[0:08] Ready? Okay.

[0:10] It's 5:00 p.m. and we're at the Canyon

[0:12] Community Center for the June 17th

[0:14] meeting of the Springdale Planning

[0:16] Commission. From the town, we have Tom

[0:18] Dansie, Neil Connolly, and April Raditz.

[0:21] On the dais, we have Matt Fink, Zion

[0:25] National Park representative, Rich

[0:27] Swanson, Terry Kroschinsky, myself,

[0:30] Jennifer McCullough,

[0:32] Paul Zimmerman,

[0:33] and Kosh Bhati.

[0:35] Melissa Laborde and Tom Kenniston are

[0:38] not here tonight.

[0:40] Kosh will be voting in tonight's

[0:41] proceedings.

[0:43] Is there a motion to approve tonight's

[0:45] agenda?

[0:47] >> I move that we approve tonight's agenda.

[0:49] >> I'll second.

[0:51] >> Uh motion by Paul, second by Rich. All

[0:53] in favor?

[0:55] >> Rich, I.

[0:56] >> Terry, I.

[0:57] >> Jennifer, I.

[0:58] >> Paul, I.

[0:59] >> Kosh, I.

[1:00] >> Motion passes.

[1:02] Are there any general announcements?

[1:09] » No.

[1:09] announcements tonight. Any

[1:11] declarations

[1:13] of conflict of interest?

[1:18] Okay. For tonight's meeting,

[1:21] we have two action items.

[1:24] The first action item is an application

[1:27] for a subdivision plat amendment for

[1:30] phase two of the Watchman subdivision.

[1:33] Applicant is Shawn Honaker. Staff

[1:36] contact is Neil Connolly, and Neil will

[1:38] be presenting.

[1:40] >> Thank you.

[1:42] So, as you indicated, Mr. Shawn Honaker

[1:46] has applied to amend the plat of phase

[1:50] two of the Watchman subdivision.

[1:53] Uh the Watchman subdivision is located

[1:55] on North Fork Drive.

[1:57] And the proposed changes are as follows.

[2:02] So,

[2:05] this is the before and after. Um

[2:09] So, firstly to adjust the location of

[2:11] the lot line between lots eight and 11.

[2:15] Uh

[2:16] to adjust the building pod in lot eight

[2:19] and to add a second building pod on lot

[2:22] eight to accommodate a main house and an

[2:25] accessory building.

[2:27] And then

[2:28] also to adjust the location of the

[2:30] building pod on lot 11.

[2:34] So,

[2:35] just to give you some information or

[2:37] some explanation on what the building

[2:39] pods are. So, this subdivision includes

[2:42] building pods where the buildings are

[2:45] uh supposed to be located. Um this isn't

[2:48] the same as

[2:50] you're familiar with some subdivisions

[2:52] where there's a conservation easement

[2:54] like Anasazi Plateau or

[2:57] Clara Cup where you have a building pod

[3:00] surrounded by a conservation easement.

[3:03] This is This is not that. So,

[3:06] um

[3:07] there's no conservation easement here.

[3:10] Uh but the pods were just positioned in

[3:12] location that locations that made sense

[3:14] at the time of plotting where a house

[3:17] would go. Um

[3:19] in this case though, the property owner

[3:21] would prefer to position the buildings

[3:23] differently.

[3:24] Um

[3:25] however, they would still be subject to

[3:28] the usual land use regulations.

[3:31] Um

[3:33] during the engineering review of of this

[3:36] application, we had one review comment

[3:38] that came back a little bit late. It

[3:40] didn't make it into the packet.

[3:42] Um so, I'll I'll just explain that now.

[3:45] Um

[3:47] if the commission is minded to approve

[3:50] the amendment, I'd recommend that this

[3:54] point is is conditioned in. Um and the

[3:58] point is that the road should be shown

[4:00] as a

[4:01] private street and public utility

[4:03] easement. Uh I think at the moment it's

[4:06] just shown as a public utility easement.

[4:09] Um the applicant's been made aware of

[4:11] the this comment and has agreed to make

[4:14] this adjustment. So, it's just kind of a

[4:17] uh case of getting there by condition to

[4:20] secure that.

[4:21] Um the engineer, Jared Bates from

[4:25] Rosenberg, is here uh who'll be able to

[4:27] answer any questions as well if you have

[4:30] any.

[4:32] Thank you.

[4:36] » Well, I'll start. Um

[4:38] So, the So, the plat included in the

[4:40] package was labeled as a final plat. So,

[4:43] I assume that this is

[4:45] preliminary final together kind of thing

[4:47] that we've done in the past.

