Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready? It's 5 p.m., and we're at the Canyon Community Center for the June 17th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town, we have Tom Dancy, Niall Connolly, and April Raditz. On the dais, we have Matt Fink, Zion National Park representative, Rich Swanson, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCullough, Paul Zimmerman, and Kash Bhatti. Melissa Laborde and Tom Kenniston are not here tonight. Kosh will be voting in tonight's proceedings. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

I move we approve tonight's agenda. I'll second.

Motion by Paul, second by Rich. All in favor?

Rich, aye. Terry, aye.

Jennifer, aye.

Paul, aye. Kosh, aye.

Motion passes. Are there any general announcements? No. No announcements tonight. Any declarations of conflict of interest? Okay, for tonight's meeting, we have two action items. The first action item is an application for a subdivision plat amendment for phase two of the Watchman subdivision. Applicant is Sean Honaker. Staff contact is Niall Connolly, and Niall will be presenting.

Thank you. So as you indicated, Mr. Sean Honaker has applied to amend the plat of phase two of the Watchman subdivision. The Watchman subdivision is located on North Fork Drive and the proposed changes are as follows. This is the before and after. So firstly to adjust the location of the lot line between lots 8 and 11. To adjust the building pod in lot 8 and to add a second building pod on lot 8 to accommodate a main house and an accessory building. And then also to adjust the location of the building pod on lot 11. So just to give you some information or some explanation on what the building pods are, So this subdivision includes building pods where the buildings are supposed to be located. And this isn't the same as... You're familiar with some subdivisions where there's a conservation easement, like Anasazi Plateau or Claret Cup, where you have a building pod surrounded by a conservation easement. This is not that. So there's no conservation easement here. But the pods were just positioned in locations that made sense at the time of plotting where a house would go. In this case, though, the property owner would prefer to position the buildings differently. However, they would still be subject to the usual land use regulations. During the engineering review of this application, we had one review comment that came back a little bit late. they didn't make it into the packet and so I'll just explain that now and if the Commission is minded to approve the amendment I'd recommend that this point is is conditioned in and the point is that the road should be shown as a private street and public utility easement. I think at the moment it's just shown as a public utility easement. The applicant's been made aware of this comment and has agreed to make this adjustment. So it's just kind of a case of getting there by condition to secure that. The engineer, Jared Bates from Rosenberg, is here. He'll be able to answer any questions as well if you have any. Thank you.

I'll start. So the plat included in the package was labeled as a final plat. So I assume that this is preliminary, final, together kind of thing that we've done in the past?

So the preliminary and final plat, that's usually in the process where you have a new subdivision. So this is an existing subdivision with... some amendments within it. So with the subdivision plot amendments, you don't need to do the preliminary stage and then the final stage.

You just... Just the final? Yeah. And then you were talking about the pods. So the pods don't have a significance relative to the town ordinances. Is that a true statement?

Yeah. I mean, I think they were put on the... on the plat as, you know, the preferred locations for buildings.

Right, the developer preferred locations.

Yeah. The reason why we've instructed the applicant to, well, we haven't instructed, told the applicant that if they want to build their houses in another location, they should do this amendment, is because the pods are there, so it is indicative that the building should be located in those places. But because he wants to do something else, we thought it would be cleanest to make sure that those are moved. But as far as the kind of land use requirements, they will all apply irrespective of where the pot is located.

Because technically you can build out to that boundary, right?

Exactly, yes. So say in other subdivisions where you have a conservation easement, where you can build on that lot, but not in the conservation easement. Here, the entire lot is this whole area. So it is technically, you could... build anywhere on that subject to the regular setbacks.

So it may make sense to have a condition on the pod that's lot 11, because it says that it slightly encroaches the 30% slopes, is that correct? So maybe condition that the building itself needs to avoid it.

Yeah, I think that defined condition, yeah.

But in any other sense, it's up to the developer to enforce the pods?

So, yeah, the design development review will follow, and so as part of that process, we'll be reviewing it kind of for all the regular standards.

And you mentioned that the road that's listed on the map should be designated, I don't know if it takes an official amendment or something, as a as a public street. And then that there should be easements in that. It looks like there's already easements associated with what's now labeled as North Fork Drive. So I think the question really is are we expecting utility easement changes or just that the designation of the road itself will be designated as a private street.

