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
October 6, 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:
LaVerl Dumas......................	Support of Impound Lot
Robert Hamlet......................	Support of Impound Lot
Aubrey Hallam & Emily Hallam.................................	Against Impound Lot
Katherine, Darrell, & Deborah Kent....................................	Against Impound Lot
Heidi Kennelly......................	Against Impound Lot
William and Katharyn Allen....	Against Impound Lot
Ken and Lapreal Merriam.......	Against Impound Lot
Charles & Barbara Quintana..............................	Against Impound Lot
Richard and Linda Northington..........................	Against Impound Lot
Jack & Gisela Brereton.........	Against Impound Lot
Linda Kelsey........................	Against Impound Lot
Gary Watrous.......................	Against Impound Lot
Ray Wayman.......................	Against Impound Lot
Hank & Edie VanZalinge........	Against Impound Lot
Burt & Betty Match...............	Against Impound Lot
Victoria Garcia.....................	UMR Phase 8
Clint Peatross......................	UMR Phase 8
Darrin Brown........................	Tri-County Health Department
Leslie Woods.......................	Rezone Request

The meeting was called to order at 5:08 p.m. by Vice Chairman Sweat.

Subdivisions:
Utah Mini Ranches Phase 8, Preliminary Plat, requesting preliminary plat approval for a 55-lot subdivision, Sections 16 & 17, T4S, R4W, in the southeast Duchesne area.

Victoria Garcia appeared representing the applicant.

Commissioner Sweat asked if there is anything not in order regarding this request?

Mr. Hyde replied that the applicants now have water from South Duchesne Culinary Water & septic approval from Tri-County Health. UDOT has expressed concern about traffic entering and exiting the highway and before any more development happens in this area that they would need a traffic study. However, UDOT has since decided to not hold up this phase. Mr. Hyde recommended that the Commission adopt findings in the staff report and approve the preliminary plat.

Commissioner Sweat called for any questions from the Board or from the audience.

As there were no further comments or questions, Commissioner Brough made a motion to adopt the findings recommended by staff and approve the preliminary plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fabrizio and passed unanimously.

Utah Mini Ranches Phase 8, Final Plat, requesting final plat approval for a 55-lot subdivision, Sections 16 & 17, T4S, R4W, in the southeast Duchesne area.

Clint Peatross appeared and stated that we have submitted everything required for final plat approval of this phase and would request approval at this time.

Mr. Hyde noted that a letter from the Road Dept. dated 9-30-04 indicates that roads in this phase have been approved and accepted by the County. Also, we have been provided with a bond for the waterlines that need to be extended for this phase. The plat in your agenda does not have the road names on it; however, the Mylar submitted by Mr. Peatross for signatures does have the roads names so that issue has been addressed. If the plat is approved tonight, we will take it to the next County Commissioners meeting for their review.

As there were no further comments or questions, Commissioner Peatross moved to adopt the findings recommended by staff and recommend approval of the final plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brough and passed unanimously.

Conditional Use Permit:
Robert Hamlet, requesting to establish a towing business and auto impound yard, Lot 11, Pinion Retreat #1, 33000 Block of Old Hwy 40.
The public hearing was opened and Vice-Chairman Sweat called for those wishing to speak.

Mr. Hamlet appeared in favor of the request and questioned why everyone is against having the impound lot in this area. He told anyone that wanted to go look at 10 acres he has now, to see what condition it is in. Mr. Hamlet is still living in Salt Lake and wants to move here and semi-retire; running the impound lot part-time.

Mr. Ray Wayman expressed concerns with the area turning into junkyard, also concerned with how many trees will be removed.

Mr. Hamlet replied that the only trees being removed were those in the middle where the triple wide mobile home would be located, also the dead ones in the corner where the impound lot would be located. At the most there should only be 6 or 7 cars in the lot at a time, and most of the time there shouldn’t be any vehicles at all. Mr. Hamlet wanted to take over Jay Dumas’s towing business when he became ill, but was unable to at that time. I now have two tow trucks to start business, one being a 4-car carrier enabling me to remove some of the junk vehicles in area now. A question was asked regarding how long would vehicles be left in impound. Mr. Hamlet replied that State Law was 30 days, after that he would take vehicle or vehicles to another impound lot where an auction would be held and vehicles sold. Vehicles should never be there more than 60 days from beginning to end. This would be an impound lot completely, not a salvage yard. There would be no reason to do any mechanical work, and if I didn’t comply with the permit you could pull it at any time.

