane. Um a property at 44 Hummingbird Lane. Um the for a long time that property has has had a driveway that goes through an adjacent property 54 Hummingbird Lane. 54 Hummingbird Lane is going to be developed imminently and and that's necessitating the need to relocate the driveway to 44 Hummingbird Lane. And so the owners of 44 Hummingbird Lane have applied for and been granted a grading permit to construct that new access in the reconfiguration of of their driveway and parking areas. um the the way that that is all shaking out would make it difficult for them to get their parking um on the property and also meet the required 10-ft setback. So, they are requesting a reduction to a five- foot setback. The code allows the planning commission to grant such a setback under certain criteria that are listed in the code and the applicant has sent a letter um kind of detailing why they feel like they meet those criteria. Um, and so that's what you're requested to review and act on tonight is just their request to reduce that side setback, not the overall improvement of the new driveway and parking area that's being done through a

grading permit. Any questions on on the project or what you are being asked to review or the criteria for for your evaluation?

I don't have any questions. Okay, moving then into um deliberation and in looking at all of the staff notes and the rendering. Um to me I agree that it meets criteria one and three um which is the requirement to meet two of those three criterias. And I and I can see how they meet that in both cases.

I think um I mean based on the the site plan, it seems to meet the the criteria for number two as well. My only concern, I guess, is that um whether or not they have the approval of their neighbor who they're going to be um potentially, you know, not necessarily encroaching on, but encroaching under the setback that neighbor's discussion with that neighbor and lacking the applicant being here. Tom, do you know if that's

So, in in their write up, they mentioned that they have spoken with the with the adjacent property owner and and that he's he's given his his blessing. I have not independently verified that. Yeah. But that is something that they mentioned in their in their write up that they've done. Um, okay.

Are there any other concerns or comments? Are we ready for a motion? Okay. Can I ask for a motion? I move that we um approve the what are we trying to approve here? appro the encroachment into a side setback um in accordance with uh the discussion of planning commission meeting on January 21st of 2026 and under the findings that it satisfies the criteria of section 101 bravo-7 alpha 7 um

is there a second Second motion by Paul, second by Kosh. All in favor? Jennifer I. Oh, I Kosh I. Motion passes. And moving on to consent our consent agenda. Is there a motion for the approval of minutes from November 5th and 19th and December 3rd? I move that we approve the consent agenda. the minutes including the minutes of November 5th and 19th and December 3rd of 2025. I second. All in favor? Jennifer I. All I Hash I.

Motion passes. Move that we adjourn. I second. All in favor? Jennifer I. All I. Meeting is adjourned. Good job Jennifer. Go. Thank you.