Minutes for 2004-05-11, Direct pdf link.
MINUTESOF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 6:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah
Each Commission meeting is recorded on CD or audio tape, which is available to the public through the County Clerk's Office.
In accordance with the requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-7(1)(d), the County Clerk records in the minutes the names of all citizens who appear and speak at a County Commission meeting and the substance "in brief" of their comments. Such statements may include opinion or purported facts. The County does not verify the accuracy or truth of any statement but includes it as part of the record pursuant to state law.
Commissioners Present: Commissioner Camille T. Cain, Chair, Commissioner Kenneth A. Bischoff, and Commissioner Glen H. Burton.
Others Present: David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Margarit Nersisian, Clerk/Auditor's Office. Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor's Office, took minutes.
A. Welcome by Chair Cain
B. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by David Wilson
C. Thought of the Day was offered by Commissioner Burton
D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $126,790.88
2. Warrants #188091 - #188294 in the amount of $1,408,976.74
3. Minutes of Regular Commission Meeting held on May 4, 2004
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
E. Action Items:
1. Request to remove properties from the Tax Sale for further research
Margarit Nersisian, Clerk/Auditor's Office, referred to the list of 14 properties before the Commission that had been suggested, either by the County Recorder or the Surveyor's office, to be removed from the tax sale. There were some discrepancies between the two offices and they wished to conduct further research.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve removal of those properties from the tax sale for further research; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
2. Request for settlement of taxes regarding LSN 12-109-0003
Margarit Nersisian, Clerk/Auditor's Office, stated that this parcel was on this year's tax sale list because taxes were delinquent for 1999 and 2000. Because the petitioner is permanently disabled, he qualifies for the tax relief program and has been applying since 2001, but he wasn't aware of the program in 1999. The petitioner had previously requested that the Tax Review Committee abate the taxes for 1999 and 2000, however, the county could not do the retroaction. Today, he was asking for a settlement of his taxes. This went before the Tax Review Committee which recommended approval as follows: The petitioner would pay ½ of the taxes, and half of the interest and penalties, which would have been his responsibility if he had applied for the tax relief program for those years. The petitioner had agreed to pay that, as well as the full tax sale fees since they had already been expended, for a total of $986.41. The county would abate $786.41.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the settlement of taxes regarding LSN 12-109-0003; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
3. Request to waive penalty and interest on LSN 08-093-0011
Margarit Nersisian, Clerk/Auditor's Office, stated that there were two taxpayers with the same name in the county. The county had mailed the tax notices to the wrong address for the subject taxpayer. This year when the tax sale letter went to the wrong person, it was forwarded to the correct person. This is a very small parcel and the subject taxpayer had thought it was included with her legal description. The taxpayer was requesting that the interest and penalty be waived in the total of $142.12.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to waive penalty and interest on LSN 08-093-0011 in the amount of $142.12; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
4. Request for approval of extension requests and payment contracts
Margarit Nersisian, Clerk/Auditor's Office, referred to the list before the Commission of 11 properties stating that two of those parcels had already been redeemed. Additionally, the Tax Review Committee did not approve the extension for Brett & Diane Naisbitt. This was an extension for the second year and they never made any payments in the first year. Chair Cain asked if there had been an examination of hardship for the Naisbitts and Ms. Nersisian replied that based on the documentation and conversations, the Committee felt there wasn't extreme hardship involved. The remaining items were based on hardship and had agreed to make monthly payments and pay off the taxes by the end of November.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve the eight tax extension contracts and one denial; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
5. Request for final subdivision approval of Quist Subdivision consisting of 3 lots at approximately 800 North 7100 East
Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, stated that this subdivision was on the east side of Pineview Reservoir. There is a dirt road that goes all the way through and accesses the Stoker Gravel Pit in Ogden Valley. As part of this subdivision's approval, the County Engineer's Office requested that the petitioners dedicate the part of their property to the county for road purposes that would eventually become Stoker Lane. He stated that in the future when the other property developed, that part of the road would be built. Mr. Hamilton said that it had been determined that this road was currently a county road by right of use and all the homes on the east fronted it. Because it is quite a steep embankment to get to the two lots on the north side of the development, the County Engineer's Office recommended approval subject to the petitioners bringing in plans for their driveways with an effort to have only one driveway coming off the county road to access those lots. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this item subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to grant final subdivision approval of Quist Subdivision consisting of 3 lots at approximately 800 North 7100 East with the stipulations from Engineering; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
F. Public Hearings
Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye. 1.
