Town Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Springdale Town Council meeting. Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026. We're at the Canyon Community Center in Springdale, Utah. The time is 5 o'clock. From the town, we have Kendall Sagers, Tom Danzy, Rick Wixom, and Robin Romero. And here on council, we have Pat Campbell, Randy Eton, Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns, and Kyla Topam. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Um, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve the regular meeting agenda, but Robin has Robin has a couple changes she wants us to make. So, Robin, you would like for us to strike number three and number two and number three of the administrative action items. Right. So, when I get a motion, if you could um request to strike those, we have some work to do on those and we'll be having hopefully a special meeting to address that. A very brief special meeting. So, at the end of this meeting, we'll talk about dates. So, could I get a motion to approve the regular meeting agenda and strike items D2 and three?

I move to approve the meeting agenda and strike items two and three. D2 and three. D2 and three. I'll second. We've got a motion by Jack and a second by Kyla. Andy. Barbara I. Jack I. Kyla. I. Okay. We'll start with general announcements. Does anyone from the town have any general announcements? Here's Ryan. Somebody cue Ryan.

Yeah. So on Friday, March 6, we've got the town birthday party that will be held here at the community center from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Uh it will include refreshments. We'll have information from town departments and there will be a prize drawing associated with locals week. And if anybody has any questions about locals week and how to participate, they can contact Robin on the clerk's office. How old is the town? Is it 66? How old is the town? 66. Just like I thought. dodged a bullet with that one. No 67. That's good. Next year. Okay. Thank you. Looks only 65. Okay.

Um just a quick announcement that um the council is aware that we've been discussing wildfire wildland fire mitigation and the wildland urban interface code and its impacts on the community. We will be holding a community openhouse and um information presentation on Tuesday, February 17th at 5:00 pm in this room um to present some information about wildland urban interface uh requirements that that could be coming soon to Springdale and um allow the community to ask questions and become fully informed. So that's next Tuesday, February 17th, 5:00 pm here in this room. And who's the presenter? Is that you? Do we have anyone from the fire department?

Yes, Dave Harmon, who's the wildland fire battalion for the Hurricane Valley Fire District, will also be here to answer questions. Okay, thank you. And I'll be standing behind the two. Yeah, you taught them everything they know, right? Just the opposite. Okay. Well, I have an announcement, too. Wait, hold on. Can I announce one more thing? That same week, we have the community messaging initiative on February 19th at 6, Tom, is that right? Okay. Also in this room,

also a lot of use. Okay. Well, I have an announcement. Um, I'm happy to announce that we have hired a two a new town manager. And before I tell you who it is, I'm going to keep the suspense going. I do want to thank Don, our HR person. she's at the back of the room for guiding us through this process. It was a good process. It was very thorough and Don kept us on track and I also want to thank the council. We worked really well together. It was a good it was it was a good synergy and it was a good collaboration. So, um we received a total of 73 applications for the position. Following an initial screening, we narrowed it down to 25 applications. And from there, we did rankings and narrowed it down to eight candidates and we brought the eight candidates in for interviews in person. Two of them attended via Zoom at their at their request because they couldn't be here, but we interviewed eight face toface and then we narrowed it down to three. And um by the way, they came from as far away as Virginia. We had someone from Illinois, someone from Virginia, someone from Oregon, quite a few people from northern Utah, lots of different locations. So after those interviews, we narrowed it down to three. The gentleman from Illinois recused himself from the running because he took another job in Illinois. So it was down to two. We did two final in-person interviews. We included a prepared presentation on water rates and then we did some impromptu scenarios where we gave them problems and they told us how they would handle it. And we made a unanimous decision to offer the position to Tom Danzy, our director of community development. Tom has accepted the position and we're going to start transitioning from Rick to Tom. We'll be talking about dates and we'll let the town know and I imagine in addition to having a going away thing

for Rick, we'll probably have a meet the town manager for Tom. So stay tuned and we'll we'll let everybody know where that is. But thanks again council for a good process and Don for taking us through that. Especially thanks for the donuts on the last day. Hope that mine had an aftertaste but spoken spoken like a former policeman. I hope the new town manager keeps that debut as in town council.

Yeah, he's going to be bringing healthy food. Okay, so uh Jeff Brady B let us know at the end of the day that he is unavailable tonight, so we won't have a Zion National Park update. Um are there any questions on the council reports? Seeing none, are there any community questions and com and comments? If so, please stand up at the microphone, state your name, and make your comment or question. And we're timing you for three minutes. Sorry, that's our new thing. This I don't have to talk that long. Okay.

Lisa Zump Springdale. I want to thank the town council for finally doing the planning the zone change for the lot next door to public use. Um, this community center was built for the community to be used by the community and a lot of fundraising occurred to build this community center along with a bond for to make that happen and to for the library. It was never intended to be used as a castle chambers. As much as I appreciate the opportunity, the staff did the right thing at the time to do what they had to do for you to sit where you are. But it's time now for you to move forward to start decide on bu on getting a new town hall designed. It's in it's insane what staff are having to live through by living in that little bitty building and using this building that the community should be using. So, I think I I really would like for you guys to start thinking more seriously now that you have a new town manager to lead you on the in the fray of this with lots of support from our previous town manager. I'm sure please start to think about this. I personally selfishly want this community center back for community events including the events that are coming up like the WOOI explan piece and the the other one that Kyla mentioned today along with many many other events. So, again, please think about the future. We need a new town hall. And I think we need a clinic also because the clinic that we've got right now, even though there are people who may not use it right now, believe me, there are times when you're really glad it's here when you need it. So, that's another piece of this that needs to happen. Again, thank you for the work that you're doing and I look forward to seeing what kind of work you do for the

future for the town hall. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening again, Roseman. Uh, I've given you an update on was kind of asked for it, but I was going to do it anyways. Uh, you have a little packet in front of you. One are the pictures that have been sent three or four times to you all and one are from the last night and they address the what has been done and what still needs to be done on the property for your consideration. It's been now 10 months a lot of personal expense which I said I'd take on myself which I did and a lot of time and a lot of aggravation but uh here here we sit. I'll just do one because I know I'm limited on time. the lights. They went from 103 lights. These are stadium lights, right? And they took five out. I have pictures of it. I have pictures of it last night. To give you that perspective, Mike Marriott on his three properties doesn't have 120 lights. Properties that have been built, the average is about 30 or 40 lighting when it's properly installed. I don't know what these guys are up to. I know they have no respect for the way city works and until they get litigation. I was told that by their senior vice president. So, here's the update. Here are the pictures of what's still going on with the lighting and I have another thing, but that will be later on. I understand tonight.

I don't think so, Cliff. Let's see. Was there Did it Did it Well, there is the other Yeah, it's on the It's on the agenda, but it is not a public hearing. So, don't don't do it now, right? We don't you want me to I'll happy to say whatever you'd like to do. Well, if you have something to say about it, this would be the time. Oh. Uh oh, you want Okay. Was that the three minute thing or is that a diminish? Oops. Excuse me. Is that because I'm trying to see it on the agenda here. All right. It was on the agenda. It is. It's just not a public hearing. Yeah. So, what should I do? I'll be happy to do whatever you'd like. If you have comments about it, I think you could make those comments about that item. Now, now's cool. Yeah.

Okay. So, hopefully in another three minutes. Uh, how does it read? I forgot. I'm looking past you. Uh, Barbara and everybody. Where is it on the No, it's number three. Number three under C. Number three is spotted dog. Under C is in David. It's under C, which is uh you can't see the C. Coordinate legislative item C3.

Uh, motor vehicle restrictions reducing the number of warnings. Real real simple. So, I can address that now. Sir. Cool. So, what it's it's real simple. Uh I have talked their ears off obviously a tal uh to not only the uh chief uh J is not in the room on on this matter. They go they respond and uh unfortunately uh there's things that are in the code that says they have to have three warnings. And I hope everybody listens very carefully. I am not proposing any changes to any of the ordinances as they stand. I'm not changing proposing any of the laws. I am simply asking the council to get rid of this three warnings that they have to go before they can enforce the laws that you've already written. Part two of that, it's the same thing. So, you're at your house and there's a rave party next door and the cops roll up and they try to do everything. They've only do a certain amount till code enforcement comes back on. Let's say it's Saturday night. give them the same control that you give them with, god forbid, murders, death, traffic, robberies, everything else to implement their judgment. I'm going 90 miles an hour down the street. They can take me to jail. They can let me go. Whatever they need to do, they should have the same amount of authority when they roll up on an ordinance thing that is blatantly wrong. music at two o'clock in the morning or in this case the u vehicles idolling their codes there's laws and I believe Tom or something I had a subsequent conversation state has even changed that law it used to be a state law I've only been here five years so I don't know to one warning but let the PD do it let get rid of this three they need three violations in order to act. They've come every time

I've called, they've been on it. They can't do anything about it until we to you folks just remove the warning system and leave it up to the police department that does it with every other aspect of our jobs. Number one, and the last point is the same thing with the code. So you guys, I know some of you are neighbors and there's a rave party coming up. I mean, they can shut it down, but they can't write them up. They got to give them a warning. get rid of the warnings. If they think if they they're over there say if they think there's something wrong, they should be able to uh enact it without the warnings in what else does. That's it. Thank you, Clip.

