Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 5:00 pm and we're at the Canyon Community Center for the February 18th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Kendall Sagers, Nyall Connelly, Tom Dancy, Robin Romero, and April Ratitz. On the dis we have Susan McPortland, Zion National Park representative, Tom Kennston, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, Melissa Labour, and Koshbati, Rich Swanson is out tonight. Melissa will be voting in tonight's proceedings. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

I move we approve tonight's agenda. Second motion by Paul, select. Second by Melissa. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I. Hash I. All in favor? Motion passes. Are there any general announcements?

Yes. Um Kendall is cleaning up a lobby emergency. So, in in her place, I am going to announce that tomorrow night at 6 PM, we will have a community um gathering on a um messaging and initiative for the town. So, this is this is something that we're excited to share with the community and and roll out and get your feedback and input on. So, that'll be tomorrow night here in this room at 6 pm. Kindle, did I get everything right? So, please join us.

Are there any other announcements at this time? Does anyone have any potential conflicts they would like to disclose? Okay, moving on to to tonight's action items. We have two. The first action item is a design development review. The town of Springdale is seeking approval of plans for the expansion of the George A. Barker River Park into parcel est 150-d. The staff contact for this is Nyall Connelly who will be presenting it to us.

Thank you. So, uh, just by way of introduction, a number of years ago, the town purchased, uh, parcel S150D, which you can see there outlined on red in the, uh, satellite image. Um, and the intention of this purchase was to expand the river park. And so you can see here in the aerial uh, view, this is the existing park and this is the proposed expansion area. Uh so the town is now applying for design development review approval for the park expansion. Uh so the staff report the staff report includes details of of what the expansion includes and those are also in the documents the application documents. So briefly um they involve refurbishment of the ref of the restrooms uh resurfacing and reconfiguring the vehicle entry and parking area. Um although that area won't be expanded. Uh some new pave trails. Uh a central lawn with some uh zeroscape landscape areas. Uh some grading to create a native raparian amphitheater. uh some new benches and trash recycling receptacles and then removal of uh the trees which are along this boundary here at the moment to uh to facilitate the expansion essentially. Um and most of those trees in that section are uh non-native species. Um and they they'll be removed. Um because of the improvements are within the erosion hazard area. Uh an erosion hazard permit application has been applied for and the commission will

be considering that later in the meeting. Um so for now the commission should review the proposals to determine whether they're whether or not they're compliant with the relevant town ordinances. Uh and just a clarifying note uh you may have seen in some of the engineering drawings um included some improvements which are not actually proposed at at this point. Uh so there is a river viewing platform and a new restaurant restroom building and pavilion and so those those are not part of the proposal. Uh ju just to make that clear. Uh and so potentially uh in any uh approval you might give this evening you may wish to clarify that approval is based on the what's shown in the assist architect drawings and and those those additional improvements. Um so the assist architects have prepared uh the the drawings. Um Jason Wheeler from assist architects was to be here. His journey was um not possible because of the snow that we had earlier today. Um and uh I think we're going to have Ryan Gooler uh do the presentation. I think we were having difficulty with connecting them by Zoom. So, um, but if you have any questions uh on the proposals, I'd be happy to help.

Okay. I have a few um on on drawing uh G2.00 um number 11 says concrete stairs, but I didn't find it anywhere on the drawing. So, I'm assuming that it was just an oversight that there are no stairs included. You want to take that, Ryan? bubble just wasn't there listed there. Okay. Um, second question.

Okay. So, second question. Um, there's there's an outdoor light on the on the rest on the restrooms, but no no other outdoor lighting. Correct. That's correct. We want to make sure that that Okay. So, so there's no um uh lighting plan, no outdoor lighting plan that we need. Okay. Um, and then is there irrigation planned? Yes, we're going to completely overhaul to include the new parcel. The new parcel has no irrigation as we're going to tie it in. Okay. So, I didn't see any irrigation plan in the drawings that we got.

