Planning & Zoning
Commission

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
May 4, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.

In Attendance were:

Leon Sweat, Planning Commission Chairman
Michael Barneck, Planning Commission - Excused
Dean Brough, Planning Commission
Thomas Rather, Planning Commission - Excused
Chris Peatross, Planning Commission
Shelly Fabrizio, Planning Commission
Larain Mobley, Planning Commission Nominee
Mike Hyde, Community Development Administrator
Laraine Dickinson, Planning Secretary
Roland Uresk, County Attorney

Visitors:	Agenda Item
Darrin Brown.................	Tri-County Health
Clinton Moon................	River Wood Estates
Stephen Clinger.............	River Wood Estates
Rodney Rowley.............	River Wood Estates
Karl Lamb.....................	Karl & David Lamb

Chairman Sweat called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Larain Mobley, who has agreed to fill the Neola position vacated by Ann Bills was introduced. Ms. Mobley will be formally appointed to the position on May 9th .

Conditional Use Permit:
Karl and David Lamb is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drilling materials warehouse to be located at 3216 West 6250 South, in the NE ¼ of Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 2 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in the Myton area.

Chairman Sweat asked if any member of the Board had any previous contact with the applicants in this matter and if it would impact their decision on this matter. Commissioner Brough stated he has had some contact with Karl Lamb but didn’t see that it would impact his decision. No objection to Mr. Brough’s participation in the hearing was received.

Karl Lamb stated that he and his son wanted to have a drilling fluids warehouse at this site. Their office is on another site and this would be for storage only.

Mr. Hyde passed around some color photos of the area. Mr. Hyde stated notification letters had been sent out the surrounding property owners including Myton City, Utah Department of Transportation, County Road Department, and the Ute Tribe and there had been no response from anyone objecting to this. Mr. Hyde stated that the applicants are proposing to build a drilling materials warehouse on five acres within a 120-arce parcel located on 6250 South, about ¾ mile east of Highway 40. The proposal includes two 30 X 192 foot storage buildings on the north side and two 30 X 64 foot storage buildings on the west side. The internal site area will be improved with about on foot of base rock covered with about six inches of gravel. Trucks will enter and exit the site via an 80-foot wide road approach to 6250 South.

Mr. Hyde stated that the uniform building code will require if the facility has an office constructed, that there be a restroom provided but if no office is on site the Building Official has said that portable restrooms could be used instead. Mr. Lamb has indicated that there isn’t going to be people there very often; there may be 1 to 10 trucks per day.

Mr. Hyde stated that the size of the property was adequate and allows for the proposed use to be developed with a sixty foot buffer area to the west.

Mr. Hyde stated an e-mail from the Utah Department of Transportation was received on April 20, 2005 with their comments in regards to this and a letter from the County Road Department dated April 21, 2005 was also received, neither department seemed to have concerns with the added traffic to the area. The County Road Department did point out that maybe in the future 6250 South would need to be brought up to county standards and be extended from 50-foot to 66-foot right of way.

Mr. Hyde stated the property has Johnson Water but the diameter of the line is only two inches, so it won’t support the installation of a fire hydrant. However, if the permit is approved, the applicants should hold the county harmless for any damages that may occur in the future associated with the limited fire protection available in this area.

Mr. Hyde stated the applicants indicated that normal business hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with few exceptions. These are our main concerns and so Mr. Hyde recommended that the Planning Commission adopt this findings and approve this conditional use permit with the following conditions:

1.	If an office is constructed at the site, restroom facilities shall be provided (including a Johnson Water District hook-up and Tri-County Health Department approval of a wastewater disposal system. If no office is constructed, a portable restroom shall be provided.
2.	Owners irrevocably consent to dedicate eight (8) feet of public road right of way along the north side of 6250 South fronting the subject property if/when deemed necessary by the County Commission in the future.
3.	Owners agree to apply dust inhibitors to the gravel surface in the future if the County receives valid dust complaints.
4.	Applicants shall hold Duchesne County harmless for any damages that may occur in the future associated with the limited fire protection available in this area.

Chairman Sweat asked if there were any questions or comments.

Commissioner Brough stated he didn’t have a problem but was unaware that there was just a two-inch water line to the property.