Thanks, guys. Any other comments or questions? Okay. I entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, which is a review of the monthly purchasing report and minutes from December 10th, 2025, January 12th, 13th, 14th, and 30th of 2026. I move we approve the consent agenda. I'll second. Motion by Randy, second by Jack and I. Randy and I. Barbara.

Jack. I. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing. And I just want to remind you that if you intend to speak, you should make sure you sign into the meeting so we have a record of your attendance. Um, we'll allow you three minutes to make your comments. Uh, public comment shall be, let's see, if others have already expressed the same view as your own, you can indicate that you agree. And please don't clap, boo, or shout approval or disagreement. So, and if you want to leave the meeting during the meeting, please do so quietly. So, I'll take you through the format, but it is a public hearing regarding ordinance 2026-02 amending chapter 10-24-7 of the town code regarding banner permits by adding additional permit requirements, general standards, and allowing banners in the public use zone. The staff contact is Kendall Sagers and she will start with an introduction and explanation.

Excuse me. Thank you. So staff is proposing changes to the banner permit standards found in, as you said, section 10-24-7 of the town code. Currently, the banners are allowed in village commercial and central commercial zones. These proposed revisions will allow banners to also be displayed in the public use zone. There are also revisions that further enhance clarity on complete application standards, including a site plan showing the location of the banner on the property, a letter from property owners authorizing the banner to be displayed, and other clear application standards. Further revisions include the addition of safety standards such as banners not interfering with free ingress and egress or openings required for ventilation and not obstructing the free and clear vision of traffic. We took these proposed revisions to the planning commission on January 21st, 2026. The planning commission added the allowance for the number of banners allowed in the public use zone which is also added to this to this um code. So currently commercial zones allow up to four banners per year with a display length of 17 calendar days. There's an interval of three weeks between the time a banner is removed and the time another banner is placed on the same property or business center. In the public use zone, the planning commission added the allowance of 12 banners per year for a display length of no more than 14 calendar days and a minimum interval of 14 days between the time a banner is removed and another is displayed on the same property. And I also want to point out that they we did receive a public comment letter from in our planning commission meeting and that is within the packet.

I didn't see that letter. Is it attached? It's from John. So for or against? I'd say kind of neither. Just a general just just some comments. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, yeah, he just had general comments on on some of the proposed changes. So, Kendall, I have a question. So, I know that part of the reason this came up with the public use zone was the arts and crafts fair and their wish to have banners directing people.

Yeah, it could be any um any organization that would like to have a banner on any public use zone. So for instance, if town hall wants to do an America 250 banner or Z Arts wants to place their banner for their craft fair or St. Patrick's Day with the VI Zion Visitors Bureau. Yeah, I guess I wonder why there's a minimal minimum interval of 14 calendar days between because if if there this room is heavily used and if there were a craft fair today and next weekend there were another fair, does that mean that the second group wouldn't be able to have a banner? Correct.

Okay. Do do you know the reasoning behind that? Was that planning commission that put that restriction or? Yes, planning commission added the 12 days versus the or sorry 12 per year versus the four per year to try and include the opportunity to have more organizations have that banner on the property, but they didn't want to overflow the property with banners 247.

Okay, we'll talk about that in the deliberation. Do any other council members have questions? I think it says, but just to remind me, kind of tailgating on what Barbara has brought up, you can only have one banner per at a time. Like, yes, that's correct. Well, you can have more than one banner for the same event, right? On the same property. Uhhuh. No. Okay. Other questions? Clarifying questions.

Okay. Are there any clarifying questions from members of the public? Then I'd entertain a motion to go into public hearing. Move to go into public hearing. I'll second it. Motion by Jack. Second by Pat. Randy. Barbara. I. Jack. I. I. Okay. We are in public comment period and you can get up and say anything you want for three minutes. Well, anything about this issue. Looks like there are none. So, I'd entertain a motion to close public comment period. We close the public hearing. Second. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy. I. Randy I. Barbara I. I.

Kyla I. So, um, normally we would ask for a response from the applicant. Is there anything you want to add here, Kendall, or should we go ahead and deliberate? I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Okay. So, do we want to talk about the number of banners at an event first? We can.

Yeah. I guess for me, there's a couple things here where this feels like just overly restrictive for me. Um, you know, we're a small community. Um, I just have a hard time picturing banners flying from one end of town to the next. And, um, I think, you know, if you use a larger event as an example, it has two entrances to it, we certainly should be able to have a banner at those entrances. So, I I guess my feeling on this issue is it's overly restrictive for all zones or just for public use zone. Um, I I would all zones.

I think the the issues I have with this are more substance and process. Um, and if you just bear with me for a minute, I can run through this at se several points in the code and this is just I guess my thing. Uh, the word must and shall are interchanged and I think it for cleanup it should just be one or the other. Um, I got a real problem with the general standards where it says banners are not subject to the general science standards. Uh, which means if we were to ignore that, the things that are in 10243, the town color palette, no fluorescent or reflective materials, the building electrical code compliance, and the safety structure is ignored in the actual proposed banner code. So what I would suggest is that we say that the banners science must comply with the general science standards in the section 10243 in addition to the following banner specific standards. And this way you don't have to worry about code creep where you have to keep watching both ends of the code to make sure they don't start to conflict with each other. Does that make sense Kendall?

That does make sense. Um, could I make a comment on that? And just a clarifying question. So, are you wanting to potentially change it to include that it does need to have the same standards as section 10243?

And what what I would say is it needs to comply with 10243 and the addition you could make is then put in your VC and CC and public use zones with it various 17 and 14 calendar days. Um, that the banner may not exceed 20 square feet, which would be the change. Uh that is constructed of cloth and vinyl, which is a change. Uh and the other things about near an intersection and interfering with egress and ventilation and electrical systems be included in the banner section as an addition to what's in the sign standard. Um and I I just think it it it it cleans it up because if we ignore the sign standard completely, there are things that that that the banner proposed banner code misses. I think

I'm not convinced. I'm thinking about as someone who has used a banner to promote a community event. Um, in general, a banner says one static message and you don't change it for every event. like it's going to say Halloween carnival coming soon, something like that. And so to to impose like all of our sign standards onto a banner that's going to be up for a very limited amount of time, I I worry at that point you've made it too ownorous and we're talking about you know, small community events. Um,

so what what part of the current science standard? The color palette. I would think the color palette is a little too ownorous. just off the top of my head. When you're buying a banner, well, I guess some of them are custom, but um and then I have to be honest and say I have not read the sign standards in a while, so I would have to go refresh my memory on everything that's in there. I've got it in front of me. and and the problem I have sorry doesn't address being close to electrical equipment. It talks about ventilation to it

eress but it doesn't talk about u proximity to electrical standards which the sign standard does. I don't think that would hurt but a science standard can be can have lighting etc. Right. But I would I would assume a banner would not but it also talks in the science about not having it underneath electrical appliances.

I just think that I just think that and it's it's not that the the proposed banner code that I disagree with it. I just think we can consolidate by by not having to duplicate again in in a separate banner standard. I think the problem for me is the materials because a banner by definition is typically a a vinyl or plastic whereas in this 10243 it talks about other materials that are more permanent materials.

Standard you could say everything in 10243 but banners have to be these materials and not metal and the other things that the science standard. Just a suggestion. I think it cleans it up.

Yeah. And I I see where you're going with that. I guess in this case I I have to agree with T K T K T K T K T K T K T K T K T K T K Tyler that you know a sign is something that's there 247 for many years and we have been very uh deliberate in the town of trying to to control the aesthetics of the town. and uh a banner that's up for a a very short period of time. Number one, it's something that you want to catch people's attention by saying special event this and and I think limiting that to the color palette we have for the for our signs I feel myself is a little too restrictive. I would I would like to give them more latitude on a banner. If a banner if we allowed a banner be up 247 for a year. Absolutely. But for the short amount of time we have it up. Um, and for the purpose of it to to really get people's attention, I I think it's u it's not appropriate to limit them to to the color palette that we have for the for the signs because the the signs are just a it's a look that we want in the town for the majority of time when people come into town and can't pop in. Well, when I when I read this, I thought it was um unnecessarily ownorous, if you will, that you know, the amount of time between having banners and that kind of thing. And I think by including these provisions, it makes it more ownorous rather than less. So, I think maybe as a start just

philosophically, do we want this to be difficult? Do we want it to be easy or something in between? I mean, somebody somebody planning a a arts and crafts event, for example, it's it's a community event that's manned and handled by volunteers in the community. I'm not sure we want to get in their way. I think we might want to facilitate them instead. part of that when you get to the permit required part of it. Um the permit says there needs to be a site plan showing the location of the property where the banner will be displayed. I get it. But then you go into section two, a rendering of the banner drawn to scale and showing the banner dimensions. Well, we know the banner can't be more than 20 square feet. So Randy and I have a business and my sign is 2 by 10 and his is 4 by five. Who's going to say that his is right and mine is wrong? I I think there was a check box in the permit required that said everything in the general standards. Check the box. I will follow all that and just put in the date that the banner is going to be up, a letter from the property owner, the appropriate application fee, where it's going to be located. But the description of banner materials is is redundant because the requirement is it has to be vinyl or cloth. Check a box that says I'm going to follow all the requirements. So I think it is in that respect honor. You repeat yourself. applying for the permit.