[4:49] >> So, the preliminary and final plats um

[4:53] the the

[4:54] that's usually in the process where you

[4:56] have a new subdivision. So, this is an

[4:59] existing subdivision with

[5:02] some amendments within it. So, with the

[5:04] subdivision plat amendments, you don't

[5:06] need to do the preliminary stage and

[5:09] then the final stage. You You just

[5:11] >> Just the final

[5:12] >> amendments. Yeah.

[5:13] >> Um and then you were talking about the

[5:15] pods. So,

[5:17] the pods don't have a significance

[5:20] relative to the town ordinances. Is that

[5:23] a true statement?

[5:24] >> Yeah, I mean I I think they were put on

[5:27] the the on the plat as, you know, the

[5:31] preferred locations for for buildings.

[5:34] >> Right, the developer preferred

[5:35] locations.

[5:37] >> Yeah. The The reason um the reason why

[5:41] we've instructed the applicant to to

[5:44] Well, we haven't instructed. We've

[5:46] told the applicant that if they want to

[5:48] build their houses in another location,

[5:50] they should do this amendment

[5:52] is because the deposits are there, so it

[5:54] is indicative that the the building

[5:56] should be located in those places, but

[5:59] because he wants to do something else um

[6:03] we thought it would be cleanest to to

[6:06] make sure that those are moved.

[6:08] Um

[6:10] but as far as the kind of land use

[6:12] requirements

[6:14] um they will all apply irrespective of

[6:18] where the pod is located.

[6:21] >> Because technically you can build out to

[6:23] that boundary, right?

[6:25] >> Exactly, yes. So So say in in other

[6:29] subdivisions where you have a

[6:30] conservation easement where

[6:32] >> Right.

[6:33] >> you can build on that on that lot, but

[6:36] not in the conservation easement. Here

[6:39] the the entire lot is this whole area.

[6:44] So it is technically you you could

[6:49] build anywhere on that subject to the

[6:51] regular set back.

[6:52] >> So it may make sense to have a condition

[6:57] on

[6:59] the pod that's lot 11.

[7:04] Cuz it says that the

[7:06] it slightly encroaches the 30 cent

[7:09] percent slopes, is that correct? So

[7:11] maybe condition that the building itself

[7:13] needs to avoid it.

[7:15] >> Yeah, I think that's a fine condition,

[7:17] yeah.

[7:23] » But in in in any other sense, it's up to

[7:25] the developer to enforce the pods.

[7:28] >> So the yeah, the divine design

[7:30] development review will will follow and

[7:33] um

[7:35] and so as part of that process will be

[7:38] reviewing it kind of for all the regular

[7:40] standards.

[7:42] >> Then you

[7:44] uh that the that that the road that's

[7:46] listed on the map uh should be

[7:49] designated

[7:50] I don't know if it takes an official

[7:51] amendment or something as a

[7:53] um as a um public street.

[7:57] Um

[7:58] and then that there should be easements

[8:00] in that. It looks like there's already

[8:01] easements

[8:02] associated with what's now labeled as

[8:05] North Fork Drive.

[8:07] Um

[8:10] So, I think

[8:11] question really is um

[8:13] are you are are we in are we expecting

[8:17] uh utility easement changes or just that

[8:20] the designation of the road itself will

[8:23] be designated as a private street?

[8:25] >> I believe it's more of a labeling thing

[8:27] and perhaps Jared could speak to that.

[8:30] Um

[8:33] » Jared Bates, Rosenberg Associates.

[8:35] Sorry, it it's kind of this is kind of

[8:37] more of a formality. So, just to

[8:38] clarify, uh

[8:40] so, lot 8 and 11, those are changed. The

[8:42] lot line is changing, but the intention

[8:44] of this plat amendment is to leave

[8:46] everything else that the the road 9 and

[8:48] 10

[8:49] exactly as they were before. So, so

[8:52] typically when we do a lot of like a a

[8:54] partial plat amendment, we're not trying

[8:55] to change anything else that's under the

[8:57] lots that are not involved in the

[8:58] change. And so, what what Nels is

[9:00] referring to is, "Hey, we're the

[9:01] designation of that the the the the road

[9:03] that's there is now, we're not trying to

[9:04] change that. We just missed a label."

[9:06] Cuz I think it calls out the the

[9:08] easement, but not the street. Is that

[9:09] what we're saying?

[9:10] >> I I think that's it. So, so the

[9:13] I think it's just a label that

[9:14] disappeared from the the the existing

[9:17] plat to the proposed that just needs to

[9:19] go back in.

[9:21] >> Put the label back in to label it as a

[9:22] >> Yes. Yeah, just so it's so that

[9:25] it's changed.

