Duchesne County
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
The following document has been re-formatted
from the original for Internet accessibility. Planning &
Zoning Commission Minutes, in their
original format, are available through the Office of the
Planning & Community Development Department.
County
Administrative Offices
Duchesne, Utah
April 14, 2004 - 5:00 p.m.
In Attendance were:
Michael Barneck,
Planning Commission Chairman
Leon Sweat, Planning Commission Vice -Chairman
Dean Brough, Planning Commission
Chris Peatross, Planning Commission
Thomas Rather, Planning Commission
Ann Bills, Planning Commission
Shelly Fabrizio, Planning Commission
Teresa Nielsen, Planning Secretary
Roland Uresk, Deputy County Attorney
| Visitors |
Agenda
Item |
| John and
Martha Sammond... |
Zone Change |
| Darrin
Brown........................ |
TriCounty
Health Department |
| Therena
Morrill..................... |
Unitah Basin
Standard |
| Randy Mair.......................... |
Zoning
Ordinance |
| Karl
Mott............................. |
General
Interest, Duchesne County Building Official. |
Chair Barneck opened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.
Chair Barneck chose
to move the approval of the minutes to the bottom of the agenda.
Jerry McFadden,
Requesting a Conditional Use Permit for manufacturing and
commercial sales of sheds and out buildings, computer repair and
resale as well as the commercial sale of firewood. Section 23
Township 3 South Range 8 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in the
Fruitland area.
Chair Barneck asked
Mr. Mcfadden to present his request to the commission.
Clark McClellan
informed the commission that Mr. McFadden had asked him to
present his request for him. Mr. McClellan referred to the
information they received in their packet prior to the meeting.
He had submitted a detailed plan of what Mr. McFadden was
proposing to do. The primary focus and use will be constructing
the out buildings. The computer sales and repair will be
minimal. Mr. McClellan informed the commission that the property
is located approximately one mile west of the Tabiona turn off,
along Highway 40. The buildings that will be constructed are of
an old west type and Mr. McFadden anticipates that most of his
sales will be from out of the area. He is hoping to set up a
website and mainly market them online. He does anticipate
however that he will have some people stop at the property
traveling from the Basin to the Wasatch Front or vice versa. Mr.
McClellan stated that he does not have any close neighbors and
has not had any complaints at this point. He has only one
employee at this time and only anticipates possibly one more if
the business takes off and does well. They have talked to UDOT
and have the necessary approach permits. They also talked to
them about a sign that would warn traffic that cars may be
exiting or entering the highway so they would not be creating a
safety hazard. UDOTS basic rules is that if there is 700 feet of
visibility then they do not require a sign. His preferred access
is where the access is now and has the best visibility from both
ways. This really wont change what is going on a the property at
the present time, it will provide an income for one person, it
wont effect any of his neighbors and they do not feel it will be
a burden on the county.
The planning
commission discussed the proposal.
Leon asked Mr.
McFadden if he has all the appropriate business licenses to run
this type of business?
Mr. McFadden said to
the best of his knowledge, he has his LLC, the county business
license and the state and federal tax Id numbers.
Chris said they may
want to put a sign at each end, it will not only be an
advertising tool but it would also warn people that there is a
business ahead.
Mr. McClellan said
they would be happy to do that, at the distances required it may
not be necessary but they will comply if the commission asked
them to.
The planning
commission discussed with Mr. McFadden and Mr. McClellan the
access point and the requirements set forth by UDOT.
Tom asked what was
going to be stored on the property and if it would create an
eyesore.
Mr. McClellan said
there will be slabs and buildings that are under construction
and also some completed buildings waiting to be shipped
somewhere.
The planning
commission discussed the request.
Darrin, TriCounty
Health Department asked about the buildings that are constructed
to look like out houses and if they are built with the intent of
actually be used as an out house.
Mr. McFadden said
they are not built to be used as an out house, they are for
looks only.
The planning
commission went through the findings and conditions found in
Title 17.52.050.
The planning
commission may grant a conditional use permit in compliance with
this ordinance if, from the application and facts presented at
the public heating, it finds:
(1) The proposed use at the proposed location will not be unduly
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The planning
commission did not feel that it would be detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare, nor would it be
injurious to property or improvements.
(2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in compliance
with the goals and policies of the Duchesne County General Plan
and the purposes of this ordinance.