Question. The the pendants that are put on our light poles that talk about coming events like the Polynesian event or whatever it is, are those banners? Yes, those are street banners. So, those those can't be up for more than 14 days either. I mean, or do they have a separate rule of their own? They have a separate rule of their own.

Okay. Because 14 days seems like a long time for a banner, too. I I think for, you know, I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth because I think 14 days is longer than we ought to allow one banner. Just the nature of a banner. And yet, I don't I don't know why we need that that 14 days in between different event banners. I well I I see your point when we're talking about banners in public use areas we have multiple groups using the same facility and if we're being too restrictive then we are kind of saying well sorry but the arts and crafts fair did they get their banner permit in first or does their event longer so they get more priority but what if we have some other type of community event. I don't I feel like that's playing picking and choosing. So, I can see why we maybe would not want as many restrictions in a public use zone. However, to allow banners in the p in a commercial zone constantly, I think we could be adding or bumping up against where is that sign fatigue limit? Is somebody gonna have something special going on all the time and then before we know it that sale banner is like just a permanent fixture at a certain place because we've allowed too many banners in commercial zones. So, I feel like we need to tailor for each zone. Kind of like planning commission did open it up a little bit more for public use than they did for commercial zones. But I do still have some reservations about just really opening it up in the commercial.

I agree. You know, we could we could address that by saying for for the same event or business, you couldn't have another sign another b a banner for the same event or business for 14 days, but not restricted to a different event. Does that make sense? Or we could have a different different standard for the public use zone either way. Well, this does have a different standard in terms of number of banners and amount of time for commercial versus public

use zone. So, um, and for what this says about abandoned in the village commercial and central commercial for no more than 17 calendars, I absolutely agree with four banners a year because again, otherwise we're going to have banner fatigue, not really special

and not really special. So, I think that's good. The way in my mind, I like the way that's written. uh if we want to talk about the public use zone um you know for calendar days and number of banner of banners I'm trying to talk about that but but then with the public use then we do run into the uh like Kendall says the number of events that that gets held in this uh community center which you know most of the events are not going to last 14 days they're gonna at the most a few days maybe a week at the most but

so so does it does this read and and maybe I'm misreading it does this read that if we wanted to put a banner up outside u say the new public use zone for some event that we couldn't have a second banner that said and you know the medical center we're doing this today town and hall are doing this tomorrow. We're only allowed one banner. That's what this says. You have multiple events going on. Why can't you have more than one banner if it's for a different event?

We could say that one one banner per event, but I but I also think like the arts and crafts fair, they have banners directing people at both doors where to park and that kind of thing. So, I don't know. This just seems kind of

maybe maybe with what we've talked about um we can ask staff to make some of these changes instead of us crafting it all here tonight. Kendall has I'm sure heard what we're saying and can maybe um craft some language that allows for more banner use in the public use zone. that allows for different users, maybe some different open it up in different ways. Maybe we don't really care so much about there being a 14 or 17 day window of no banner use. We And maybe we don't need to have it that a banner is up for two weeks and she could bring something back to us.

We could say the banner could be up through the duration of the event. Yeah. But are you wanting I've when I've used banners, I've used them to get traffic ahead of time. Okay. Like there's I'm having something on Saturday and so I've put something up kind of on Monday to so people are seeing my banner. So I it sounds like you're saying in public view zone you're you're thinking maybe more banner. Do you still think this is right in the commercial zones? One banner per property. I do. Yeah, I do.

So, want to make that clear. We're talking about uh the commercial properties. We want one banner per property. It'll be more likely that as a town. Yeah. Yeah. Just wanted to get that clear.

Yeah. So, let's let's So, we we like the ordinance other than number two, public use zone for. So what we want to talk to Kendall about it sounds like is the and Pat where maybe it's still an open item whether we require the same requirements as signs but but what I'm hearing is that we want to address the 14 calendar days that the banner can be up. Are we good with that? Okay. So we're okay with that. So maybe what we're saying is just that we don't think there has to be an interval in between if it's a new event that each event could have a banner up for up to 14 days. Is that fair to say?

I think so. especially in with community events, which is what we're talking about in public use in general. And how many banners do we want to allow per event? Do we want to restrict that? You may want to question. So, so let me just So, like at the arts and crafts fair, it wasn't just a banner saying arts and crafts fair. There were small banners that said parking here, directional kinds of banners which are helpful or they're just signs. I mean yeah they're just signs.

When is Yeah. When is the banner and when is it just a sign? So for large events like that within the permit they can have small signs that direct and also they're required to have an on-site manager sign with the phone number. Okay. I think one banner then. So, one banner per event if that's the case because they can have signs directing people. Okay. So, that's not a lot of changes. Do we want to make that change on the fly with the motion or do we want Kendall to bring this back? I support um letting Kendall have a go at it because I it's a I don't know that we do our best work on the fly. Yeah,

I think we have a good idea here, but I want to see that it like fully gets changed. And maybe if Pat was really noticing that some musts and shells are flip-flopped. I mean, it's an easy fix, right? And if Kendall, does it make sense what we're kind of talking about? It does. Yeah. And and that, you know, the second sense there, each property shall not display more than 12 banners per year. I think personally I think that should go away if we're talking about allowing one per event and not having a 14-day window between in the public use zone.

So I wonder if instead of um talking about 12 you 12 banner permits like per year per property if we somehow needed to make a cap for organizations. I mean, could it be this would be worst case scenario that an organization comes to the town regularly and says, "Well, I'm not having my event here, but I want to I'm going to apply for a banner permit and I want my banner on your public use property for a an event I'm having somewhere else." Good thinking.

That's a good loophole thinking. So, I'm wondering if we would instead of capping just the number of banners because we can't anticipate maybe how many events we'll hold that somebody would want a banner for, but we could say a single organization can have five banner permits on a public use zone per year, something like that. or the event has to be held on the public use property, some kind of insurance.

What about the part that talked about the letter from the property owner? Are you concerned that I would I would call balls and strikes that we're going to allow your banner on on public use, but we're not going to allow Randy's? Is that is that where you're going with this? would think as as a town we would have some type of standard that we would if we were going to say yes to one we have to say yes to all. But I don't know.

Well, that's a good that's a good loophole and I think that's something that that really should be thought out a little bit more. Um, you know, and and I guess I was going down the road of thinking about there's going to be events in the community center that that the banners are going to be, but you're right. They could be having something somewhere else.

I hadn't thought about that. That's good thinking, Kyla. Um, so yeah, we I think we should think through that a little bit more. And I don't know whether five's the right number or whether two's the right number or what is the right number because I you know I none of us want to have 14 banners down there for different events at different places in town uh just because we're allowing banners on the public use u property zone.

Can I provide a little bit of input? Um, so along these lines, just some things for you to to think about as you're as you're deciding this. Um, one is that the town can control the time, place, and manner in which a sign, including a banner, is placed. We cannot control the content. Um, and so if you say, well, only this organization can only have five per year, there's nothing to say that that organization could not partner with a an aligned organization to have banner content that serves the first organization's needs, right? Because we can't say, "Oh, if this is a Zarts banner, it can only advertise a ZARTS event." We can't control the content. And so Zarts could then go to the visitors bureau and say, "Hey, we're out of our banners for the year. You haven't used all of yours. Will you let us use some of your banners?" So there there's always loopholes, right, around that. Um and and the along with that is for the same reason we c we couldn't say, "Well, you can only advertise a event that is on the town property because we can't control the message. We can with the content. We can only control the time, place, and manner." So we we probably could not legally say you can only advertise events that are on town property because that's controlling the content.

Okay. Um so and and then and then lastly, you absolutely can um say yes to one group and no to another group as long as it's not arbitrary or capriccious. Right. As as a as the owner of the property, you can control the speech that's on your property as long as it's not arbitrary or capriccious. you you couldn't say we're only going to allow messages that promote this single single perspective or point of view, right? But you you as the as the owner of the property can control what messages are on your property. So that is to say you you can say yes to one group and no to another group. So just food for thought.

So who makes the decision? Do they come to your department? Yeah. So you would have you would as a town we would want to have a policy about how that works out. You know we so similarly we have you somebody mentioned the street light banners earlier right we we have something very very similar with our street light banner policy that says here's the kinds of of organiza or the kinds of messaging that we're going to allow on the street light banners and here's how we're going to prioritize applications and if one application comes in that conflicts with another here's how we're going to say yes to one and no to another. So, we have all that in a policy outlined pretty clearly. We would just want to do the same with these types of banners.

We do have I'm looking back and we do have item number four says no more than one banner per property. So, right. But you were considering changing that. So, but my I'm I'm I'm this is all just food for thought if you're considering different policies on on maybe some of the legal guard rails in which you can operate.