[9:25] >> planning to add or change any uh public

[9:28] improvements at this point.

[9:29] >> No.

[9:30] >> Okay.

[9:33] Um

[9:36] When you make it a private road, I don't

[9:38] know if there's an HOA or does that

[9:41] >> Yeah, I think it's a private street now,

[9:42] isn't it? No?

[9:44] >> Yeah.

[9:45] so basically there's an HOA and in

[9:47] this case the one person owns the entire

[9:49] subdivision.

[9:50] And so yeah, the HOA will be set up to

[9:52] maintain, you know, the road and and and

[9:55] the utilities and all those all those

[9:56] sorts of things, so.

[9:57] >> Okay. I I was just curious cuz that

[9:59] means you don't need a um

[10:01] road agreement. You would have it would

[10:02] be covered by the HOA.

[10:04] >> Yeah, that's my understanding.

[10:06] >> I don't know if this matters that much,

[10:07] but the pod 8A and 8B, is that just two

[10:11] options or is it two buildings?

[10:13] >> Uh there there's a guest house and a

[10:15] main house, is what I think.

[10:15] >> Okay.

[10:19] » But what we're approving here is is the

[10:22] line changes stuff. We're not actually

[10:24] approving any actual development work,

[10:26] correct?

[10:27] >> Correct.

[10:33] » So in that case, we really don't

[10:35] wouldn't need to This isn't the

[10:36] appropriate place to put in anything

[10:38] about

[10:40] >> where the building site is.

[10:41] >> Yeah, like the 30% slope or anything

[10:43] like that.

[10:43] >> All of that will come in the PDR.

[10:45] >> It will be

[10:46] set up in the

[10:47] >> That makes sense.

[10:47] >> Yeah.

[11:03] » And I don't have any other questions. Um

[11:07] it all seems

[11:09] to comply

[11:11] for the

[11:12] what the application is asking for.

[11:15] >> Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward to

[11:16] me.

[11:21] » With that, I guess I move that the

[11:22] planning commission approve the proposed

[11:24] amendment to the Washington phase two

[11:26] subdivision plat discussed at the

[11:28] meeting on Wednesday, June 17th, 2026.

[11:31] The motion is based on the following

[11:33] findings. The amendment preserves

[11:35] existing easements. The subdivision

[11:37] amendment is compliant with Utah

[11:39] Municipal Code 10-28-10.

[11:42] The resulting lots are compliant with

[11:43] the town's land use ordinances for

[11:45] minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths,

[11:47] and minimum setbacks.

[11:50] The building pods avoid 30% slopes

[11:52] generally, and the access road

[11:53] traversing 30% slopes was previously

[11:55] approved by a variance.

[11:58] The plat should, however, be corrected

[12:00] to show the road is a private street and

[12:02] denote all public utility easements.

[12:06] >> I'll second.

[12:07] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in

[12:10] favor?

[12:11] >> Rich, I.

[12:12] >> Terry, I.

[12:13] >> Jennifer, I.

[12:14] >> Paul, I.

[12:15] >> Ash, I.

[12:16] >> Motion passes.

[12:19] The second action item is an application

[12:22] for a subdivision plat amendment of the

[12:25] Silver

[12:26] Bear subdivision. Applicant, Sam Patel.

[12:29] Staff contact, Mac Now Connolly and I

[12:31] will be presenting.

[12:33] >> Okay, thank you. So, another subdivision

[12:35] plat amendment. You don't get any in a

[12:38] long time, and then we get two in the

[12:39] same night. So,

[12:42] uh this application's made by Mr. Sam

[12:45] Patel

[12:46] uh to amend the Silver Bear subdivision.

[12:49] So, this is a two-lot subdivision

[12:53] um

[12:54] just by the former Silver Bear rock shop

[12:58] on that property there.

[13:00] Uh the sub- Silver Bear subdivision is

[13:03] unusual because both of the lots are

[13:06] split zoned. So, if you see here,

[13:08] there's this lot here, and then there's

[13:11] this lot here.

[13:12] And the front of both lots is in the

[13:16] Village Commercial zone. The rear of

[13:19] both is in the Valley Residential zone.

[13:23] So, the purpose of this subdivision plat

[13:26] amendment

[13:27] is to

[13:30] change the line and basically draw it

[13:32] across here, so you have one

[13:35] um village commercial property and then

[13:38] one

[13:40] uh valley residential property.

[13:42] Um

[13:44] so it is

[13:46] the code doesn't actually allow the

[13:48] creation of new split zone lots. So,

[13:51] this change would actually be removing a

[13:55] non-conformity

[13:56] um

[13:57] because it would it would create those

[13:59] two single zone lots.

