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
September 1, 2004 - 5:00 p.m.
In Attendance
were:
Michael Barneck,
Planning Commission Chairman
Dean Brough, Planning Commission
Leon Sweat, Planning Commission
Thomas Rather, Planning Commission
Chris Peatross, Planning Commission
Shelly Fabrizio, Planning Commission
Mike Hyde, Community Development Administrator
Megan Bringhurst, Planning Secretary
Roland Uresk, Deputy County Attorney
| Visitors |
Agenda Item |
| Todd & Barbara Hall........ |
Plat Amendment |
| Calvin & Shirley Nelson... |
Plat Amendment |
| Edwin Hartman............... |
|
| Candi Child.................... |
Residential Treatment Ordinance |
| Earlene Page................. |
Residential Treatment Ordinance |
| Amber McMullin............. |
Residential Treatment Ordinance |
| Jess Knight................... |
Canyon Ledge Preliminary & Final Plat |
| Charles Hansen............. |
Charles Hansen Subdivisions #2 & #3 |
| Steve Elinger................. |
Charles Hansen Subdivisions #2 & #3 |
| R.E. Wright................... |
|
| Dave & Kathie Jessup.... |
|
| Jean Liddell................... |
|
| Darrin Brown.................. |
Tri-County Health Department |
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
Subdivisions:
Charles Hansen Subdivision #2, Preliminary plat, requesting
preliminary plat approval, Northeast corner of Highway 87 and
4000 North, Section 30 Township 1 South Range 3 West, U.S.B.&M.
Located in the Altamont area.
Charles Hansen indicated that he came to the Commission
approximately two months ago with part of this subdivision. The
reason why this was not included in earlier proposals is because
of very few available Upper Country Water connections, but I was
recently able to get one. This proposed lot is approximately 5.5
acres, and is located 291 feet west of the car wash. It has
electricity, natural gas and culinary water on the south side of
it. Electricity and telephone is also available on the west side
of the property. Tri-County Health has passed the percolation
test. Ilene Jensen has given documentation of approval for the
water connection. There is a Declaration of Covenants we have
agreed to, saying that whomever buys the properties will take
care of the weeds in accordance with County regulations. They
will also keep it fenced for any livestock and keep the property
maintained in good visual condition. There is a right of way off
and on to the county road at the south of the property.
Chair Barneck called for any questions or comments. There were
none.
Commissioner Brough moved to adopt the findings and conclusions
of the staff report and approve the preliminary plat, subject to
the condition that the covenants be recorded with the final
plat. Commissioner Rather seconded the motion and the motion
passed unanimously.
Charles Hansen Subdivision #2, Final Plat, requesting final
plat approval, Northeast corner of Highway 87 and 4000 North,
Section 30 Township 1 South Range 3 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in
the Altamont area.
Chair Barneck noted that we have already established in the
preliminary plat that they have met all the requirements. There
were no questions or comments. Commissioner Peatross moved to
adopt the findings and conclusions in the staff report and
recommend approval of the final plat. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Sweat and passed unanimously.
Charles Hansen Subdivision #3, Preliminary plat, requesting
preliminary plat approval, 788.5 feet east of the intersection
of Highway 87 and 4000 North, Section 30 Township 1 South Range
3 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in the Altamont area.
Charles Hansen stated that this lot is approximately 3.4 acres
and has an existing water well that was drilled in approximately
1948. At one time it supplied the car wash and the home. We sent
a well water sample to the Tri-County Health Department, which
they approved. There is a septic system on it that Tri-County
had checked previously and passed. There is a Declaration of
Covenants we have agreed to, which is identical to the covenants
associated with Subdivision #2. There is part of a shed on the
property, which has a fence around most of it at this time.
There was a pit where part of the car wash used to be which has
been cleaned and covered up. These drains from the car wash have
been closed to prevent water from entering the property. FHA has
approved a loan on the house, and it is now ready to sell.
Commissioner Sweat inquired if there are irrigation lines on
this property and will any easements be required for these? Mr.
Hansen replied that there is irrigation, but the pipe is not on
this property. It is in the next one. There is a 15” buried line
in it, and also two 12” red heads to take his water out. There
are 3 shares of irrigation water.