So, I think we're almost there. Do we want to wrap up this? So, the the outstanding question, I think, is how many signs per property in the public use zone? Do we want to allow more than one? I think that's what we're down to. We could say only one and whoever gets theirs up first wins and the other one has to wait the 14 days or however long the first one's up if we're worried about too many signs on anyone property. Did you say I'm good with three three banners? Yeah, I think one's just too

Is the property a parcel or is a property a campus? Um, so we could clarify that too. If you want to be specific to parcel, we can say parcel and that way it's it's clear. Um, and sorry, just more food for thought. Um, Rick Rick notes that you all all of your hypotheticals so far have been concerning the town's public use property, but there is public use property at both the school and the fire department, which the town does not control as well that you might want to be aware of. If we start with one

parcel or per prop parcel I'm I'm thinking the school is one parcel and one banner would be enough right visually one banner would be enough. When we're thinking about this campus, I could see an issue where you've got something in the community center and something at the ball field. I don't know how the parcels actually break out here. It's two. Um, so to me that would be like okay because you could have a banner here and a banner back there. So the banner back there wouldn't show. That's true. About something

from the Yeah, from the street I guess. But um I don't know. I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution, but maybe um adopting a policy in how they do the street, you know, when when when we say yes and how we say yes and how we say no and would be smart to add into addition.

And we can always start with one number and change it if it's a problem. So we could start with two or three and always reduce to one or we could start with one and increase. Good. Should we start with one so we are on the side of one per parcel so that we are on the side for the public use. Yeah. For the public so that we are on the side of not giving getting too many banners and then see how much demand we have for more than one at a time. Three and you approve three. and six months later you go this is no good but somebody has it approved nine months out yeah so we

well I mean I guess for me it's like you know do you pass the redface test is that you know you're going to tell someone else no you cannot have a banner because we only allow one at a time at a time and it's like why not put ourselves in the position of having to say no let's I'd rather say Yes, you can have three banners.

And you know the other thing about banners is they're just so they are what they are, right? You're not going to have a banner made for every event you do. You're going to have a banner. It probably is not going to be custom that says the exact date and time. It just is not the nature of a banner. It's very static message. So maybe in that sense we aren't going to have just a ton of different kinds of banners coming. It will it will probably be just a few at a time. So let's try three. Can we all live with three

for the public use zone? Yes. Can you wrap your head around that? So, Kendall, let's say three. So, do you want a motion that we're tableabling this? Yeah. Okay. We probably need a motion. Yeah. Um I move to table the banner permit. um to allow staff to make the changes that we discussed regarding number of banners and length of time that they can be displayed. Second. A second motion by Kylo, second by Randy. And I Randy. Barbara. I Kyla I.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is ordinance 2026-03, which was formerly 2025-9, amending chapter 10-18 of the town code by adding a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties adjacent to residential uses. And this is Tom Danzy.

Thank you, mayor. Um, as you mentioned, this is an ordinance that you heard previously. Um, and it has it introduces the concept of landscape buffer yards for commercial properties. Um, we talked about this in in the last meeting, so I won't go into the details, but just as a as a refresher, what this ordinance does is, um, add a new requirement when a commercial property is developed um, a commercial property that is adjacent to a residential property is developed with a commercial use, that shared boundary between the commercial property and the residential property must have um, a landscape buffer yard. And the purpose of that landscape offer yard is to provide more mitigation of the potential impacts or or nuisances that could be created by the news the commercial use on the residential property. Um in the last meeting the the council was generally supportive of this ordinance. However, there was um some um uh concern over how we how we defined commercial use and how we talked about transient lodging. Um, and so the direction from the council was to clarify that in the ordinance. And so the version of the ordinance that's before you tonight is the same as what was what we discussed last um in the last meeting with the exception of some changes to the introductory paragraph um under uh 10186.5 and then the general landscape buffer yard requirements in paragraph A. specifically um numbers two, three and four. And the intent of these changes again is to clarify that transient lodging is considered a commercial use and commercial properties developed with transient lodging must um be developed with a landscape buffer yard. and also to clarify that properties in the central

or village commercial zones that are developed with a residential use do not need to include a landscape buffer yard. So those are the only changes that have been made since the last meeting. Um and as as a council, you have already held your requisite public hearing on this ordinance. So, tonight you're welcome to um discuss and deliberate upon this ordinance and then make a a motion either to adopt or modify or not adopt this ordinance. Any questions?

Change.

Yeah, I'm I'm comfortable with the changes made. I think it's much better much better than it it's just there's no doubt now um in the way that it's worded. Okay, I'll make a motion if we're ready. I move to approve ordinance 2026-03 amending chapter 1018 of the town code by adding a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties adjacent to residential uses as discussed in the February 11th town council meeting. This motion is based on the following findings. The general plan land use and town appearance general goal um states uh to protect residential uses as well as general planned land use and town appearance sub goal F1 develop enhanced screening and buffering standards for new commercial development adjacent to residential uses. I'll second it.

Motion by Kyla and second by Randy and I. Randy, Barbara, Jack, I Kyla I. Okay, motion passes. Next item on the agenda is ordinance 2026-04 changes to section 6-1-5 of the town code regarding motor vehicle idling restrictions reducing the number of warnings required before a violation fine can be imposed. This is also Tom Dancy.

Thank you. Um, so the the town has the dual goals of protecting air quality and reducing noise nuisances and those are our general plan goals as outlined in the staff report. In order to achieve those goals, the town um in 2013 adopted an an ordinance that prohibits motor vehicle idling for more than five minutes with some limited exceptions. the um state of Utah authorized authorizes local governments to um have such an an ordinance a a anti- idling ordinance or a motor vehicle idling pro prohibition ordinance. However, the state is clear that such an ordinance needs to be primarily educational. Um and to that end, the state um requires that there are warning citations given to a violator before a fine can be imposed. As the state's law was originally drafted, that required u three warning citations to be issued. Several years ago, the state changed the law such that now only one warning citation is required before a fine can be imposed for a violation of an idling ordinance. The town's ordinance still reflects the old state law requiring three warning citations. Um so the proposal is to reduce that to one warning citation to be as allowed by the state law. Um, we heard some comments about this earlier in in the meeting about um the impacts that this could have resulting in in potentially more effective enforcement of the idling ordinance. Um, we still do need to provide one warning prior to issuing a fine. Um, but this will make it much easier to get to that fine or to that enforcement um versus the current ordinance which requires us

to give three separate warnings. Any questions? Yeah. How how long do they have after the warning to correct the violation?

Great, great question. So, there is the neither the state law nor the town's ordinance have a have a a time period. So, um it is a very easy thing to comply with the anti- idling ordinance. All you need to do is turn off your engine, right? So, um, pursuant to to general due process, um, rights of people, we we have to give them some ability to comply. So, you know, we couldn't say, "Here's your warning. Oh, 30 seconds later, your your vehicle is still running and here's your citation." But certainly, we could say, "Here's your warning. The the idling period is five minutes." Um, you can idle a vehicle for five minutes, you know, and again, the the the intent of this ordinance is to be primarily educational to inform people about why this is is important. Um, you can say, "Hey, you got to turn that off. I'm going to come back in five minutes. If it's not, uh, if it's if you haven't done it, I'm going to give you a citation." That would be perfectly legitimate.

So, how do you document the warning, Tom? Has to be um the the state um says you have to have a warning citation. So that would require some kind of uh uh piece of paper piece of paper something something that you can give to the person that says here's your warning. So it's a bus company and one time it's one driver and the next time it's another driver. Is that the same or is that different?

It's the same. So, our ordinance is is one of the things that we adopted in our ordinance is to clarify that when it says we need to issue one a person needs to receive a requisite amount of of citations. We define a person as either an individual or a company that operates a fleet of vehicles like a tour bus company. So, if um I don't know the names of the the bus the bus if if the bus comes and and they they have somebody idling and we say, "Hey, you you've got to um comply with this ordinance and and we give them a warning." That warning per our ordinance is um is is the warning for that entire company.

Converse would also be true. I don't have to only issue one warning, right? I could give two. That's correct. Yeah. It's two different bus drivers and you but it's but it would be the discretion of the officer to decide. That's correct. 100%. And and the ordinance is is even drafted that way. It says a person must be issued at least one warning site. So there would be an electronic way for officer B to find out what officer A did a week ago in terms of a warning. Um, yeah, we'd have to work out the coordination of that with the with the Yeah, I'm I'm I'm not sure how that would would work out, but I'm sure we could find a way to make sure that that communication happens.

So, when I looked at the state ordinance after my conversation with Cliff, it did have some exclusions. Um, if the temperatures below a certain point and above a certain point and there is a person in the bus, they can idle the bus. Yeah. So that that's in our counters the whole idea, right?

Well, I don't I don't know in the state law, but it's certainly in our ordinance. We say if it's below 32 degrees or um over 100 degrees and and the and the vehicle is occupied, then yeah, they they can idle. So yes, at noon on July 17th, a bus probably could idle if there are passengers in it. I heard you say that the the warning is a discretionary issuance, right? I mean, if if I issue a warning and the next time this person does it, he gets a citation. Correct. Yeah. That issuing a citation is always discretionary.

Yeah. We just have to issue a warning before we get to that point. It just seems like, you know, we've created the loophole. You know, it's and I know this is a huge issue up in the park as well. drivers sitting in the tour buses and letting them idle while everyone's out on a trail. And um I I think as long as you have that allowance, it just seems like that's what they're going to use.

Yeah. And that's when when the town initially adopted this ordinance. Um that was a discussion about is is there a need for you know just for safety or to to include such a a a requirement and at that time the town said yeah we we want to be able to allow people for safety reasons to to condition their vehicles in extreme temperatures. I just want to make sure that we don't remove the officer's discretion based on the circumstance.