[14:02] Um

[14:03] the rear lot will be accessed by an

[14:06] easement, which runs across the uh

[14:09] village commercial zone, so just along

[14:11] here.

[14:12] That would that would be the the access

[14:15] for the rear lot, you can see there.

[14:18] Um

[14:19] the property has a an existing house and

[14:24] a shed on the property at the moment.

[14:28] As you can maybe see here, they straddle

[14:31] the property line. So, by relocating the

[14:34] property line there, you'd be creating

[14:38] non-complying buildings because they're

[14:40] not compliant with the setbacks.

[14:42] Um

[14:44] the owner intends to redevelop the the

[14:47] property and to demolish those buildings

[14:51] um well, the the home and the shed at

[14:53] least.

[14:54] Um

[14:56] so

[14:58] um to

[15:00] yeah, to make sure we're not creating a

[15:02] new non-conforming lot,

[15:04] any approval should be conditional on

[15:06] those structures being removed prior to this being recorded.

[15:12] Um

[15:13] but otherwise, it it complies with all

[15:16] the relevant standards.

[15:19] Um so, if you if the commission's minded

[15:22] to give approval um

[15:25] I would recommend that that condition be

[15:27] included in in the approval.

[15:30] I can answer any questions you have.

[15:36] » So so again we're not approving any

[15:39] actual development work.

[15:42] That would come later.

[15:43] >> Yeah it's it's moving the line

[15:45] essentially. Yeah.

[15:47] >> And

[15:49] do the demolition that would take a

[15:51] permit?

[15:53] >> Yeah so there would be a demolition

[15:55] permit

[15:57] then there would be to redevelop there

[15:59] would be the design development review

[16:01] and whatever else follows. Yeah.

[16:04] >> And as part of a demolition permit do we

[16:08] require revegetation?

[16:20] » Sorry yeah. So I I think the the

[16:22] demolition permit really just covers

[16:24] removing

[16:25] aspects of a a property that would have

[16:27] required a building permit to to build

[16:30] originally.

[16:32] If if following demolition there was

[16:35] some issues with compliance

[16:38] say with landscape or something we would

[16:39] have to address that but for the

[16:41] demolition permit itself it is just a

[16:44] permit to demolish.

[16:45] >> So so it would be perhaps at the time of

[16:47] DDR

[16:49] that we would look again at the vegetation and landscaping

[16:53] requirements.

[16:55] >> Yeah so once once the DDR comes then

[16:58] you'd be looking at the the whole

[16:59] property as a whole.

[17:04] » Some other questions um

[17:06] so for the easement

[17:09] would an easement agreement be required

[17:12] or simply

[17:13] noting the easement on the plat as we've

[17:16] seen.

[17:21] » And

[17:22] just being shown on the plat is records

[17:26] that easement. So, it's it's recorded.

[17:29] >> sufficient to record the

[17:30] >> Yeah.

[17:31] >> I was just reading through

[17:33] the the the 14D and they talked about

[17:36] easements and it wasn't clear to me

[17:38] whether we

[17:39] needed agreement.

[17:41] Um

[17:42] and then there is a section in there

[17:44] that says that the

[17:45] it says that that they require quote an

[17:47] emergency vehicle access built to the

[17:50] specifications of the fire marshal.

[17:53] Um if the staff portion is longer than

[17:56] 150 ft which this one is.

[17:59] that part of the subdivision or is

[18:01] that something we would handle again at

[18:03] the time of the DDR?

[18:05] >> It it's part of the subdivision, but at 30 ft width there's sufficient width

[18:10] for a a fire truck.

[18:12] >> enough. Okay.

[18:15] Um

[18:17] and then it also calls for

[18:19] um

[18:21] for you know, an all-weather surface.

[18:24] Right? And right now I think it's just

[18:25] trees and stuff there. So,

[18:27] >> Yeah, that that access doesn't exist.

[18:30] Yes, because the way the subdivision is at the moment

[18:34] there's there's no there at the at the

[18:37] moment. So, that that will have to come.

[18:39] Yeah.

[18:39] >> That would have to come with the

[18:40] subdivision?

[18:41] >> Yeah, so that would be a condition

[18:43] actually. Yeah.

[18:56] » I guess one other thing I think I I mean

[18:58] I think it makes sense, but uh you know,

[18:59] with the ordinance calls for no new flag

[19:01] knock flag lots in

[19:04] the central commercial or village

[19:06] commercial zone.