Chair Barneck asked about the zoning on this property. Mr. Hyde
replied that it is an
A-5 zone, but because they have an approved non-public water
source, it can be taken down to 2.5 acres.
It was noted that there is a drainage right of way on the
subject property for the car wash.
As there were no further questions, and no additional comments,
Commissioner Sweat moved to adopt the findings and conclusions
of the staff report and approve the preliminary plat, subject to
the condition that the covenants shall be recorded with the
final plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rather and
passed unanimously.
Charles Hansen Subdivision #3, Final Plat, requesting final
plat approval, 788.5 feet east of the intersection of Highway 87
and 4000 North, Section 30 Township 1 South Range 3 West, U.S.B.&M.
Located in the Altamont area.
As there were no questions or comments, Chair Barneck called for
a motion. Commissioner Brough moved to adopt the findings and
conclusions of the staff report and recommend approval of the
final plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fabrizio and
passed unanimously.
Canyon Ledge Preliminary Plat, requesting preliminary plat
approval, Section 36, Township 3 South, Range 6 West, U.S.B.&M.,
located on Old Highway 40, west of Starvation Reservoir.
Jess Knight speaking (Manager of Skyview Estates LLC):
requesting a four-lot subdivision west of the Starvation bridge,
lots go west to east.
Chair Barneck asked for clarification that the property is in a
5-Acre zone, and all the lots are larger than 5 acres. Mr.
Knight replied yes; the lots range from 5 to 9.46 acres.
Tri-County Health has approved percolation tests for wastewater.
Chair Barneck asked if the application for the subdivision was
submitted before the ordinance change requiring subdivisions
under 40 acres to have a water connection? Mr. Knight answered
yes. On these lots there is no access from the south side. There
is access from the north side through Old Highway 40, which will
be the primary access. There is an easement through the middle
of the properties that is a maintenance road for the pipelines.
Chair Barneck asked for any staff comments. Mr. Hyde noted that
there was some question about who has the authority and
responsibility in regards to the old highway. UDOT has found in
their records that in 1969, they transferred that right of way
to the county, who accepted it. The county road department
didn’t realize it was theirs, but now they do and plan on making
some improvements in that area. One recommended condition is the
recordation of covenants because the property can be viewed from
the highway.
Commissioner Sweat asked if the property is within the
boundaries of the Pinion Ridge Special Service District because
where do you plan to get water in the future? Mr. Knight replied
that all lots are strictly dry lots at this time. They have no
plans to create water on the properties. We are leaving it up to
our buyers if they want water if it becomes available through a
public source or well.
As there were no further questions or comments, Commissioner
Brough moved to adopt the findings and conclusions from the
staff report and approve the preliminary plat, subject to the
condition that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions be recorded with the final plat. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Peatross and passed unanimously.
Canyon Ledge Final Plat, Section 36, Township 3 South, Range
6 West, U.S.B.&M., located on Old Highway 40, west of Starvation
Reservoir.
Chair Barneck asked for staff comments. Mr. Hyde noted that
since the issue of the road access maintenance has been taken
care of, there are no recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Brough moved to adopt the findings and conclusions
of the staff report and recommend approval of the final plat.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fabrizio and passed
unanimously.
Plat Amendment:
Calvin Nelson, et. al., Plat Amendment, requesting to divide
Lot 66 Cedar Mountain No. 6 Subdivision. Section 20, Township 3
South, Range 8 West, U.S.B.&M. Located in the Fruitland area.
Mr. Nelson stated that he owns a 12.72 acre lot in an a-5 zone
and wants to divide it into two pieces; one piece being 7.72
acres and the other being 5 acres.
Mr. Hyde reported that the two recommended conditions in the
staff report have been met and can be disregarded.
Chair Barneck asked where this property is located? Mr. Nelson
replied that it is 2 miles east of the Fruitland General Store,
on the north side of the creek.
As there were no additional questions or comments, Commissioner
Sweat moved to adopt the findings and conclusions of the staff
report and recommend approval of the plat amendment. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Brough and passed unanimously.
Zoning Text Amendment:
Duchesne County, requesting amendment of Sections17.08 Use
Definitions; 17.12 .030 Table of Uses; 17.40 Group Homes and
17.52 Conditional Use Permits.
Chair Barneck asked Mr. Hyde to explain the proposal.