Correct. And in fact, again, I think that's inherent in the in both the state law and our ordinance in that this is primarily educational. That's that that's an underlying tenant of the state law that says this these types of ordinances have to be primarily educational. So I think inherent in that is that an officer always has discretion. Is this aimed at mainly tour buses? Is this an issue like delivery trucks.

Um so we the I I I think the the issues that we have had are mainly tour buses. Um but it it could be a delivery truck if the delivery driver is just you know hanging out there or whatever. So the number three where we say below 32 or above 100 degrees overnight it is really unlikely that it would be over 100 degrees here. So that's almost a non-issue. Um below 32 I mean and here's the other little loophole here. When the vehicle is occupied by passengers, is is the driver passengers plural because Yeah, that's all sort of jiggly. It is. Yeah. And and you could be more specific there if you wanted. If you if you said a driver and a passenger or a driver or multiple people, you could you could definitely clarify that. Again, I think the intent of this ordinance is to be educational in nature and um I I also think it's clear when there are blatant violations of the ordinance um that it's it's solid enough to issue both warnings and citations

and the warning and the citations are are the police department, not not a code enforcement officer, right? So

So we uh we it could be either. Okay. um any provision of our code can be enforced either criminally or civily and so either um either route could could go. Um however again per state law the fine structure for a violation has to be the same as a parking violation fine. So you know a parking violation isund maximum we charge for a parking violation is $125. That's the maximum we could charge for an idling violation. So, could a parking uh one of our parking enforcement people could could issue this citation?

Don't I don't know. Garren said no. Yeah. So, the the the code specifically authorizes the code enforcement officer, the the police department to to enforce the code. Obviously, the police would be enforcing criminally, the code enforcement officer would be enforcing civily, but we can go down either one of those two options or either one of those two routes.

And we we already don't allow overnight occupancy in a vehicle, right? We went over that last month. Um so in theory drivers including drivers they should not be in like sleeping in their bus all night long right that is correct says that uh people's people people like when a band is here like a performer often the crew is sleeping in the bus. So is that illegal? Yeah, our our code says you cannot occupy a vehicle overnight in a private parking lot.

Okay. Well, I think it's a no-brainer to change this to one morning citation because it's always it's all discretionary anyway and that matches the state. It gives us a little more flexibility to enforce this. It's kind of feels like there's nothing else we should change right now given that we have the kind of flexibility we have and that it's illegal to spend the night in the bus anyway because we have that to enforce. Does anyone disagree? Okay, we have a motion.

I do. Uh, the town council has reviewed and approves ordinance 2026-04, an ordinance of the Springdale uh, town code, revising the town's motor vehicle idling regulations from requiring three warning citations to now requiring only one warning citation consistent with Utah state law by reducing the number of warning citations required before imposing a fine and directs the mayor's sign. Second motion by Pat, second by Kyla. Pat I, Randy I. Barbara, Jack, I Hila I.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is ordinance 2026-05, review and possible approval of revisions to town code section 15-2-13B allowing dogs to be off leash at the new fence dog area near the playground. And the staff contact is Ryan Gooler. And Rick, was there

Rick snuck in something about fireworks. I just thought it was you just wanted to remind us how much we right and dogs and dogs dogs love fireworks dogs love fireworks

yeah so this is pretty straightforward recently we completed the fence dog area that was funded by wrap tax um it's fully fenced it's signed got doggy way and picnic table. And now, uh, town code is very specific on where it does and does not allow dogs to be off leash. And so, we're just requesting that council revise the ordinance to allow dogs to be off leash in this new area. Are people using it? I've seen I've seen some people using it. Looks good. We need to discuss this or seems pretty straightforward.

Makes a lot of sense. Yeah, we need to allow dogs off leash at the new off leash dog area. I move to approve ordinance um 2026-05 amending section 5.2-3 2 -3 or 5-2-13 of the Springdale Town Code adding a fence in off leash area in the town park as an off leash area for dogs and remove the section fourth recital uh in reference to fireworks and direct the mayor to sign. Second by Jack, second by Kyla. I

Randy Barbara I Jack I Kyla I Next item request to modify a non-complying building located at 145 Zion Park Boulevard by adding a 108 square foot office. The applicant is Nate Wells and I'm showing the staff contact is Nile but I think he's left. So Tom, do you want to take this one? Nyall has left the building. We're so glad to have Nile back in the building. Yes,

we are indeed. Um yeah, so this is a um as you mentioned, mayor, this is a proposal to modify a non-compliant building in the village commercial zone. Um the the town code allows non-compliant buildings to be modified, but only if such modification does not increase the degree of the non-compliance of the building. Um so in this specific case, the building um in in question is non-compliant due to size. Um the request is to add a small office about 108 square feet. The area where the office is proposed to be added is un entirely under a roof but not within existing walls. Under the town's current definition of building size, this would expand the size of the building, albeit slightly, by 108 square feet, but it would be an increase in building size and thus would um would be an expansion of the non non non-compliant nature of the building. However, um in when the the the in 2010, the town council reviewed a similar request at this building to add an 800 square foot conference room which similarly was under a roof enclosure but not within existing walls. Um the the ordinance in place at that time was the same as it is now. So that request under the ordinance technically would have increased building size. The uh unique nature of this property is that the large building size was allowed in the mid90s through a conditional use permit. Um that's really not the appropriate tool to use for such an authorization,

but that's what the town did and and so that's that's what that's what we're stuck with. conditional use permits run with the land, meaning that the the um authorizations that they grant or or the the things that that that they allow um are binding on the on the land in perpetuity. So the council's findings in 2010 was that because of this uh this unique nature of the property non-compliant due to a conditional use permit meant that they could apply the uh ordinance in effect at the time the conditional use permit was was issued. That ordinance said that building size was measured by everything under roof, not by things enclosed by walls. Um, and so under that definition, using that definition, that 800 foot conference room did not increase building size because it was in placed in an area already covered by a roof. What the applicant is is requesting to do now is very similar to enclose an area that's already enclosed, excuse me, already covered by a roof but not enclosed by walls, 108 square feet, which technically under our current ordinance would expand the building size um and not be allowed. The applicant's request is that you um make the same findings that the council in 2010 found um and rely on the old conditional use permit to say, well, no, this actually is consistent with what was allowed under the conditional use permit and therefore it is compliant. So, that is the that's the determination that the council needs to make tonight. Does this 108 foot addition to the building increase the non-compliance of the building? If so, then you should deny

it. If not, if you determine that no, based on the same determin same findings that the 2000 2010 council made, it does not increase the non-compliance, then you could approve it. Tom, looking at this diagram we show here, uh, this blue space, this non this space you're talking about right here already has three walls, correct, to it. And they would they would just have to add one wall to it to close it in.

That's correct. This this area on the on the end here was the was the conference room and this is filling in that space. And you said it even has a roof. It does have a roof. The roof. I went down and looked at it today. The roof the roof is a shed roof. Uh if you look at the end there and go kind of a horizontal line, that's the crown of the roof. The roof comes down to that line right close to the trail head. So it's under that roof. It's I can show you a picture of it that I took today just to kind of refresh my memory, but I'd like to see it

if you got it. Um, so it is just adding a front to that. It's just adding the front to that. Tom, I just a few questions about what you're talking. I just want to make sure I understand this. The section 10218 allows the alterations to non-compliant buildings when the alteration will not result in expansion. Is that correct? Correct. All areas must be enclosed by walls. So this would have to have the fourth wall to to to comply. Is that right? Says the gross area must include all areas enclosed by wall. Our our current definition of gross area. Correct.

And this building is about 9,000 square feet exceeds the 8,000 already. That's correct. That that's in kind of two separate wings. Each this trail head gifts and gear wing is about 4,500 square feet. And then this lobby guest services wing is about 4,500 square feet. Because they're connected by a covered breezeway, they're for our zoning purposes considered one building. So it's about 9,000 square feet. Randy explain is that it's a it's an open buted space, but under the definition, it's not counted in the gross area enclosed. That's correct. By walls. That's correct.

1990, the conditional use permit legally a There we go. legally authorized a larger complex. Um, but in 2010, unless I misread this, that the county council made a policy choice to to a discretionary interpretation basically that they could enclose the area that was not that ordinarily would not be allowed by code. Right. That is correct. So, is that new paneling that has now enclosed it? Yeah.

No, the these were there there's a there's also an interior remodel going on in the trail head area and I and I I understand that these are are sheeting that's been put up on on the existing windows while that interior remodel is going. So, what would prevent them from just building a wall there right now? That's that's the issue, right? That's the issue. If that's what they want to do and and and when they came to us and said, "Hey, we want to do this. It'll be nice and easy." We said, "Yes, it would be nice and easy." But no, they I mean, it's basically just that wall. It's under the same roof. It's under the same footprint.

The expansion is dimminimous, but the code technically doesn't allow it. Right. Under the current definition of gross area, you are correct. We wanted to change the code that said dimminimous expansions like this would be okay. That that might be a better way to go. Well, yeah, but then it's breezeways, right? And they could they could cover a breezeway and make it another room. And you know, this this is this is the scenario when I look at this one, I'm going, this really is a no-brainer because you've already got the footprint there and all you're doing is putting a wall right there. It certainly doesn't make the building look more massive or add any

change. Yeah, it doesn't. But I keep going back to the idea of um it's still increasing it even though it's very minimal. 108 square feet, it's really nothing. The roof's there. It seems so simple. Just let them build the wall. But where do we stop? Right. Next time it's 500 square feet. Well, I mean, what is 500 square feet if you're thinking about 900? Well, we already let them do 800 square feet on this or the a 2010.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I just feel like this is kind of an inch at a time eroding the idea.