Commissioner Peatross verified that this was just a warehouse and the office will be in the home. Mr. Lamb stated this will only be a warehouse and the main office is located in Myton and clarified that this will be for loading and unloading trucks only. Mr. Lamb stated that he was thinking of building a small 10’ X 10’ room in the back just for a safety room for minor first aid purposes.

Commissioner Fabrizio motioned to adopt the findings of the staff report and approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by Karl and David Lamb, subject to the four conditions listed above. Commissioner Peatross seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Subdivision:
Clinton and Donnette Moon requesting preliminary plat approval of River Wood Estates, an eight lot subdivision located in Sections 5 and 6, Township 4 South, Range 4 West, between the Duchesne River and Highway 40, approx. 1 mile east of Duchesne City.

Mr. Hyde passed around some color photos of the area. Mr. Hyde stated River Wood Estates would be on 19 acres of land between Highway 40 and the Duchesne River, just east of the Duchesne City wastewater treatment ponds. Eight lots are proposed, with sizes ranging from 1.83 to 2.95 acres in size.

Mr. Hyde stated the staff report goes through the preliminary plat requirements of the subdivision ordinance. The roads proposed will be 66-foot wide, which will meet the county requirements. There is an existing East Duchesne Water District line; also, there is a twenty-foot utility easement between each lot. There is an existing power line on the property that will need to be relocated. If the line is relocated on the west line of Lot #1 to avoid crossing Lots #1, 2,3, and part of 4, the 10-foot easement along Lot #1 may not be adequate. No public sewer service is available here and there was a letter received from Duchesne City stating because of elevations and the slope towards the river the sewer line would have to be around 25 feet deep, plus a lift station would have to be used.

Mr. Hyde stated the applicants have provided the county with a copy of the Protective Covenants and they seem to be sufficient. These are so that property owners are given some idea of how their properties are to appear, so there isn’t any accumulation of junk vehicles and garbage stored around their properties. Mr. Uresk referred to Section 21 of the Covenants and stated that there couldn’t be any changes or amendments made to them after they are approved. Chairman Sweat stated to the applicants at the Commission is approving the Covenants as they are presented here and if there should be a change to them, then they need to be brought before the Commission and have them approved and they will need to be recorded in the Duchesne County Recorders Office.

Mr. Hyde stated some concerns from Tri-County Health about the buildable area on Lots 3 and 4 due to the fact that there isn’t as much flat area as there is on the other lots.

Mr. Hyde stated in regards to fire protection in a subdivision like this one fire hydrant is required within 1000 feet of every lot. The County Director of Fire and Emergency Management, has looked at this subdivision and the cul-de-sac is about 1600 feet long. It is recommended that a fire hydrant be installed on the East Duchesne Water line by Lot #4 so there would be about 800 feet in each direction they could serve off of this one hydrant. Commissioner Peatross asked what size of water line do they have? Mr. Hyde stated there is a 6-inch line.

Commissioner Brough motioned to approve the findings and approve the Preliminary Plat for River Wood Estates, subject to the following conditions:

1.	Prior to final plat approval, applicants shall work with Moon Lake Electric to determine the location of the relocated power line and provide an adequate easement.
2.	The final plat shall depict the existing easement for the section of East Duchesne Water line extending easterly of Lot 3 or provide a new easement if necessary.
3.	The restrictive covenants submitted shall be recorded with the final plat.
4.	Before final plat approval, the street improvements will either need to be completed and accepted by the county or adequate surety submitted.
5.	Applicants shall install a fire hydrant within the subdivision at a location approved by the Duchesne County Director of Fire and Emergency Management (somewhere near Lot 4 on either side of the road).

Commissioner Fabrizio seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

New Business:
Review draft amendments to Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
Mr. Hyde stated the last legislative session resulted in the passing of Senate Bill 60, which effected the planning statues for both cities and counties. These proposed amendments to our zoning and subdivision ordinances are meant to address the statutory changes along with some other changes that we’ve been talking about internally. Throughout the documents you will note proposed new language in bold print underlined and the print with the strike through would be deleted. The goal for the Commission is to become familiar with these amendments and determine which ones we want to go with and send them to the County Commissioners for their consideration. They will be the ones to determine the amendments for final approval for it to become effective.