Mr. Charles Quintana objected to the proposal, as it would ruin the view from his deck.

Linda Kelsey and Aubrey Hallam spoke concerned with the noise. Mr. Hamlet assured them that where the property is located right off Highway 40 that there would be no reason for him to travel in front of anyone’s property in that area, also that it would not be any noisier than the semi-trucks now traveling on Highway 40. If for any reason I would be towing at night I would leave vehicle attached to tow truck until morning, unless of course I needed the tow truck.

Laverl Dumas introduced a petition in favor of the impound lot, stating that his father (Jay Dumas) also had an impound lot and never had any more than 3 or 4 cars impounded at a time.

Hank VanZalinge was concerned whether property would need to be zoned commercial or not and was afraid that if opened to commercial how many other properties would turn into commercial. Mr. Hamlet stated that it was a conditional use permit, for one individual and no one else.

Barbara Quintana spoke concerned with the zoning and wondering if the zoning is changed what else are they going to get out there.

Commissioner Peatross questioned how staff classified the proposed land use within the Table of Uses in the zoning code.

Mr. Hyde replied that on the Table of Uses, commercial uses are allowed as a Conditional Use in the A-5 zone. If the permit is granted, there is no need to rezone the property for Commercial Use.

Commissioner Peatross observed that we need to explain to everyone that he is not here to change to zone in the A-5 section, but that there will be conditions he needs to comply with if the permit is granted.

Mr. Hyde stated that another way a person can establish a business in a residential area is a home occupation permit, however in this area it doesn’t meet the standards, because you can’t have any outdoor storage. So, Mr. Hamlet was unable to apply for a home occupation permit and that is why he has applied for conditional use permit. There are 3 criteria that must be met before obtaining a conditional use permit: 1) Location will not be unduly detrimental of injurious to property or improvement and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 2) The purposed use will be located and conducted in compliance and goals of Duchesne County General Plan. 3) That the property on which the use, building or other structure is proposed is of adequate size and dimensions to permit the use. Mr. Hyde stated that he had provided these findings to the commission in their agendas. I knew that there were a lot of concerns in the neighborhood about this. I have included findings to approve or deny the request. Whatever decision the Planning Commission makes tonight, an appeal can be made to the County Broad of Commissioners within 30 days. I have also received several phone calls and letters in regards to this.

Chairman Barneck asked if there is anyone else that would like to address this issue?

Edie VanZalinge stated her concern that it will bring in a lot more crime and there are a lot of single old people living here. Will there be someone there to patrol the area? Mr. Hamlet informed Mrs. VanZalinge that there are already people that drive around in the area that have, no business there anyway.

Chairman Barneck thanked Mrs. VanZalinge for her comment. I’m not sure that I have a specific answer to your question, although my inclination is that a small impound lot is not going to bring any more crime into the area but, if this is a concern of yours we will consider it. Mr. Barneck turned the floor over to Mr. Hyde to complete the staff report.

Mr. Hyde presented photos showing the entrance from Old Highway 40 and the shop building on the west property line. You can see how the property is treed and how the buildings are partially obscured.

Chairman Barneck stated that he is familiar with the area and was wondering if you turned off at mile marker 73 where the property is located, Mr. Hamlet stated that it was approximately 2 miles east; at mile marker 75.

Mr. Hyde indicated phone calls and letters he has received opposing this permit. A letter from Heidi Kennelly, a property owner just west of Mr. Hamlet was received and read into the record. Mr. Hamlet stated that before he purchased this property he had spoke to Mrs. Kennelly and she didn’t have any objection to me putting in a impound lot. Now she says that she had no idea that it was going to be an impound lot.

Mr. Hyde stated that he received a few other items that I would like to share for the record. I have received a letter from Linda Dumas stating that she thinks this would be a good business for the area, also a letter from Dwayne Buck, stated please approve this for Mr. Hamlet as it is a much need business in this area. Then Mr. Hyde stated some of the names on a petition that approved having the business in the area.