It is. I I agree. And uh and I think that's where council really needs to do their homework. Like my homework was I went down and looked at it and took a picture of it because I I wanted to really understand it. And man, you got the wall there and there's just this opening in the wall that maybe used to be an entrance to another shop or something and all they're they're doing is closing in. But if somebody's up on the highway looking down at this building, we're not increasing the footprint of that building. It doesn't look It's not going to be any bigger. And and I think that's where a council really should

should look at things. And I understand, Kylie, the creep thing and and I agree with you in most cases. In this case, I I guess I just don't agree. I think it's a uh we really a council's job is to look at all these things and and really do their due diligence and and my mind looking at this is it's really no brainer.

I think it's a no-brainer just looking at it. But also I think what when I look at what the original what the 2010 council said they they said it made sense to review the application under the original governing ordinance. And in my mind that's what makes this an exception is that there was essentially a a settlement agreement and a development agreement. It was a different time with different rules. And do we do we rule under that or do we rule based on right now? And I think that's the gist of this, right?

Well, I guess I get nervous kind of using that logic. You know, here's what they did in 2010. So, you know, they've set a precedent and, you know, we've got to continue for it. I mean, I do struggle a little bit. In a 9,000 square foot building, you can't find, you know, 100 square feet. And I guess that's a question for you, Nate, if if we can ask. I mean, you can't find this elsewhere in that building. Um, yeah, Nate Wells, general manager of Zan Canyon Village. Um, it's not that we can't find the square footage, it's that it works with the efficiency of the space to have the office outside in that area rather than to encroach on floor space or storage space. that surprisingly, as hard as it is to believe a building that size, finding adequate storage is challenging at times. Um, it is also something that we felt in proposing, and I promise this isn't a test to see where we're going with the addition of 100 square feet to a 9,000 square foot structure, but it is it is something that we feel like would be an improvement on the appearance of the building. And we're also limited in any future expansion of of being able to do that something similar to this because as the conditional use permit reads, we're truly limited to the space under an existing roof line. Um but um I appreciate the questions and uh but ultimately I would say the space

adding this office space would increase the efficiency of this business trail head gifts and gear and in our opinion would add to the appearance of the building. I think that it would be a cleaner look. this part of the building. Often each day we're cleaning out that space because it's kind of in this corner, this nook that brings the canyon winds and sends leaves into there and it it's kind of a catchall. But we just feel that overall this 108 square foot space with the addition of the wall and an exterior door would be an improvement on the property. I'm happy to answer any other questions as well.

I mean, I think all that makes sense. You know, this is our dilemma. All of that makes sense. It just doesn't comply with our ordinance. Yeah.

Yeah. I I understand. And we we were looking at this idea as something um from our own experience with the addition of the 2010 um approval that it that it would be and should be something that we could do uh and that it would ultimately be an improvement on the on the building. So, thank you so much Well, I I I agree with Kyle's line of thinking because I I I subsume is my own. This is how the code reads and there is there is code creeping. I I don't doubt that at some point the code couldn't be adjusted for dimminimous expansions like that. And if that happens, then I would say we'd look at this again. I think that if something like this comes along once a year, once every six months, and it's council discretion to decide what we do, like Colin mentioned in a previous discussion, we're calling balls and strikes on who gets it and who doesn't. And and I agree with Randy about 99%. Enclosing that makes perfect sense, but it doesn't follow the code.

Yeah, I agree. Um yeah I mean what what would it take to to adjust the code to allow something like this though?

So um interesting that you ask the the uh planning commission right now is looking at an ordinance change very much along these lines. um recognizing that there are a number of non-compliant buildings in the commercial zones and um some of these non-compliant buildings actually add to the town's character and and sense of place. rather than um discourage investment in those properties, which is kind of what our non-complian buildings ordinance does, is there a way that we can encourage these properties to to have some investment put into them? So, that's an issue that the commission's looking at right now. And one of the things they're considering is very much kind of along the the lines of of what's being discussed here is that within the the existing footprint of a building, yeah, you can make changes and you can do you can do modifications and and things. If you expand the footprint, then that would not be allowed and that would trigger full compliance on the property, but uh changes within the existing footprint could be a different story. So that's what the commission is working on right now. So, planning commission uh recommendation along those lines would accommodate something like this. Could accommodate something like this.

It could, you know, that that recommendation isn't isn't finalized yet. And and there's one of the one of the um complimentary pieces to that is as a single structure is allowed to remain out of compliance. There's uh other aspects of the property that are brought into compliance. So landscape or parking or things that may be out of compliance would need to be brought into compliance. So it's that that's what the commission is working on right now. By approving this, we're essentially maybe maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me like you're we're essentially approving a variance, which we don't have the authority to do. That's a hearing officer.

Correct. You you couldn't you could not phrase this as a variance. Again, what what the council is tasked with tonight is saying does our current is is this allowed under our code and the uh Pat is exactly right. The current code is very clear. Gross area is all is measured by everything enclosed by walls which this is not and so adding to this would increase the gross area. In 2010, the council said, "Yes, we understand that, and we also recognize that there was a conditional use permit issued for this property, and the allowances with that conditional use permit run with the land." And the council felt that the um expansion of that conference room was within the spirit of what was allowed under the conditional use permit. If you wanted to allow this, you should not do it as we're granting a variance and we know this is against the code, but we're doing it anyways. That would be illegal. If you if you wanted to consider the same line of thinking that the council did in 2010, you could, but that would be how you would phrase it.

It really does open us up to have to approve other

Yeah. And I just, you know, I understand and agree with Pad and Kyla in terms of creep. Um, and I'm glad that the planning commission is working on something to cover this on on this particular building and site. We we do have some precedent by what the U 2010 town council did. And you know, when you look at this, I mean, I think we can all see that this would be probably improvement on this property is just allowing to put one wall in there. Um, and anybody driving by is not going to see anything any different. So, I guess I'm leaning to um in this instance following the guidelines set out by the town council in 2010 allowing this to happen here. Uh, but I'm I'm happy to see that the planning commission is working on this so we don't have to to address this anyway. So, we're not we're not setting a president. We're not going to have a bunch of people come in here because we're working on something that's going to clarify this for us in the future. I I think the best precedence we can set is staying true to our our current ordinances and not only for us for for future council members who are sitting here and not have to rely on decisions that were made 16 years ago that I probably wouldn't have agreed with their logic back then. And I you know it's unfortunate. I mean this is what makes

our job tough. Yes, that is a very simple modification that could make it happen tomorrow. However, we are not being true to the ordinance as it's currently written. And what we're trying to find, I guess loophole is our favorite word tonight. We're uh we're we're trying to find a way to make this happen. But I think, you know, it's it's good to hear that um this ordinance is being looked at that may allow this in the future. But I think for me, I I need to stay true to the ordinance.

Yeah. You know, I I'm glad that planning commission is working on these non-conforming buildings, but I I don't I don't think I can support this either. I'd like to. I see that it's on the it's it's a no-brainer and yet it's not it's just so simple. It's like just the wall. I mean, it's practically built already, but we have the ordinance. And I have a really hard time kind of painting us into a corner where then we're going to start defending, well, we said yes because you couldn't see it, and we said yes because it was so minimal, and we said yes because of a conditional use permit, which was not actually the right thing to say yes to in the very beginning. Um, I I want to be able to say yes, but I feel like we I have to say no.

You talked about the red face test and and I don't know how we we like Nate, we like the the property, we all of that, but it doesn't meet our ordinance. Well, and I guess for me, this is a great example of ground truthing our ordinance, you know, where, you know, I I do struggle with this one because it's under a covered area. It's not enlarging the footprint. You know, it would be really easy for me to say, "Yeah, let's do this." But we are confined by how the ordinance is written. And I guess that's where I'm at. I have a motion.

I have one. Uh, the town council has reviewed, and I'm going to need some help with this, Tom. So, I'm going to need some help. The town council has reviewed the Cable Mountain Lodge building permit application for 108 square feet office addition to an existing building located at 147 Zion Park Boulevard. Is that the correct address by the way? 145 I think.

145 Zion Park Boulevard, Springdale, Utah. According to the application, the office will be created by enclosing an open air space open air area which is currently beneath the roof of the building. The town council considered the following facts drawn from the application and from current town code. Section 10218 allows expansion allows alterations to non-complying building when the alteration will not result in an expansion of any existing nonconformities or creation of new nonconformities. The proposed office is currently in is an open but covered space. Under today's definition, it is not counted in the gross area until it is fully enclosed by walls. Enclosing this space adds 108 square feet to the gross area of the building that already exceeds the maximum allowed size, which is an increase in the degree of compliance, non-compliance. And section 10218 does not authorize any increase in nonconformity. It bars expansions regardless of scale. So even a very minor expansion in the area is not permitted. Based upon the sum total this information, the town council denies the application for the 108 foot office addition, determining that the enclosed addition increases the building's gross area and concludes that this increases an existing non-conformity in building size as described in the application at hand. while making clear that this denial is required by the present text of sections 1011B5 and 10218, not by any judgment on the merits of the use itself.