Chairman Sweat asked what the timeline was for this to be reviewed and sent into the County Commissioners. Mr. Hyde stated the real timeline on this is that the new State Law became effective earlier this week, so we need to proceed fairly rapidly to bring our codes into compliance with State Law. A lot of the cities and counties are struggling in that the bill has passed and now they are wondering what they need to do and we are in the same boat because we have substantial changes to make.

Mr. Hyde stated tonight we could go over some of the highlights and then we can either have another work session on the June 1st meeting or we can set up a special meeting to go over this or if you’re comfortable with it we can just schedule a Public Hearing before the planning commission on June 1ST. Some point the commission will need to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.

Mr. Hyde stated we have some new definitions such as:

1.	“Affected Entity” the State is requiring local governments to notify other agencies such as utilities, UDOT, and special districts of projects that might have an impact on them.
2.	“Official Maps” on county maps this would show were major roads would need to be in the future, for instance the Bluebell Highway at 3000 West (Kelsey Corner) over to the Neola Highway. This would give developers and idea of where the roads will be.
3.	“Public Hearing” One major change in the law is that any kind of a subdivision even though it only involves a split of one property into two parcels, that is going to involve a public hearing.
4.	“Minor Subdivision” is when you have a single split from one piece into two pieces, historically they have been dealt with administratively by the staff where we only require a survey, make sure water is available, access, etc. Now those are going to be required to have a public hearing as well. In the past people were able to do this in short time, but if they are required to follow this procedure they are not going to be happy to wait. So Mr. Hyde recommended that the Community Development Administrator be given the power to act as the hearing officer for those minor subdivisions. If there is an appeal then it would be brought before the Planning Commission. Chairman Sweat asked then what is to stop those property owners that have property in A-10 zone from splitting their property into a 5-acre. Mr. Hyde stated that would require a zone change. Mr. Hyde stated that in the case of a Minor Subdivision you can give as little as a three-day notice, for instance they can bring in their request on a Monday and a notice could be posted on either Monday or Tuesday and a hearing could be as soon as the end of the week.
5.	“Plat Amendment” in the past it was not required to have a public hearing for a plat amendment. It was held at the County Commission level, but in the future the Planning Commission is going to have to have a hearing on this as well.
6.	“Design Standards” in the past subdivisions were approved in rural areas as long as the developers graveled the roads. We are recommending now that all proposed subdivision streets located within R- ½ or R-1 zones shall have to be paved to County standards by the subdivider. If the subdivision lies within the annexation policy area of a city, the streets shall be developed to the applicable City standard. Commissioner Fabrizio stated that R-2½ zones should also have to follow this procedure. Mr. Hyde stated that as long as there is city water and city sewer then the developer will be required to pave the roads in these areas as well.

Commissioner Peatross questioned what is the definition of a Minor Subdivision. Mr. Hyde stated usually a minor subdivision is when someone is just splitting one lot into two lots but the state law allows up to 10 lots. Mr. Hyde stated that he had a discussion with Jerry Allred and he recommended that you cut off a minor subdivision at 3 or 4 lots with no new street being dedicated, if you have more than 4 lots or a street being dedicated then you will need to have a plat because it will no longer be a minor subdivision.

Mr. Hyde noted proposed changes to the section of the ordinance regarding a water source on property if it is less than 40 acres. Now we are requiring evidence that someone has water rights or a culinary water system. Mr. Hyde spoke with the State of Utah Engineers Office, Division of Water Rights and confirmed that they are not going to guarantee that there is water available on a certain piece of property. So what they are recommending we do is (1) show evidence that the applicant has the legal right to use water under a valid water right. (2) A Registered Professional Engineer must submit a report indicating the feasibility of obtaining ground water suitable in quantity and quality to serve the proposed residences throughout the subdivision area. Darrin Brown mentioned one of the things this new law requires is that a culinary water authority sign off on getting well approval, so I’m not sure who is going to be responsible in signing off whether it will be the Division of Water Rights or a Registered Professional Engineer. Tri-County has done this but didn’t want to have different policy for three counties and now that the law has changed they could be the ones to sign off on water system approvals.

