[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.