Okay. Um I don't know staff is that can we approve without the irrigation plan?

Um yes so in Terry what you're referring to is in as part of the landscape ordinance in the landscape plan submitt there's a requirement for irrigation details. Um and the the intent of that is to ensure that um this concept of like landscape zones is is um maintained so that you're not using sprinklers that have a lot of water to irrigate a area that is low water use. As Ryan mentions, the the landscape contractor has not yet been selected and the technical details of how that irrigation is going to come together hasn't been decided. But the overall landscape design has been designed very much according to that overall principle of concentrating areas of high irrigation use which is the lawn and segregating those from areas of low irrigation use which is kind of the natural repairing areas around. So, um you could uh make a a finding that yes, the the um intent of that ordinance in terms of making sure that the landscape is waterwise um or or facilitates water-wise irrigation has been um met. And once that irrigation plan is finalized, that needs to be submitted for um for approval. You could make a motion along those lines

or it can be a condition. Correct. Yeah, that or the same. Yeah, that's what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. Include that as a condition. It has a condition. Um, would it need to come back to us or could we just assign that to the staff? So, you can do it either way. You could say you want to see that and and have the planning commission give final approval for that uh irrigation plan or just have the staff do that. Either way would be appropriate.

Is is that not an item that should end up on our checklist or just got left off the checklist? Um so the checklist if um I believe for the landscape plan just mentioned that you need to have a landscape plan. Many of the items on the checklist say like um you need to have this plan and then there's subdetails that that aren't on the checklist otherwise the checklist would be like 500 checks long. So we could include that on the checklist for future. um as we designed it right now, we wanted to highlight those areas that are kind of most important. Um and so that's that's why it's not an item on the checklist. So if it's something that we wanted to see, we probably should have it on the checklist so that the applicant provides it or knows to pro.

Correct.

That's all my questions. Are there any other questions? Are we ready to move into deliberation? Would anybody like to start the discussion? [cough and clears throat] I can start by saying in reviewing this um I see that the requirements are met for the valley and foothill residential loan zones. Um and then also is meeting the the architectural standards and design ordinances. Um I good catch Terry with the irrigation. And I do think that that should be put in as a condition. I'm comfortable with it being put in as a condition. Um that the staff make sure that the irrigation plan is compliant

rather than coming back to us.

Have a few comments, a few thoughts. Um, so most of the parking by the drawings are is in the hundred-year flood plane. Um, and our ordinances um at this point only allow uh parking in the flood plane in residential zones um and limits it to three spaces. Um but all these parking spaces are already there. So, I've kind of gone in the assumption it's a legal non-compliant situation that these parking spaces are legal even if they're not compliant with our parking space requirements in the 100red-year flood zone. Um, does that make sense to town staff? Is that is that what you were thinking?

Yeah, and that is a good point. I I guess the the area of the parking spaces is is not expanding. It's um the it's being resurfaced and restriped. Um so yeah, I guess it's it's technically at the moment would be non-complying as you say. Um but the the area is it is not expanding. Um and that that was kind of the we're not we're not expanding it. We're not changing the shape. We're not. Yeah, it's the same number of parking spaces. Is that true?

No. So, the number of spaces is is increasing um due to kind of how it's been rec how they're laid out. This is something as a planning commission we might want to look at later. We we went through the parking space things and we decided to not do anything with commercial. Um I assume this property is zoned public use, right? It's [clears throat] actually Valley residential. What is Valley residential? Okay. So, arcs are allowed in they're allowed in Valley residential, right? Um anyway, it's something we might consider as a planning whether we want to go back and look at well, now that we've got a case that doesn't meet what we talked about, do we need to make adjustments or not?