Mr. Hyde stated another issue is that a subdivision must comply with Wildland-Urban Interface Standards. The state has put out a lot of money in the past to fight fires in rural developments. They are proposing that counties have maps showing moderate, high and extreme fire dangers in the county, which would require increased fire protection improvements such as water tanks, more fire resistive material for homes in the area. Mr. Hyde stated we are referring to these codes although they haven’t been adopted by the State yet. But for the counties to receive assistance in fighting these fires we have to adopt these codes. The roads with have to be signed better addresses will have to be posted along driveways.

Mr. Hyde stated this is a rough draft of the new subdivision ordinances and also we have some proposed changes in the zoning ordinances.

Mr. Hyde stated I have inserted by State Law the actual powers and duties of the Planning Commission. We had five listed in the current ordinances and there are actually eleven of them from the State Code. The County Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment will be doing what they are currently doing.

Mr. Hyde stated that there are some of the same definitions that he referred to starting on page 11 of a handout passed around. There are some new ones being added to this ordinance.

Mr. Hyde referred to flooding and in the past the County has not participated in the National Flood Insurance Program. Recently there has been some interest in doing that. The County has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to become a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program and in order to do this the County needs to have a flood plain management section in our zoning ordinance. Area of Shallow Flooding, Area of Special Flood Hazard and Base Flood are among the new definitions. Mr. Hyde then referred to page 50 (Flood Plain Overlay Zone). This is a zone that will try and help prevent things from being built in the flood plain that will cause a problem during a flood. Mr. Hyde mentioned that this Overlay Zone is already in effect in Utah County and they have been using this program for quite a while. The first step is for the Corps of Engineers to do a flood study for the County. The study will have to be done for the rural areas and those areas will need to be mapped.

Mr. Hyde stated that he has added a number of definitions to our code that appear in State Law but haven’t been in our local ordinance. One issue is regarding Exotic Animals and this is something that the County has not regulated. Mr. Hyde stated we are proposing that these animals (lions, tigers, wolves, etc.) not be allowed in our zoning. Mr. Uresk asked what about ostrich, emu, or llamas? Mr. Hyde stated that he didn’t see them listed as exotic animals. Commissioner Peatross asked what if it involves someone or something with the motion picture industry? Mr. Hyde stated we could add something to the definition that would allow a legitimate operation involving movies.
Mr. Hyde stated another definition we have is “Family” which states “A group of two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption residing together”. This violates the Federal Fair Housing Act, so we are trying to bring our definition in compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

Mr. Hyde stated another issue is Home Businesses. Right now the only type of home businesses that we don’t allow are nursing homes, health care, physicians, etc. There was some discussion between the Planning Commission and Mr. Hyde what kinds of restrictions need to be applied for those living in the rural areas and those living in congested areas as to whether or not a Conditional Use Permit will be needed. Commissioner Brough asked on a Home Occupation doesn’t that mean that the business is in the home and can’t be in the garage area. Mr. Hyde stated the business could be located on the property where the home is. Right now our ordinance just states it does not include the outside storage of goods, materials, or equipment. Mr. Hyde stated maybe we could have higher standards in the R-½, R-1 and maybe R-2½ zones, more flexibility in the A-5 and A-10 zones.

Mr. Hyde stated a number of terms that haven’t be defined such as a manufactured home, manufactured home park, mobile home, mobile home park, what is a non-complying structure, or a non-conforming use so we need to apply the State’s definitions on these. Including recreational vehicle, recreational vehicle park, and we regulate them without a definition. Also on Residential Facility for Persons with Disabilities we need to bring that into compliance with the State Code. Yard definitions have not been included such as Yard Front, Yard Rear, and Yard Side.

Mr. Hyde stated in the Table Of Uses there is not a section for Signs or Billboards and I’m recommending that they not be permitted in R- ½ , R-1 ½ , or R-2 ½ and they be permitted in Industrial and Commercial Zones. In A-5 and A-10 zone they are not permitted, but the Planning Commission all agreed that billboards should be permitted in these areas with a conditional use permit because there isn’t that much area in the commercial and industrial areas.