Mr. Hyde indicated that the Planning Commission met on May 13th
to talk about potential amendments to the zoning code regarding
residential treatment facilities. They made a recommendation to
the county commission at that time; however, the recommendation
was not approved. Since that time, staff has been discussing the
proposed amendments with the County Commission and a proposal
has been developed. The County Commissioners are now sending the
proposal to the Planning Commission for recommendation and
comment. The Commissioners intend to have a public hearing on
September 13th.
Mr. Hyde pointed out, in Section 1, there are 3 new definitions
along with the deletion of one definition. In Section 2 we
recommend that group homes are removed from the table of uses,
and that residential treatment facilities be added as a
conditional use in A-10 and commercial zones. Secure treatment
facilities would be added as a conditional use in commercial
zoning only. In Section 3, title will be changed to residential
treatment and secure treatment facilities. Few minor changes to
11 listed requirements for an application. In Section 4, the
proposal lists several minimum requirements. The proposal is to
add subsections #5-#9. #5 suggests a setback of at least 5,280
feet from any building on the treatment facility site to a day
care center, school, church, park or existing treatment
facility. If someone comes closer than that 1 mile, they do so
with their eyes open and it will not be a deciding factor for
expansion of the facility. #6 suggests a 2,640 feet setback from
any treatment facility buildings to the nearest property line of
an existing dwelling unit. Again, the establishment of a
dwelling unit within this buffer area cannot be the sole cause
for not granting expansion of the treatment facility. #7
suggests a 200-foot setback from any building on the facility
site to any facility property line. #8 suggests a spacing of 5
miles between secure treatment facilities measured from property
line to property line. #9 suggests fencing or walls along all
property lines of a secure treatment facility, with the design
to be approved by the Planning Commission.
Chair Barneck opened discussion to the public.
Candi Child asked about the rezoning process. Mr. Hyde replied
that the applicant would have to approach our department and
propose the rezoning which goes first to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation
to the County Commissioners, who have the final say. A rezone is
a legislative decision, which provides more ability for the
County to take neighborhood comments into consideration.
Ms. Child asked about the insurance requirements. Mr. Hyde
stated that, during the conditional use process, the Planning
Commission would determine if the insurance offered is
sufficient. The ordinance does not propose a minimum amount of
insurance, but that could be looked at. Also, the County could
require a letter from the insurance company regarding how claims
would be filed and processed, along with a time frame.
Randy Mair spoke in support of what has been drafted and
appreciates the efforts.
Amber McMullin suggested that the fencing requirements be more
specific. Mr. Hyde stated that if the Planning Commission wants
fencing and wall specifics put into the ordinance, it could be
discussed tonight.
As there were no additional public comments, Chair Barneck
called for discussion by the Commission.
Commissioner Brough asked why secure treatment facilities are
proposed to be allowed only in commercial zones. There is very
limited commercial zoning in the county. Mr. Hyde acknowledged
the shortage of commercial land; however, that the rezoning
process could produce more such land.
Commissioner Fabrizio stated that these secure facilities would
not look residential so they should be in a commercial area.
Commissioner Brough expressed a concern that this will require a
zone change for every application. Mr. Hyde clarified that the
secure facilities, as defined by state law, are more likely to
require a rezone.
Chair Barneck inquired if it is our intent to make people come
in for a zone change every time someone wants to apply? Mr.
Uresk replied that the rezoning process gives adjoining property
owners more opportunities to have a say.
Chair Barneck inquired if the one-mile spacing standard applied
only to licensed day care facilities. Mr. Hyde and Mr. Uresk
agreed that would be correct.
Chair Barneck asked where the setback requirements came from?
Mr. Hyde stated that they are merely a proposal to try to
achieve more neighborhood compatibility.
Chair Barneck asked how these requirements compare with other
facilities in the state? Mr. Hyde replied that Mr. Mair has done
some research and presented such findings to the Commission.
Staff does not have data available to compare this proposal to
what exists statewide.
Commissioner Brough expressed concern with the 200-foot setback
requirement between treatment facility buildings and their
property lines, noting that only 1.55 acres of a square ten-acre
lot would be buildable. Mr. Hyde replied that this requirement
does not preclude the construction of parking lots, ball fields
and other facilities within the setback area; so it will not all
be wasted space.
