Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art Mural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Art Review Board rules Iceberg window image a window covering, not a mural
Summary
On July 6, 2026, the Springdale Art Review Board voted 4–1 to determine that an image placed on the Iceberg Restaurant's window is a window covering rather than a mural, citing concerns about advertising text and code limits on window signage. The board discussed possible policy changes and staff review options.
The Springdale Art Review Board voted 4–1 on July 6, 2026, to classify an image placed on the Iceberg Restaurant window at 849 Zion Park Boulevard as a window covering rather than a mural. Kathy LaFave moved the motion, which Jim Walshe seconded; the vote was Benham: Aye, LaFave: Aye, Alltucker: Nay, Walshe: Aye, Burns: Aye.
Director of Community Development Niall Connolly summarized staff's evaluation and said staff had earlier determined the installation met the mural definition because of its painted or permanently fixed imagery. Board discussion centered on three criteria: compliance with the Town color palette, whether the image functioned as advertising, and whether nighttime illumination made it objectionable. Connolly told the board staff would treat it as a mural for review unless the board decided otherwise.
Board member Kathy LaFave argued the palette should allow realistic depictions of the local landscape, saying, "if an image accurately depicting the colors of Zion National Park did not fit within the Town's approved color palette, then the palette itself should be reconsidered." LaFave also described the Iceberg installation as a tasteful, nostalgic tribute to the restaurant's history and urged consideration of public-art objectives alongside technical rules.
Board member Jim Walshe said he regarded the installation as a sign, not a mural, and recommended referral to staff for review under the Town's sign regulations. Walshe pointed to the presence of advertising text and the way the image functioned as a window covering. Connolly responded that the Town's code limits window signs to 25% of a window area and that the proposed installation covered the entire window, creating a likely mismatch with the sign code if treated as a conventional sign application.
Applicant Armin Bucad, the Iceberg business owner, said they "would not be fixing the wording and that if they had to remove the image to alter it, they would remove the image and not replace it," and noted the installation also served to keep the back room cooler. Board member Mike Alltucker urged the board not to refer the application back to the Town because that would likely prolong the process and be unfair to the applicants; he said the board should either approve with conditions or deny rather than restarting an administrative review.
The board ultimately approved LaFave's motion finding the work to be a window covering rather than a mural. Connolly told the board that if the installation were not treated as a sign staff could still review sign regulations for alternative compliance options or the board could propose a policy revision at a future meeting to address similar situations.
Vote and motion details: Motion by Kathy LaFave; second by Jim Walshe; vote tally — Yes: Lisa Benham, Kathy LaFave, Jim Walshe, Jack Burns; No: Mike Alltucker. Outcome: motion passed 4–1. The board did not adopt any immediate code amendments but left the door open for a future policy discussion.