I believe it's more of a labeling thing, and perhaps Jared could speak to that.

Jared Bates, Rosenberg Associates. Sorry, this is kind of more of a formality. So just to clarify, so lot 8 and 11, those are changes, the lot line is changing, but the intention of this plat amendment is to leave everything else, the road 9 and 10, exactly as they were before. So typically when we do a lot of, like a partial plot amendment, we're not trying to change anything else. It's something that lots are not involved with the change. And so what Nas is referring to is, hey, the designation that the road that's there is now, we're not trying to change that. We just missed a label. Because I think it calls out the easement but not the street. Is that what we're saying?

I think that's it. So I think it's just a label that disappeared from the existing plot to the proposed that just needs to go back in.

Put the label back in to label it as a person.

Yeah, just so it's...

So we're not planning to add or change any public improvements at this point?

No.

When you make it a private road, I don't know if there's an HOA or does that... Yeah, I think it's a private street now, isn't it now?

Yeah. Yeah, so basically there's an HOA, and in this case, one person owns the entire subdivision. And so, yeah, the HOA will be set up to maintain, you know, the road and the utilities and all those sorts of things.

Okay. I was just curious because that means you don't need a road agreement. It would be covered by the HOA. Yeah, that's my understanding. I don't know if this matters that much, but the pod 8A and 8B, is that just two options or is it two buildings?

There's a guest house and a main house is what it is.

But what we're approving here is the line changes and stuff. We're not actually approving any actual development work, correct?

Correct. Correct.

So in that case, we really don't, wouldn't need to, this isn't the appropriate place to put in anything about.

Where the building's .

Yeah, like the 30% slope or anything like that.

All of that will come in the DDR. Right. It will be. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah. Thank you. And I don't have any other questions. It all seems to comply for what the application is asking for.

Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward to me. Yeah.

Yeah.

And I guess I move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Washington Phase II Subdivision Plat discussed at the meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. The motion is based on the following findings. The amendment preserves existing easements. The subdivision amendment is compliant with Utah Municipal Code 102810. The resulting lots are compliant with the town's land use ordinances for minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, and minimum setbacks. The building pods avoid 30% slopes generally, and the access road traversing 30% slopes was previously approved by a variance. The plat should, however, be corrected to show the road is a private street and denote all public utility easements.

I'll second.

Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor?

Rich, aye. Terry, aye.

Jennifer, aye.

Paul, aye. Ash, aye.

Motion passes. The second action item is an application for a subdivision plat amendment of the Silver Bear subdivision. Applicant Sam Patel, staff contact Niall Connolly, and Niall will be presenting.

OK, thank you. So another subdivision plat amendment. You don't get any in a long time, and then we get two on the same knife. So this application is made by Mr. Sam Patel to amend the Silver Bear subdivision. So this is a two-lot subdivision just by the former silver bear rock shop on that property there. The silver bear subdivision is unusual because both of the lots are split zoned. So if you see here, there's this lot here and then there's this lot here. And the front of both lots is in the village commercial zone. The rear of both is in the valley residential zone. So the purpose of this subdivision plot amendment is to... change the line and basically draw it across here. So you have one village commercial property and then one Valley residential property. So it is, The code doesn't actually allow the creation of new split zone lots. So this change would actually be removing a nonconformity because it will create those two single zone lots. The rear lot will be accessed by an easement which runs across the village commercial zone. So just along here, that would, That would be the access for the rear lot you can see there. The property has an existing house and a shed on the property at the moment. As you can maybe see here, they straddle the property line, so by relocating the property line there, you'd be creating non-compliant buildings because they're not compliant with the setbacks. The owner intends to redevelop the property and to demolish those buildings, well, the home and the shed at least. So to make sure we're not creating a new non-conforming lot, any approval should be conditional on those structures being removed prior to this being recorded. But otherwise, it complies with all the relevant standards. So, if the commission's minded to give approval, I would recommend that that condition be included in the approval. And I can answer any questions you have.

So, again, we're not approving any actual development work that would come later?

Yeah, it's moving the line, essentially, yeah.

TO DO THE DEMOLITION, THAT WOULD TAKE A PERMIT?

YEAH. SO THERE WOULD BE A DEMOLITION PERMIT, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE, TO REDEVELOP, THERE WOULD BE THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND WHATEVER ELSE FOLLOWS.