Is there a second? I'll second. Motion by Pat, second by Jack. Pat I. That's a tough one. I I do appreciate our code and um I'm glad we're working on it. So, because we are working on it, I will say hi to this Barbara. I

Kyla I we're skipping number two and three. So, next item is consideration and possible approval of an amendment to the Springdale parking application pilot program agreement between the town of Springdale and Utah Tech University. And the staff contact is Garen Breck.

Thank you. Um, as you know, we have been working on this um approval. I think we started late October, brought it to you in December. There were some questions by the council. um worked with Greg to get those corrected. I think Pat saw some of reiteration of that and we worked with uh Utah Tech and their council last couple of months back and forth trying to nail this down. So here we are back with some amendment agreements and thank you Pat forum some of those clarifications.

Pat, are you comfortable with this document now? You were the one that looked at it with the fine tooth comb last time. talking. Sorry, I'm I wondered if you're comfortable with the changes made in the doc. I am. Yeah, I I think that um Mr. Hartman did a really good job. It put some additions in there that I'm considered. I thought he did a very good job. And again, thank you for those. Sure. Yes, that feedback.

So, I do have a question. Um, and this has to do with uh under technology and data security. Um there's really nothing in here that talks about um sharing nonsensitive data. And I'm just and this is really more a question and this is kind of going back to my park days um in that parking meter data for transportation studies is actually really important. And so, you know, if UD do came to the town or or whoever is doing a transportation study and asked if we could share parking meter data, um, is there anything that allows us to do it if it's nonsensitive? I think we own the only thing that they collect and handshake is the license plate because even the transaction the credit card transaction and all that's handshaked with um or gateway through Shopify or whatever they're using and then it's handshaked with AS which is our citation software. Other than that we own the rest of the data.

Um yeah because it in here it does say that it's owned by Springdale. Um so I just asked that I would you know I um and I would kind of hope that there would be a willingness to share that information um if there's a request because it is important for transportation studies. So we would have that data they they only keep what they have. In fact I think uh even their back office they do for us is only kept for a day. So they wouldn't okay. So we would um so we could make the decision that share what it was obviously. Okay. When was it not a pilot anymore?

As you guys say it's not a pilot anymore. Really? That's all you're waiting for is like that uh contract expired the end of December. Okay. So we're just kind of in a in a limbo. the when we spoke to Greg about, hey, do we need to like pull our signs or whatever, they're really comfortable with just kind of keeping it until we got to here because we're not paying them monthly for a service. It's it's transactionbased. So, right now, we're just kind of in a limbo connection. Every time I ask, are you happy? Yeah, they're actually we're working with uh Bitten Spur Lot to get that one online. And right now, we're in the works of pulling them on onto our our system, adding their parking in adding the bittance for parking in

to the QR to the QR. Cool. Okay. My goal is to start once we get this contract kind of up and running and and it's a real real contract is we'll start pulling some more machines. We pulled 15, I think, or 12 in key areas where they're just not getting good um connectivity with um cell service and whatnot. And it saves us money and improves the process, right? So, I've talked about this before. There is a generation that loves to push the buttons on the machine rather than a QR. So, the machines aren't necessarily going away unfortunately for a while, but um the QR is actually gaining momentum every year. We see a lot more.

Speak for yourself. I'll be dead soon. Appreciate your patience with kind of how we we got here, but thank you. Any other questions before we have a motion? Anyone have a motion? I can do it. Town council's reviewed and approves the parking services agreement made on February 11th, 2026 by between the town of Springdale and Utah Tech University and directs the mayor to sign. I'll second motion by Pat, second by Kyla. Barbara I Jack I Kyla I

Next item on the agenda is review and possible approval of updates to the park rental policy and this is Ryan again.

Yeah, thank you. So um about a year ago we revised the park policy and we felt the need that we need to add a provision for parking. Uh, so we we included just a little uh description of parking spots that would be allotted based on um places that were being rented, specifically the the town field and the gazebo area, town park. Um, we feel that this does two things. Number one, um, it provides people who rent our facilities some guaranteed parking. It also prevents maybe larger events from coming in and taking over the limited parking that we do have in the area. Um, so this was uh something that we kind of unofficially have been using for the past few years, but we figured it'd be good to get it down in policy. Um, this is going to help us as we u work with renters and applicants. It's also going to help us administratively as we work with uh parking enforcement and with the community development department as they do large outdoor event permits for these events. So um yeah, any questions? So basically you're you're going to show them this map if they're renting.

Yes, this map will be included in the they're going to say this is where you can park. Correct. And there is there is as you see there there is some flexibility um that uh we may be able to make some exceptions based on uh need at the discretion of the parks and recreation director. So like somebody handicap parking, you could use the handicap parking we have out here. Yeah. or if there's a a public event on a weekend when we don't need to have staff parking, we may make an exception in that in that situation. Is somebody going to mark it off so it doesn't get used by other people or is it just sort of at their own discretion? Yeah, that's not not our Okay. Okay.

One provision um that talks about that you you can't reserve two the field and the gazebo at the same time. That's just an equity thing to make sure that I don't dominate everything. Yeah, there have been issues in the past years ago where we've had competing

rentals and noise complaints and things like that. So, we just said one at a time. So, questions for Ryan got a motion. We got some shy motion makers tonight.

Town council has reviewed and approves the where am I at? The addition to section I to the town park use and event policy designating specific parking areas available for rental of the town field at the rear of the canyon community center and for rentals of the gazebo area adjacent to the playground and authorizes the mayor to sign. Does that does that cover it? I'll second that. Got a motion by Pat and a second by Kyla. Randy Barbre. Isa I your motion was much better than mine by the way Pat. So

partnership agreement with Preservation Utah developing and hosting a digital historic tour through the Preservation Utah tours app. And this is Kindle. Yes, thank you.

Sorry I'm a little uh microphone shy. Doesn't always work for me. Anyways, um okay. So, the Preservation Utah Tours app is a self-guided app that shares the stories of Utah's historic places with a wide audience. The Preservation Utah Tour app help residents and visitors explore Utah's historic architect, cultural sites, and local stories through walking and driving tours. This agreement here is with Preservation Utah, and it's to develop and publish a historic tour through the Preservation Utah tours mobile app. the way the app works. And let me scroll down here. having them all night.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. So, here is kind of how the app is laid out. And the town would choose a tour theme and format, which would be walking or driving. Provide stories, images, and details for each stop. Potential properties for the tour here in Springdale could include the tithing grainy grainery, irrigation ditch, town jail, and the pioneer cemetery. Though staff does have concerns about including the pioneer cemetery um due to the delicate nature of the headstones and just the cemetery overall. But Preservation Utah will develop and launch and host the Springdale tour on their app. They would produce the audio, the narration for the town's approved content, and like I said, host and maintain. And it would be for a minimum of two years with the possibility of extension. How this works is the homepage of the app, um, users get to choose between a walking or driving tour. And I failed to mention, you can actually access any of these tours wherever you are. So, we can access, uh, beavers tours or something in Salt Lake City. So, it's it's pretty exciting to be able to do that from anywhere. But you would select which tour you're going to do and there's a comprehensive list provided in certain towns, although ours would would be limited to the approved properties. The brief overview of the tour is generated here and the beginning of the property is shown. There's information on the property which can include hours of operation, admission details, contact information, the address, research credit, photography credit, audio credit, and acknowledgement of support. Um, so it kind of just walks through. Sorry I keep telling you I'm going to tell you how it works and then I don't. But here's the introduction here on this property and this tour. And then you select which one you're going to do. So if we do beaver, it gives you the rundown of the beaver tour here. the

app, the user needs to download it to their phone and then you can listen to the audio that's provided. This particular courthouse moves into the first room which will have pictures and further audio and so we could do something similar like that here in Springdale. The uh Preservation Utah tours app was presented to the HPC on November 13, 2025. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended to the town council that the town enter into a partnership with Preservation Utah tours. The motion was based on the following and I'm I'm not reading the entire motion in its entirety but just the following findings was the Historic Preservation Commission had wanted a walking tour for years but had been unable to bring it to fruition. The partnership with Preservation Utah tours would make it happen. The partnership would save Springdale the time, effort, and money to create the walking tour on their own. The partnership would support the general plan natural and cultural resources goals sub goal D3. The town attorneys have reviewed this the agreement and confirmed that it's an agreement, not a contract. Many of the contractual terms and provisions that are typically included in the town's contracts are not included in this agreement. And the town attorneys gave the okay with that because there is no cost to the town. No money is exchanged and participation is voluntary. So town council should review the proposed partnership with preservation Utah and if the council wishes to approve this agreement with preservation Utah authorize the mayor to sign the agreement.

This is great and especially at no cost. You know the concerns about the cemetery. I think the people using something like this are not the bad actors that are going to damage anything, but perhaps there's a sign at the cemetery that says, "Please observe from here," or something like that, just to try to keep people from going in around the grave sites. I agree. And and we are installing that commemorative wall at the Pioneer Cemetery. So, it could even just be, you know, where they stop and perhaps they don't know where the rest of the social trail goes. But I do agree that people that are seeking out the app and seeking out the tour are people that are genuinely interested and genuinely care.