Um let me see. Um and there is there is another section that says um that base parking requirements can be determined by the planning commission. Um so we do actually in the um in the uh ordinances have authority to uh adjust the b base parking requirements. Um the only other thing I have is the ordinances call for one tree per thousand square feet and there's 97,000 square feet. So that'd be [clears throat] trees. What I saw on the plant listed 65 trees. Um but there are a number of existing trees and by a rough count it looked like maybe 30 or so existing trees. So it seems like we're um quite close to a total of 97 if we include new trees and [clears throat] existing trees. Um is the arctic is there a comment you can make and has anybody counted up the trees to make sure we have one per thousand square feet? So we worked extensively with the architect on this specific top.

Okay. [clears throat] Yeah. In in the plan submitted there was I counted up 65 new trees. Um but it looked like there was plenty of old old trees to equal the trees as mentioned. high value there.

Okay. Um so other than those minor things um I agree I think this plan looks good. It meets the uh meets the requirements uh and it also meets the um the the goals I think of the general plan in terms is of parks and recreation. Um, so I feel good about it. Are there any other comments or questions?

Can I just make a clarifying comment? So, um, just getting back to the idea of of the irrigation. Um, so it I' I've been researching this a little bit in the code and we used to require an irrigation plan, but we actually the code no longer has a requirement for an irrigation plan to be submitted. It still retains that concept of irrigation zones [clears throat] and making sure the landscape is designed consistent with those irrigation zones. Um, but the the actual requirement for there is no longer an actual requirement that the um landscape plan include an irrigation plan. So again, um you're welcome to to a to require um to to ask for those details. Um but just to clarify, um there the code no longer makes that a requirement to include irrigation details as part of the landscape plan.

I would say in that case, if it's not a requirement, it wouldn't need to be added in as a condition. Go either way. I mean the condition could be that that they just follow the the uh landscape zone plan that irrigation follows it. Yeah.

Just the awareness that to plan. Is everybody comfortable with that? Is there a motion? Give it a shot here. Uh, the planning commission approves the proposal the proposed design development review for expansion of the George A. Barker River Park as discussed in the commission meeting on February 18th, 2026. This motion is based on the following findings. The proposed expansion of George A. Barker River Park complies with the town ordinances for grading, landscaping, public parking, architectural standards, and building materials. Um, and second, the proposed expansion of the George A. Barker River Park supports subgoal A of the Springdale General Plan, section six regarding parks, recreation in the arts to further develop through further development of park and recreational facilities to meet the needs of residents and visitors. Um the conditions on this plan um that uh the the um approval does not include uh a new restroom, the uh river viewing platform or pavilion which um were part of the original ideas. Um and uh the second condition is that the irrigation will follow the landscape plan zone plan um as required by the ordinances.

We have a second second motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? Tom I. Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I Hash I. Motion passes. Okay. Moving on to the second action item in a an erosion hazard permit. The town of Springdale is requesting an erosion hazard permit in connection with the expansion plans for the George A. Barker River Park. Staff contact is Nyall Connelly and Nile will be presenting.

Thank you. Yes. So, uh, the proposed River Park expansion that you've just been discussing includes improvements and some grading within an erosion hazard zone. And so, therefore, an erosion hazard permit is a requirement. Um an erosion hazard study was prepared by Rosenberg engineers to support the application and the study found that no increase in flood hazard or erosion would arise because of these improvements. Um the study did recommend that if a new restroom building was proposed that some erosion protection would be needed to protect that building. However, that could be achieved by simply um deepening the foundations of of that building. Um and so no uh no rip wrap or any kind of hard erosion protection would be required in either event. Um and as it as no buildings are actually proposed here, um there there's no need for any erosion protection in this case. Um, so the the commission should review the proposal to ensure that the the proper procedure was followed for the erosion hazard permit and determine whether or not to approve the erosion hazard permit.

Are there any questions for Nile? Are we ready to go into deliberation? Would anybody like to start the discussion?