Mr. Uresk stated some issues with Oil and Gas Drilling Facilities/Productions being permitted in all areas. I think that in your smaller zones such as R-2 ½, R-1, and R-½ people don’t want an oil rig located in the middle of their property. There is the preemption part of this federal law and state law but still I think you can propose some conditions on these areas where they are dense because at this time there are no restrictions. Mr. Hyde stated that right now they are permitted everywhere and Mr. Uresk is recommending they have to have a conditional use permit in the smaller zones.

Mr. Hyde stated regarding rezoning there has been quite a bit of talk about spot zoning in the past and the State Law clarifies there is no minimum area nor diversity of ownership requirement for a zone designation. Neither the size of a zoning district nor the number of landowners within the district may be used as evidence of the illegality of a zoning district or the invalidity of a county decision. Mr. Hyde stated if someone applies for a rezone we are still going to encourage them to make it as big as they can versus just one lot.

Mr. Hyde stated in regards to “Appeals” currently if the decision of the Planning Commission is to approve request the public has thirty days to appeal their decision to the County Commissioners. According to State Law you can go down to ten days and I am recommending that we do this. Thirty days is an awfully long time for an applicant to have to wait before they can proceed with their plans. If there is an appeal it would need to be received within ten days of written notice and then an appeal meeting time would be advertised.

Mr. Hyde stated that in dealing with livestock right now there are no regulations for instance if you have one acre of property you can have as many livestock as you want. I don’t know how the commission may want to deal with this or if you don’t want to go there. The commission responded that because of the rural area to leave this alone and just make it so that there is adequate fencing so their animals do not infringe on their surrounding neighbors. Chairman Sweat asked if anywhere in the ordinance does it verify fenced in and fenced out. Mr. Uresk stated State Law says that you are a fenced in area unless the County Legislative body has adopted an “Open Range” ordinance, which then switches it to a fenced out area. Mr. Uresk stated that this County has never adopted an open range ordinance so you may want to consider that. In open grazing areas if there is a proposal for a new subdivision being developed then the developer would be responsible for fencing the perimeter of the subdivision as to keep the livestock out.

Mr. Hyde stated in Conditional Use Permits in Section 17.52.054 I feel that we need to delete numbers 7 thru 9. Number 7 is taken care in Section 17.52.070, number 8 recommends a review of the area from time to time that the applicants are in compliance but I think if they are not the surrounding neighbors would let us know, and number 9 is pretty much a catch all that is not legal. With a conditional use permit gravel pits are still required to post a $1,000.00 bond.

Mr. Hyde stated that in Section 17.60.040 classification of manufactured and mobile homes. Standards of the mobile homes allowed in the County right now allow persons to put a single wide on a lot in the county to meet June 15, l976 health safety standards. Those were modified August 22, 1981 and I’m proposing that we upgrade our mobile home standards a bit from the 1976 standards to 1981 standards. It was questioned whether or not they could make the year newer because 1981 mobile homes are now over 20 years old and Mr. Hyde stated that he would have to check into this.

It was discussed between the Planning Commission to have a public meeting and go over these recommendations and changes in the subdivision and zoning ordinances and then have a workshop at a later date if need be, before presenting their ideas to the County Commissioners. It was agreed to over these changes at the meeting on June 1, 2005.

Minutes:
Approval of April 6, 2005 minutes
Commissioner Brough motioned to approve the minutes. Commissioner Fabrizio seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Commission Comments and Staff Reports:
Mr. Hyde stated the Six Lakes Campground, conditional use permit has been appealed and the County Commissioners will be having their hearing on May 23, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. and all parties have been notified. As of yet there has been no appeal on the Berry Petroleum conditional use permit but we are expecting one to be coming in.

Also on our June 1st meeting along with going over the subdivision and zoning ordinances we will have a couple of conditional use permits for gravel pits, one in the Myton area and the other in the Strawberry River Road area.

A reminder that there is a Citizen Planner seminar in North Salt Lake on June 9th and 10th if any of you are interested. New Commissioner Mobley expressed interest in attending.

Adjournment:
Commissioner Brough motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Commissioner Peatross seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.