I think this is great. As soon as I saw this, I shot a message to the mayor in Rockville and uh folks involved in Grafton to see uh I'm involved in the partnership there if we'd want to do something like that. And um uh you know, the one thing you might think about is linking Springdale's um app to a historic photo archive. That you know, might add a few more things of interest. But, you know, I I really the um just hats off to the Historic Preservation Commission, all the good things they've done the last couple years. I mean, I was involved in it really early on and it floundered for years. And so it's just really good um to to hear all the things that are happening with it. So I think this is

and and you and Nyall have had a lot to do with the progress made. So thank you for your work. Yes, thank you. I do want to mention in the last historic preservation commission meeting, they had mentioned the opportunity in the future to potentially link the Springdale uh tour with Grafton and Rockville and even the national park. um that that would be for future but they have thought about that.

Yeah. And we definitely want to talk about that. It's always been this similar to the cemetery. Grafton is largely all private land other than the schoolhouse and um so it's that how much do you advertise it? It gets a lot of use. Uh but there's no sight steward or anything like that. So that'd be a good conversation. Kendall, the contract mentions um like a point person, not a contract. Sorry. Okay. The agreement, thanks for the clarification. The agreement mentions like a a point of contact like somebody on staff. Is that you or Nyall or

Yes, that would be me. And you feel good about this? I do. And um I'm actually pretty excited about this. I think it's a phenomenal tour and I've actually taken a few tours myself on the app um in Utah. So I I feel I feel great about this. I think that the motion that the commission made is a great motion and nobody has to really agonize. So might we have a motion? Question. Okay. It could be Bobby Black.

That's okay. I I thought you were about to make a motion. Um, and I don't know whether we discuss it or Kendall, maybe you address it, but um I know the attorney said that it's not a contract, but but our responsibility clause in there at all that I read. So that's the first kind of issue I have with this. There's also nothing in it that ex that expressly identifies who owns the content. Um, is it us? Is it the preservation society? Is it us collectively? And again, I'm just throwing the question out there. Nothing in there that says that the preservation preservation won't slic it or sell the content without content. I can't imagine they would, but I think that should be in there. The thing that most concerns me is that the the allowance we give the preservation people to edit the content. Um, and I think if we give them a photograph, um, they could resize it, but I don't think they should do any editing that misrepresents the photo. Not that they would, but I think that needs to be in there. And the main thing uh there there is nothing in this document that talks about the ADA accessibility title title two. It doesn't doesn't have it in there. And the agreement I looked it up. It's it's called the web content accessibility guidelines and they're extensive. Um, for instance, if we allow this to go out there and you don't have those guidelines inherent in what you send out and somebody trips and and and breaks their skull, I mean, who's liable? Are we going to constantly check these buildings and trailers to make sure there are no rocks in the way? I mean, that's an extreme, but you know what I'm

talking about, right? Who who eats this if something goes sideways? And nothing in the agreement addresses that. And And that's all I have on this. I bring it up as a as it's something I was concerned about. If the rest of the council thinks that's not an issue, then I'm fine with it. But I think there should be something that talks about these things. I think for me it's just part of recognizing that this is not unique that there are um app-based walking tours for historic structures all over the United States, but that that do have the accessibility requirements attached to them and this doesn't.

So, I mean, I guess that would be probably an easy thing to attach to it. Yeah. And I'm if Greg's comfortable with the language, I'm comfortable with it. I that'd probably be a good thing to at least bring to Greg's attention. I agree. But are we liabil I'm confused. Liability and accessibility are not the same thing. So what what part like for accessibility you want it to be usable?

Guidelines talk about um if there are any components they need to be operable information needs to be understandable based upon a broad uh spectrum of understanding. So it would be a sight issue uh disability issue um there needs to be according to this some keyboard navigation high contrast they even talk about what kind of colors you can use I know it's extreme but it is part of these mobility apps and if we don't want to address it that's fine but I bring it up as a matter of conversation and I think that all that needs to happen is that the preservation Utah Preservation just recognizes that that will be incorporated in anything that we send them and that they put out.

I mean, I would hate as somebody who uses accessibility, so I'm coming from this as a I obviously benefit from those things. knowing full well that sometimes they are available and they work and sometimes they don't. And I love it when they're there and when they're not. You know, I But the mobility app, the Department of Justice requires it. It's not just I feel like doing it.

Yeah. I Well, it's the ADA, but I mean, we also live in a world that I know on the daily that not everybody does what they're supposed to do. However, with that said, me being somebody who directly benefits from those uh things that should be there and should be in place, I don't think that this should not go live for. So I I would hate to see this stall just just for those reasons and I feel like I guess I feel like I can say that because they directly benefit me. So, I'm not trying to discount the fact that those things are absolutely needed and they're very important and we as a municipality should be making an effort to make sure that anybody coming to us has equal opportunity. Um, but I guess I would hate to see this stall because of an unknown. We don't know what they're doing on the ADA side. Well, we're just looking at we're just looking at images from the app. Kindle, do when you go into the actual app, is there information about ADA and that kind of thing?

That's what I'm kind of looking at right now that their about doesn't. I'm going to go to maybe one of their tours because if there are federal requirements around all of that, I'm sure that they're complying with those. This is done by the state of Utah and we're just we're not seeing it. That doesn't mean it's not there. We're we're attaching to that and it might be state of Utah has to have it. Yeah. the state this is a state app. Can't imagine they wouldn't have. So that's why I think in the real app it's probably all there. This is we're just seeing images. So

and those things are happening all the time. But unless you have the key you need to to see those features, you actually that's exactly the way it's meant to be. It's universal. Meaning you don't know it's there until you need it and you're using it. You might be benefiting from the options that are there, but you don't recognize them as ADA benefits, if that makes sense.

This is through the um preservation Utah. It's the Utah Historic Society. So, they would have complied with everything. So, I felt completely comfortable with this personally. I move to approve the partnership agreement between the town of Springdale and Preservation Utah and authorize the mayor to sign. Second. Got a motion by Jack and a second by Pat. Randy. Arbre. Jack. Kyla. I Hey. Is there any council discussion?

I know. So, um, before we leave, can you get your calendars out and let's let's look at a meet a meet. Let's look at a date for a special meeting that Robin thinks will last for five minutes is okay. And Robin, when will you be ready? Those issues.

24 hours to five minutes. Wednesday. How about the following week or Friday of next week? Friday, either Thursday or Friday of next week is really good for me. Thursday, Friday morning, it's not good for me. the 20th works about the 20th at what should we say 10:00 a.m. Well, is the room available?

That's okay.

We could do it at 11 on the 20th. See, could we do it on Wednesday just before planning commission so that the room set up? Oh, you won't. Okay.

Well, I was talking about the 18th. Well, there's public officials training, but not at 4:00. I know. We've got a park meeting right after that. Okay. So, on Thursday the 19th, we were all available, right? Yes. Not not Jack. Not at all. Um, let me see. Uh, actually, we could do it in the morning. I have a dentist appointment at 11 in hurricane. So I can do it anytime around that.

9 and 10. Yeah.

It is. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's a great idea. Yeah, that's a good idea. So Don just said if if Tom's employment agreement is ready, we could look at that too while we're having a special meeting. So why don't we plan on the 20th at um are we looking at the 20th now or the 19th?

Okay. So look at let's look at the 20th. Let's say you said Ryan after what time? Let's say one. And so when you notice that um talk to Don, see if that's going to be ready. So that's February 20th. We said at one. Okay. Motion to adjurnn.

Hold on. I wanted to just bring up something really really quick. Tom, can you um just briefly tell council maybe we're not all on the same page about the lighting at the Red Cliff's Lodge. Is it or is it not out of compliance? Um, so the Red Cliff's Lodge is governed by a 2015 development that was between Stu Ferber and the town wherein the the town gave some concessions in exchange for Stu not building a hotel up on the old um, Robert Rston property. Part of that says that the Red Cliffs Lodge is governed by the 2015 ordinance. In 2015, the town's lighting ordinance did not have things like the um lumen allowance talks about the the total number of lumens on a property or the light color temperature. So the property, the Redfield Lodge property is in compliance with ordinance as it existed in 2015. In 2021ish, the town adopted our new lighting ordinance, which has a seven, excuse me, yeah, a seven-year amortization period, which means by 2028, regardless of what the property is, what the what the uh development agreement says um for the 2015 lighting ordinance, by 2028, that property needs to be in compliance with our current lighting ordinance. So with that background, yes, the Red Cliff Lodge property is in compliance with the outdoor lighting ordinance as it existed in 2015. It is

I have not done the lumen counts on that property to deter to determine if it is in compliance with the lumen allowance. It likely is not. And so there would need to be some changes. There will need to be some changes based on the to on the total number of lumens on the property prior to 2028. However, they are in compliance with all of the other changes that we have made since 20. So, the low light uh color temperature changes and the shielding uh changes, the light shielding requirements. So, so the the answer is a qualified yes and um recognizing that by 2028 it will be in compliance completely with the town's current version of the

I just wanted to make sure that we all had um similar information and this has been explained several times. Anything else? If not, I entertain a motion to adjurnn. I will make a motion to second. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy and I. Barbara I. Jack. I. Kyla. I.