Guess I have one uh question or point of clarification. Um if if should we approve this, which I think we probably will. Would the town have to submit another DDR to rebuild the the bathroom building and do the viewing platforms or would that approval be inherent? That would be that would be another DDR application. Yeah,

this looks good. Um, all my questions out on the first item.

I would say it looks straightforward. Um, I thought it might be a good idea to um add the conditions in that was in the report um under 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5. I'm trying to find those um the recommendations. So just as an added um precaution um which we know would already need new new permits but we could put in there that as the to the suggestion recommendation I should say of 4.2 to not um the repairarian zone to remain undisturbed during construction um until all necessary regulatory permits are obtained. And then 4.3 um no changes or impacts to the regulatory floodway shall occur. 4.4 provide for um perpetual access and maintenance. 4.5 property owners shall acknowledge risks. Um, I thought that would be a good idea.

I think we I I would agree and I think we can probably just reference it as being Yeah, we could just reference the recommendation. Yeah. because it does state about the new construction from the staff report and getting a new permit for that. Um, you know, the flood plane additional development permit is separate. Um, but just to add in some language recognizing that those are necessary.

I don't recall the is the intention to extend the building footings 5 foot below the finished foration. Not for not for the sake of this. So it the recommended should be left out that what 4.1 should be left. Yeah, it wasn't added 4.1. Yeah, I think I think we would want to have a condition that says that they are going if this is sometime in the future that they want to do these items then a we would need a revised uh another presentation.

Yeah. Um, so, so your idea is that the other 4.2 or three or 4.3, four and five you want to include as conditions. You're thinking it was just a thought. Yeah, I think that's to and that was just basing off of their reports. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and we often do include, you know, perpetual access conditions for these sorts of things,

right? and the property owner uh taking the risks. Um so 4.3 let's see property issue not increase the effect of water. Um, so saying no impacts. No impacts, which the report already claims there should be no impacts, right? It does. Yeah. So, I don't know that that's a condition of approval. I think reiterates. We could Yeah. Okay.

For me, all of them were really reiteration. And like as far as um the riperian zone remaining undisturbed, it's just really highlighting that during construction that that's a separate per, you know, permit that. Yeah. Just drawing attention to those items. if it seems appropriate to me. It seemed like it could be. And like I said, since they're in the reports, it seemed like a good idea.

Okay. Any other comments? Feel like we're all on the same page on this and ready for a motion. Fine about it. Good. We [clears throat] have a motion. Want me to do another one? All right. I'm going to have to train somebody else here. We're so glad you're back. [laughter]

Yeah. Okay. The planning commission approves the proposed erosion hazard permit associated with the expansion of the George A. Barker River Park as discussed at the planning commission meeting on February 18th, 2026. The motion is based on the following finding. The erosion the erosion assessment and permit application apply with the town code chapter 13E erosion over hazard overlay zone and finds that the proposed improvements will not result in an increase in base place base flood elevation or result in increase risk of erosion on or offsite. Um there are some conditions associated with this. Um the first condition is the uh the submitted George A. Barker River Park design development review plans um do not at this time include the new restroom uh river viewing platform or the pavilion um as discussed in the erosion hazard study. If these items are proposed for future development then the erosion hazard study must be reviewed in relation to those improvements. Uh second condition is that in the erosion hazard assessment from Rosen Rosenberg Associates um items 4.2 4.3 4.4 4 and 4.5 refer to um aspects of responsibility. And we wanted to highlight that um that the uh that the stream banks are not disturbed, that the stability um that the stream stability and adjacent properties are not affected. um and that there's perpetual access for maintenance um for the town to have

maintenance and um that the owners are responsible for the risks. Do we have a second? Second motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in favor? I. Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I.A. Motion passes. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I move we adjourn. Second. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. We should vote. Yeah, we probably should vote on that. You skip the vote. The vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, yes. Second by Paul. All in favor?

Tom, I Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I. Kash I. All in favor. Motion passes. Is there there was a motion to adjurnn by Paul, second by Terry.