The planning
commission felt the location was in compliance with the goals
and policies of the general plan and applicable ordinances.
(3) That the property on which the use, building or other
structure is proposed is of adequate size and dimension to
permit the conduct of the use in such a manner that will not be
materially detrimental to adjoining and surrounding properties.
The planning
commission did not feel that it would be materially detrimental
to surrounding properties.
Dean made a motion
to approve the conditional use permit for Mr. McFadden with the
following conditions:
1. Must maintain a neat and tidy appearance, all materials
stacked neatly and secured;
2. Must comply with UDOT regulations regarding signs;
3. Must comply with all State, Federal and Local
regulations and licensing;
4. Limited to the uses requested on the application.
Ann seconded the
motion, Shelley obstained, remaining members in favor, motion
carried.
Zone Changes:
John and Martha Sammond, Requesting a zone change from an
A-10 Agricultural ten-acre minimum zone to an A-5 Agricultural
five-acre minimum zone. Section 35, Township 3 South, Range 9
West U.S.B.& M. Located in the Fruitland area.
Chair Barneck asked
Mr. And Mrs. Sammond to present their request to the planning
commission.
Mr. Sammond
explained that they are located approximately 3.5 miles south of
Fruitland. They access it through the Sundown Ridge Subdivision
and are approximately ½ way up Current Creek Mountain.
Chair Barneck asked
what the procedures are for a zone change and what the
surrounding properties are zoned?
Teresa explained to
the planning commission that if they chose to recommend the zone
change it would then be noticed in the paper for a public
hearing before the county commission and the county commission
will grant or deny the request. She also stated that when the
zoning ordinance was revised in August of 2000 there were four
public hearings held in different areas of the county. The only
areas that remained an A-10 Agricultural ten-acre minimum zone
were the ones that requested too. This is one of the areas that
asked to remain in a ten-acre zone and that the density not be
increased.
Chair Barneck
referred to the ownership plat and brought up that there are
already some five-acre lots in the same area as the Sammond’s.
Teresa said there
are some five-acre lots in the same area but they are not legal
and the property owners will not be allowed to make any
improvements to their property. There has been some response
from the adjoining property owners, mostly opposing the request.
There was one letter in favor of the zone change.
Chair Barneck read
the letters that were submitted from the property owners in the
area.
Mr. Sammond told the
commission that when they purchased the property back in 1993
from T.J. Grant they were told that they could split it into two
five acre parcels. They bought the property with Mrs. Sammond’s
brother with the intentions of eventually splitting the lot and
building a cabin on each lot. In all actuality her brother is
half owner of the lot.
Leon asked if they
will have a problem building out there without power or water?
Mr. Sammond said
they intend to put in a storage tank to store the water they
will haul, he has talked to the County Building Official and was
told that would be okay. There is power available but they may
or may not decide to connect to the power. They may run
everything off of a generator.
Chair Barneck asked
for any further discussion.
The planning
commission discussed the request.
Leon said he lives
close to the area and he is concerned with increasing density.
He is also concerned with what they are proposing to build, if
it will be a permanent structure or if it will be a mobile home.
Mr. Sammond said it
will be a cabin on a permanent foundation.
Teresa suggested
that the planning commission look at the entire area and hold a
public hearing to see if the other residents in the area prefer
a ten acre or a five acre minimum zone. They then can either
rezone the entire area to five acres or leave it all as ten
acres depending on what the majority of the property owners in
that area want.
Chris made a motion
to approve the zone change for Mr. And Mrs. Sammond and
recommend it to the County Commission. Shelly seconded the
motion, Thomas opposed, Leon obstained, remaining planning
commission in favor, motion carried.
Other Discussion:
Zoning Ordinance: review proposed revisions of Title 17,
sections 17.08 Use Definitions; 17.12 .030 Table of Uses; and
17.52 Conditional Use Permits.
The planning
commission discussed and made the changes they felt were
necessary to the proposed revisions regarding Treatment
facilities.
Minutes from the
March 3, 2004 meeting were reviewed. Ann made a motion to
approve the minutes with the changes made, Thomas seconded the
motion, all in favor motion carried.
Dean made a motion
to adjourn, Thomas seconded the motion, all on favor, motion
carried.
Adjournment:
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