[19:07] Um so, this flag lot would be not in

[19:11] village commercial zone. But the fact

[19:13] that the easement is shouldn't matter,

[19:15] right?

[19:16] >> Yeah, so that that is a good point. Um

[19:19] when I looked at that, my interpretation

[19:20] was that the the flag lot is the Valley

[19:25] Residential

[19:26] lots and therefore

[19:29] doesn't does not that conflict with the

[19:31] code. That was my

[19:33] view on that.

[19:34] >> I think so, too. That's the way I read

[19:36] it. I want to make sure.

[19:37] Okay.

[19:38] Those are the questions I have.

[19:44] » Are there any other questions?

[19:47] I think without one

[19:49] condition

[19:51] it seems to be a positive amendment.

[19:55] >> Yeah, I think so. It seems pretty

[19:56] straightforward and I think it works to

[19:57] the benefit of the town and getting it

[19:59] in compliance with the

[20:01] >> Yeah, this um

[20:02] >> photo regulations.

[20:04] >> This lot was originally divided, I

[20:05] think, back in 2023.

[20:08] Um and at that time there was

[20:10] >> wasn't a rule against

[20:14] » This

[20:15] >> takes us much closer to what we're after

[20:18] um from the goals of our uh

[20:21] ordinances and and the

[20:22] >> Yeah.

[20:24] >> I think it's a good a good change.

[20:29] » Other comments?

[20:33] » Well, then I move that the Planning

[20:35] Commission approve the proposed

[20:36] amendment to the Silver Bear Subdivision

[20:38] Plat discussed at the meeting on when is

[20:40] it? June 17th, 2026, subject to a

[20:43] condition of approval necessary to avoid

[20:46] lots with non-complying minimum setbacks

[20:48] that the subdivision plat amendment must

[20:50] not be recorded until the house and shed

[20:52] are removed.

[20:54] The motion is based on the following

[20:55] findings. The subdivision amendment is

[20:58] compliant with Utah Municipal Code

[21:00] 10-28-10.

[21:02] The resulting lots are complying with

[21:04] are compliant with the town's land use

[21:06] ordinance for minimum lot sizes, minimum

[21:08] lot widths, frontage requirements, as

[21:11] well as minimum setbacks for the

[21:13] um village commercial and valley

[21:15] residential zones after removal of the

[21:17] non-conforming buildings.

[21:19] The existing commercial building is

[21:21] sufficiently set back from the proposed

[21:23] new property

[21:25] and is compliant with requirements of

[21:26] the village commercial zone.

[21:28] And the rezoning of these lots brings

[21:31] this property into compliance with town

[21:32] code requirement that lots not be

[21:34] split-zoned.

[21:38] » I'll second.

[21:40] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in

[21:42] favor?

[21:43] >> I'd like to have some discussion.

[21:45] Um

[21:47] you you mentioned that the requirement

[21:49] for the um subdivision plat or that the

[21:52] house and shed must be removed. I'd like

[21:54] to make sure we that that's noted that is a condition.

[21:57] >> I that's how I Yeah.

[21:59] >> It's kind of read it before you got down

[22:00] to the conditions, I think. Anyway

[22:03] >> Well, yeah, at the the motion was to approve it subject to

[22:07] a condition of approval.

[22:09] >> Okay. Okay. I'm used to the conditions

[22:11] coming after the finding.

[22:12] >> Yeah, I know. Yeah.

[22:14] >> Just want to make sure we had that

[22:15] condition in there.

[22:16] >> It is.

[22:17] >> Should we also add a condition that the

[22:21] easement must be um opened,

[22:24] cleared, and and and covered with an all

[22:28] uh weather surface for access for the

[22:29] flag lot?

[22:31] >> I mean,

[22:32] that's okay by me if we want to do that.

[22:35] >> That that was part of the plan and

[22:37] >> Yeah.

[22:38] I think it it's a necessary

[22:39] improvement, so yeah.

[22:41] >> I would add then that is a second

[22:43] condition, that the easement must be um

[22:46] cleared and um paved with an all weather

[22:49] surface per the ordinance.

[22:50] >> I'll accept that.

[22:54] » Any more discussion?

[22:57] All in favor?

[22:59] >> Rich, I.

[23:00] >> Terry, I.

[23:01] >> Jennifer, I.

[23:01] >> Paul, I.

[23:02] >> Kasha, I.

[23:03] >> Motion passes.

[23:06] Move we adjourn.

[23:08] I'll second. Motion by Paul, second by

[23:11] Terry, all in favor? Rich I, Terry I,

[23:14] Jennifer I, Paul I, Kasha I, meeting is

[23:17] adjourned.

06/17/2026 Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Transcript