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
July 7, 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
Ann Bills, Planning Commission
Mike Hyde, Community Development Administrator
Megan Bringhurst, Planning Secretary
Roland Uresk, Deputy County Attorney
| Visitors |
Agenda
Item |
| Tyler Frisby......................... |
Fruitland
Ranchettes |
| Jo Ora Noland..................... |
Fruitland
Ranchettes |
| Robert Ray......................... |
Fruitland
Ranchettes |
| Darrin Brown....................... |
Tri-County
Health Dept. |
Chair Barneck opened
the meeting at 5:00 PM
Chair Barneck chose
to move the approval of the minutes to the bottom of the agenda.
Subdivisions:
Tyler Frisby, 7-96 Partnership, Fruitland Ranchettes,
Preliminary Plat, requesting preliminary plat approval. Section
18, Township 3 South, Range 8 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in the
Fruitland area.
Chair Barneck asked
Mr. Frisby to present his request to the commission.
Mr. Tyler Frisby
stated that the partnership has 24 acres in Fruitland on which
they propose to create four 5-acre lots for
residential/agricultural use. The fifth lot would fall into the
commercial zoning strip along Highway 40. They do not have a
user for lot #5 at this time. In response to a question from
Chair Barneck, Mr. Frisby explained that the four residential
lots would be accessed from a new road to be built just north of
the fire station, while Lot 5 would be accessed directly from
the highway.
As there were no
further questions of the applicant, Chair Barneck asked what is
required for preliminary plat approval. Mr. Hyde presented the
staff report, containing the preliminary plat process and
approval criteria. He emphasized that the developer has
presented proposed deed restrictions that address the
requirements of the code that the property be developed and
maintained in a visually pleasing manner. He noted that the
proposal has been reviewed and approved by the Tri-County Health
Department and the Fruitland Special Services District says
water will be made available. Regarding access to lot 5 from
highway 40, staff and the applicant have had discussions with
Barry Sawsak from UDOT Region 3. Highway 40 is not a limited
access highway at this location, so they can apply for access
for lot 5. However, UDOT has a 1000-foot spacing requirement for
accesses to the highway, which may require a variance to that
standard. The applicants may have to combine driveway access for
lot 5 with an existing access at the real estate office to the
west. Proposed conditions of approval on page 9 of the staff
report require that the access issues on highway 40 be dealt
with before final plat approval. Also, staff has discussed some
minor amendments of the deed restrictions, which also need to be
finalized before final plat approval. Otherwise, it appears that
the standards of the subdivision ordinance have been met.
Mr. Frisby expressed
concern regarding the highway access issue. He doesn’t want to
go ahead and get a permit now, as they are concerned about
getting locked into a specific access point or type of
configuration in advance of a user being identified. However, he
is happy to work with staff and UDOT to work things out.
As there were no
questions of staff, Chair Barneck asked if anyone wants to speak
to this issue.
Jo Ora Noland &
Robert Ray, PO Box 270014, Fruitland, appeared. They own
property directly across Highway 40 from the proposal. They have
a domestic well, an irrigation well and some ponds. They are
concerned about the potential for septic tank drainage into
their water source. The drainage for a large area north of the
highway is channeled through the culvert under the highway
between their property and the applicant’s.
Chairman Barneck
asked Darrin Brown, Tri-County Health Department, to comment
regarding these concerns. Mr. Brown noted that the applicant is
proposing 4 or 5 septic systems here. Wastewater rules require
septic systems be at least 200 feet from wells, which appears to
be the case.
Chair Barneck noted
that the location of nearby wells is not shown on the
preliminary plat. Mr. Ray indicated that their well is
approximately 100 feet off the red creek road, so maybe 200 feet
from the pond.
In response to a
question from Chair Barneck, Mr. Brown stated that it is
sometimes difficult to enforce the 200-foot requirement if they
don’t know where people’s wells are. The wastewater rules are
designed to protect against underground water contamination;
when the developer comes in for a permit they will have to have
a sufficient way to treat the wastewater.
Chair Barneck asked
Mr. Ray how deep their well is. Mr. Ray replied that their
culinary water well is 80 feet deep and the irrigation well is
40 feet deep. Mr. Brown stated that if the septic systems in the
proposed development are installed properly, they should not
contaminate the wells on the Noland-Ray property.
Ms. Noland asked
what recourse they would have if contamination did result? At
the request of Chair Barneck, Mr. Uresk replied that they could
have legal recourse if septic systems are proven to have been
installed in a faulty manner. There is state case law regarding
well contamination. If an earthquake, for example, causes the
contamination, there is nothing you can do about it.