Chairman Barneck inquired where Jay Dumas’s business was located? Mr. Hamlet mentioned that it was located at the top of Pinion Ridge. Jay had a mechanical shop where he did repairs I don’t have any intentions of doing repair work.

Mr. Barneck inquiring how long Mr. Dumas had his business in this area and someone stated it had been there since 1980 or 1981 until he died in 1996 or 1997. How many of you opposed to this business were living here when Mr. Dumas had his business? Mr. Barneck’s point to this question was to know how many people were opposed to Mr. Dumas running his business in this area.

As there were no additional questions or comments, Chairman Barneck called for discussion by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Fabrizio expressed her opinion that the impound lot will not make that much difference. There is impound lot near my home and about every six months he brings in a vehicle at night. The state police rotate the towing requests to a number of providers.

Commissioner Sweat felt the Commission should focus on the conditions that could be placed on Mr. Hamlet, to take care of some fears and some of the objections that the people have. This is not a zone change, which means the next person can’t come in and put up a Wal-Mart. Conditional Use Permit is for one specific thing in a certain way.

Commissioner Brough reminded those present that if the conditions are not met then the permit could be pulled.

Commissioner Peatross stated the conditions he would like to see used is the impact be compatible with the residential use, which means the kind of noise, traffic, etc. does not get out of line and I don’t see anything here that will cause a problem.

As there was no further discussion, Commissioner Sweat made a motion to adopt findings to approve the request under the following conditions:

1.	Owner agrees to meet but not exceed the minimum business sign size required by the state for impound yards.
2.	Owner agrees to comply with the noise regulations of the County Nuisance Ordinance and minimize noise impacts between 9:30 PM and 7:00 AM.
3.	Owner shall not perform mechanical work on impounded vehicles.
4.	Owner shall remove impounded vehicles within 59 days of towing them to this location.
5.	Owner shall comply with all local, state and federal laws associated with impound yards.
6.	Owner shall erect a privacy fence as depicted on the site plan prior to impounding vehicles at this location.

Commissioner Brough seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Zoning Map Amendment:
Randy and Leslie Woods, requesting a zone change from A-5, Agricultural-Residential to Commercial, Section 35, T3S, R7W, U.S.B.&M.

Chairman Barneck opened this matter for discussion and called on the applicant.

Leslie Woods stated that they want to put approximately 20 10’X10’ mini-storage units on the property. There would be no removal of any trees in the area except where you would enter onto the property. The ground is mostly sagebrush. The storage units would be accessible from Old Highway 40, not from the existing highway. The have abandoned the idea of a small campground on the property.

During the staff report, Mr. Hyde noted that the Woods at this time own only 4.65 acres, which is not in compliance with the A-5 zoning. UDOT and Process Control Inc. own property just west of the Woods property and have elected to join the rezone request, which would bring the rezoned acreage up to 3l acres. The County Commissioners will have a public hearing to review this request and will need a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Brough stated that he would feel more comfortable with a Conditional Use Permit for the mini-storage facility rather than a rezone.

Mrs. Woods replied that they liked the certainty of a rezone versus a conditional use permit.

Mr. Hyde noted that with the rezoning to commercial there would be no minimum lot size issue.

Commissioner Brough observed that it is good to have commercial uses by the highway.

Mr. Jack Brereton spoke against the rezone due to potential noise from the property. He also was concerned with the lack of fire protection in the area.

Mrs. Linda Kelsey spoke against the rezone due to the impact of commercial development on the wildlife and quality of life in the area.

Mr. Uresk noted that if the Woods are unable to obtain the rezone and are unable to otherwise increase the size of their property to five acres, they could apply to the Board of Adjustment for a Variance.

Commissioner Barneck agreed that he would be more comfortable with a Conditional Use Permit and the applicants getting more acreage from either UDOT or another adjoining property.

As there were no additional comments or questions, Commissioner Sweat moved to recommend that the County Commissioners deny the zone change. Commissioner Brough seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Other Business:
Minutes: Commissioner Brough moved to approve the minutes of the September 1, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rather and passed unanimously.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.