Commissioner Brough stated that bringing these facilities into
the community would provide more job opportunities and revenue
for the county. By making this so restrictive we are telling
these people who apply that we don’t want them here. Mr. Hyde
replied that a balance needs to be found between bringing in
more treatment facilities and protecting citizens of the county.
Commissioner Sweat suggested reducing the 200-foot setback to
100 or 50 feet.
Darin Brown commented that the proposal does not address the
treatment centers that operate without a facility; instead
providing treatment in a wilderness setting.
Commissioner Peatross noted that because the distinction between
large and small facilities has been taken out of the ordinance,
both secure and residential treatment facilities are now
required to meet the setbacks. Before it would have only been
the large facilities. Mr. Hyde replied that the level one and
level two facility definition was removed as there is no such
distinction made in state law.
Commissioner Peatross stated that, with the current proposed
restrictions, nothing but a very large facility could be
feasible. A small facility would not be able to buy the
necessary property. There are lots of single-family dwellings on
ten-acre lots in the county. But how many of them are built in
the middle of their lot. Mr. Hyde replied that we are not trying
to send a message that we are closed to the residential
treatment facility business. We are just trying to make sure
they are sited in areas that are compatible with existing
residences. This is one way to attempt to do that. Mr. Hyde
agreed that the setback from treatment facility buildings to the
property line could be reduced to 50 feet. Commissioner Fabrizio
agreed.
Ms. Child stated that she understands the worry about being too
restrictive, but if the standards are too undefined, businesses
tend to push limits and find loopholes.
In response to a question, Mr. Hyde replied that the moratorium
set in March expired July 15th but has been extended to
September 15th.
Chair Barneck asked if you cannot give someone a reason as to
why you are restricting them, why restrict them? Commissioner
Fabrizio replied that the reason is to protect the community. It
gives them a sense of security.
After additional discussion, the Commission voted 5-1
(Commissioner Rather dissenting) to recommend adding the Level 1
and Level 2 treatment facility distinction back into the
proposal.
The Commission reached a tie vote of 3-3 when recommending that
Level 1 facilities, housing 12 or fewer persons, be allowed as a
conditional use in the A-5 zones.
The Commission voted 5-1 (Commissioner Rather dissenting) to
recommend reducing the proposed spacing requirement between
treatment facilities and day care centers, schools, parks
churches and other treatment facilities from 5,280 feet to 1,000
feet.
The Commission voted 5-1 (Commissioner Rather dissenting) to
recommend reducing the proposed spacing requirement between
treatment facilities and existing dwellings from 2,640 feet to
1,000 feet, measured from buildings on the treatment facility
site to the dwelling itself.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend reducing the
proposed setback from treatment center buildings to the property
line from 200 feet to 50 feet.
Other Business:
Request for review of concept plans for the “Silver Moon
Ranch” project, a proposed 95-lot recreational subdivision
located southeast of Duchesne, by Clancy Butler, representing
Utah Land and Ranches, Inc.
Mr. Butler stated that he came before the commission in April
with a rough draft for this proposed subdivision. The minimum
lot size is 40 acres and the largest lot is about 275 acres.
They are wondering about the possibility of obtaining a variance
to the length of their longest cul de sac. An alternative would
be to extend the road northerly between Lots 66 & 67 to the
property line. The terrain doesn’t allow other road options
based on cost. There are two access roads to the project: County
Road #27 & Sowers Canyon road. They are proposing to create an
easement between lots 62 & 63 and also lots 52 & 53 to provide
for potential street access to lands to the east. There is no
available water underground. They are proposing a privately
maintained road with public access. The Commission felt that the
proposed roads should be modified as discussed instead of there
being a variance request. Mr. Hyde will speak with the Road
Department and County Commissioners regarding how many of the
roads would become part of the County B Road system.
Mr. Butler indicated that there are 50 lots in phase 1. They are
also considering asking for a variance to allow one percolation
test per 3 lots instead of one for every lot.
Darrin Brown, Tri-County Health Department, had no problem with
the percolation test request due to the size of the lots. The
Planning Commission indicated that they would be willing to
consider such a variance request when reviewing the preliminary
plat.
Minutes: The May 13, 2004 and July 7, 2004 minutes were
approved unanimously.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