In response to a
question from Mr. Hyde, Mr. Uresk replied that it would be
difficult to prove the source of contamination unless it has a
special element in it that could be traced to a specific
property.
Chair Barneck asked
about other septic systems existing in the vicinity. Ms. Noland
stated that she is not worried about Fruitland Store’s septic
system contaminating their water. The feed store and real estate
office across the highway put in a septic system with the
promise that they would keep it clean. Mr. Ray noted that this
system is at least 200 ft away from their well.
Chair Barneck asked
Mr. Ray how far it would be from the southern boundary of lot 5
to their culinary well. Mr. Ray stated that they are mainly
concerned that septic system drainage will get into their pond
and feed down; guessing that the pond is 200 ft from the well.
In response to a
question from Chair Barneck, Mr. Brown stated that a septic
system must be at least 100 feet away from a pond.
Commissioner Bills
felt that this will be a nice subdivision so you can expect
owners to install the appropriate septic systems. Due to the
size of the lots and the distances involved, she is confident
that it will work. Ms. Noland stated that they just wanted to
voice their concerns and make sure it is in the minutes.
Commissioner
Peatross commented that the state has already defined what the
safe distances are and its our job to make sure they are met.
Commissioner Bills noted that these state laws have been working
for years.
Commissioner Bills
asked staff about the minor amendments to the deed restrictions
that were mentioned. Mr. Hyde replied that the minor amendments
were associated with the development sign on Lot 1 and an
incorrect date in the first paragraph (2005 vs. 2004).
Otherwise, staff is very pleased with the declaration of CC&R’s.
Chair Barneck called
for additional discussion by the Commission.
Commissioner Bills
stated that all preliminary plats should show the locations of
wells on adjoining properties so it can be determined if the 200
foot spacing standard is to be met.
Mr. Frisby indicated
a willingness to show the wells as requested. Mr. Brown
indicated that he would check to see if the well on the property
of Lynn Carr & Gary Blue has been abandoned to know if they need
to take that well into consideration.
Commissioner
Peatross inquired about the wording of the recommended condition
of approval regarding resolving the highway access issue. Does
“resolve” mean actually getting the access, or just making sure
access is possible? Mr. Uresk replied that access must be
approved prior to final plat approval, as we cannot allow the
creation of a lot without access.
Mr. Frisby indicated
that in order to get a permit from the state they have to look
at possible shoulder widening or a turn lane, etc. and it all
has to be in the application for the permit from UDOT. The
Commission discussed the possibility of combining Lots 4 and 5
at this point and having the applicant come back later if a
commercial tenant was found.
Mr. Hyde recommended
that the condition of approval be left “as is” since the only
question here is the 1000 foot spacing between accesses. In this
case, they are within 320 feet of 45000 West, so they will
probably need a variance to that 1000-foot standard. In
reviewing that variance, UDOT will probably say we will allow
your driveway access to lot 5 providing that you combine it with
an existing access on the southeast corner of the Carr/Blue
property.
Chair Barneck noted
the possibility that Carr/Blue will not be receptive to a joint
access. Mr. Hyde replied that’s the reason they need to resolve
this prior to final plat and if they can’t resolve it come back
with a change in their plat.
Mr. Frisby verified
that the Carr/Blue access to the highway is at the southeast
corner of their property, which would work for them if Carr/Blue
are willing to negotiate a shared access. Mr. Hyde noted that
UDOT could supply the two owners with a sample agreement to use.
The existing access seems to be a single width approach that
could potentially be widened to the east.
After additional
discussion, Chair Barneck expressed a desire to leave in the
resolving of the highway access issue in the conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Bills
introduced a motion to adopt the findings and conclusions of the
staff report as the findings and conclusions of the Planning
Commission and approve the preliminary plat request, subject to
all septic systems being placed at least 200 feet from existing
wells, finalizing of the restrictive covenants and resolving
highway access to Lot 5 with UDOT, prior to final plat approval.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peatross and passed
unanimously.
Planning
Commission Business:
Commissioner Brough inquired about the Sammond case. Chair
Barneck reported that the Commissioners denied it
The minutes from
the April 14, 2004 meeting were reviewed. Commissioner
Peatross moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner
Sweat seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hyde updated the
Commission on the projects he has been working on, including the
Weed Control Ordinance, the Animal Control Ordinance, the
Trailer Removal Project, Nuisance properties and public lands
issues. He also reported on the status of the WDI negotiations
with the County Commissioners and the Hancock appeal.
Mr. Hyde advised the
Commission that there will be two Citizen Planner Seminars
coming up; one in Logan on September 23-24, 2004 and the other
in North Salt Lake, November 11-12, 2004. Copies of the
registration form were made available to those interested.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