YEAH. AND AS PART OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, DO WE REQUIRE REVEGETATION?

Sorry, yeah. So I think the demolition permit really just covers removing aspects of a property that would have required a building permit to build originally. If following demolition there was some issues with compliance, say with landscape or something, we would have to address that. But for the demolition permit itself, it is just a permit to demolish.

So it would be perhaps at the time of DDR demolition that we would look again at the vegetation and landscaping requirements?

Yes, so once the DDR comes, then you'd be looking at the whole property as a whole.

Some other questions. So for the easement, would an easement agreement be required or simply noting the easement on the plat as we've seen?

Just being shown on the PLAS records that easement, so it's recorded.

That's sufficient to record? Yeah. I was just reading through the 14D, and they talked about easements, and it wasn't clear to me whether we needed an agreement. And then there is a section in there that says that... It says that they require, quote, an emergency vehicle access built to the specifications of the fire marshal. If the staff portion is longer than 150 feet, which this one is, is that part of the subdivision or is that something we would handle again at the time of the DDR?

It's part of the subdivision, but at 30 feet width, there's sufficient width for a fire truck.

That's good enough? Okay. And then it also calls for, you know, an all-weather surface, right?

And right now, I think it's just trees and stuff there, so... Yeah, that access doesn't exist, yes, because the way the subdivision is at the moment, there's no... Yeah, there's no need for it at the moment. So that will have to come, yeah.

That would have to come with the subdivision?

Yeah, so that would be a condition, actually, yeah.

I guess one other thing, I think it makes sense, but the ordinance calls for no new flag lots in the central commercial or village commercial zone, so this flag lot would be not in the village commercial zone, but the fact that the easement is shouldn't matter, right?

Yeah, so that is a good point, and when I looked at that, my interpretation was that the the flag lot is the valley residential lot and therefore doesn't, there's not that conflict with the code. That was my view on that.

I think so too. That is the way I read it. I want to make sure.

Okay.

Those are the questions I have.

Are there any other questions? I think without one condition, It seems to be a positive amendment.

Yeah, I think so. It seems pretty straightforward, and I think it works to the benefit of the town in getting it in compliance with their code of regulations.

Yeah, this law was originally divided, I think, back in 2023. And at that time, there wasn't a rule against . But I think this takes us much closer to what we're after. from the goals of our ordinances and the general plan. So I think it's a good change.

Other comments?

Well, then I move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to the Silver Bear subdivision plot discussed at the meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. subject to a condition of approval necessary to avoid lots with non-compliant minimum setbacks that the subdivision plat amendment must not be recorded until the house and shed are removed The motion is based on the following findings. The subdivision amendment is compliant with Utah Municipal Code 102810. The resulting lots are compliant with the town's land use ordinance for minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, furniture requirements, as well as minimum setbacks for the village commercial and valley residential zones after removal of the non-conforming buildings. The existing commercial building is sufficiently set back from the proposed new property and is compliant with the requirements of the Village Commercial Zone. And the rezoning of these lots brings this property into compliance with town code requirement that lots not be split zoned.

Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor?

I'd like to have some discussion. You mentioned that the requirement for the subdivision plat, or that the house and shed must be removed. I'd like to make sure that that's noted, that that is a condition.

That's how I, yeah.

You kind of read it before you got down to the conditions, I think. Anyway.

Well, yeah, the motion was to approve it subject to a condition of approval. Oh, okay, okay.

I'm used to the conditions coming after the findings. Yeah, I know, yeah. I just wanted to make sure we had that condition in there.

It is.

Should we also add a condition that the easement must be opened, cleared, and covered with an all-weather surface for access for the flag lot?

I mean, that's okay by me if we want to do that. That was part of the plan. Yeah.

Yeah, I think it's a necessary improvement, so yeah.

I would add then that is a second condition, that the easement must be cleared, and all weather surface per the ordinance.

I'll accept that.

Any more discussion? All in favor?

Rich, aye. Terry, aye.

Jennifer, aye.

Paul, aye. Koch, aye.

Motion passes.

Move we adjourn. I'll second.

Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor?

Rich, aye. Terry, aye.

Jennifer, aye.

Paul, aye. Koch, aye.

Meeting is adjourned.