2. Public hearing on Conditional Use Permit CUP #12-03 for a Planned Residential Unit Development, Edgewater Beach Resort at Snow basin Road, 180 units in 15 buildings, located at approximately 6350 E. Hwy 39
Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, stated that the petitioner, Dr. Ron Catanzaro, had requested a 180-unit condominium project on a 13-acre parcel zoned CVR-1 in the Ogden Valley, adjacent to the Lakeside Village Condominium project on the west side and Pineview Reservoir on the north. The proposal is for fifteen 12-plex condominiums. Mr. Hamilton showed areal photographs and project renderings. The buildings have underground parking. He pointed out a narrow dirt lane that used to go through before the reservoir was built and which was listed as a county road, stating that had it had not been used to any great extent since then. Mr. Hamilton said that the petitioner had amended the site plan to comply with the 100 ft. setback from the State right-of-way. County Planning staff and the East Huntsville Planning Commission recommended denial of the Edgewater Beach P.R.U.D. for three main reasons:
1) Building heights did not conform to the Ogden Valley General Plan, which he quoted in part: "Residents feel that preserving the Valley's rural character, including maintaining opened view corridors and preserving the Valley's entrance experience. Residents feel that development should not be obtrusive or unduly compromise the Valley's aesthetics... U-39 had been identified as an entry corridor. Pineview Reservoir had been identified as a view corridor... establishing 100 ft. setbacks, adopting quality development standards addressing location, height... for all developments within an identified view and entry corridor." This project will abut property on the west side that is in a land conservation easement providing permanent open space. The proposed buildings were about 45 ft. high. The maximum height allowed in this zone is 25 ft. and the petitioner went before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. It was denied based on two applicable regulations: i) that commissioners should not authorize a conditional use permit unless evidence was presented to establish that such use would be compatible with and complimentary to the existing surrounding uses, buildings, and structures when considering traffic generation, parking, building design, location, etc., and ii) that the proposed use conformed to the goals, policies and governing principles and land use of the Ogden Valley General Plan. Because the buildings would be on the entry and view corridors, a conditional use permit should not be granted to exceed the 25 ft. in height.
2) Density - Properties to the south and west of this proposal require 3 and 5 acres per unit, respectively, by ordinance. Planning Commissioners felt that 180 units were too much for an area within this view and entry corridor. Carrying capacity of the roads was a concern, which had resulted in most properties in Ogden Valley being down-zoned to a 3-acre parcel. Most of the properties along the edge of the reservoir are zoned for one unit for 5 acres.
3) The Planning Commission felt that the petitioner should have left the commercial element, proposed in earlier plans, and should have integrated it into this project. They would like to see smaller commercial businesses built in that area.
Mr. Hamilton addressed the commissioners' questions. He said that the adjacent condos' heights were 44 ft. but the petitioner had come in for approval prior to adoption of the new general plan in 1998. The subject project was discussed in three meetings because the commissioners wished to give the developer every opportunity to redesign a project that could be approved.
Dr. Catanzaro gave comparisons between his former adjacent development and made reference to precedent–indicating that the two projects were basically the same in height and footprint. Chair Cain asked when Lakeside had been approved and Dr. Catanzaro said it had been approved on several occasions but believed the last approval was before he sold it, probably in 1999-2000. He had purchased these two properties about 26 years ago and had them zoned CVR-1 or equivalent, and he had built a central sewer system to service them. He indicated Edgewater had a lot more open space, with 1.2 buildings/acre–a lower density of buildings, but a higher condominium density, to support the extra expense of underground parking. He said the project would provide good paying jobs, increase the county's tax base and provide needed facilities.
Dr. Catanzaro addressed the Planning Commission's issues. He stated they wished the northern and western boundaries to have buildings no higher than 25 ft. and he disagreed because he felt the precedent for height and footprint had been established with Lakeside Village, and this would dramatically reduce the density which was not economically feasible for him. He felt 180 units were appropriate for this site and that according to the ordinance he could have between 240-250 units approved. Regarding the Planning Commission's desire to soften the eastern view corridor boundary, he said that the Marian Fowers Martin farm next door had been put into a land trust and it had been suggested that this project be moved inward to provide a buffer. However, Dr. Catanzaro said the county's dirt road was a buffer.
He said the eastern view corridor approached from Lakeside Village had 52 ft. from the ground surface level to the top of the condominium on the southwest corner and the property was level with the road in that area. This proposal would have an eastern corridor height of 46 ft. with the closest condominium on the southwest corner being 12 ft. below Hwy. 39, and the buildings were on a zig zag pattern. Edgewater's northwest boundary bordering Pineview Reservoir was 36 ft. below Hwy. 39 and 24 ft. on the northeastern boundary, which would be below the 25 ft. Regarding the Planning Commission's request for smaller commercial businesses, he said that a restaurant and gift shop were planned for the main building and additional businesses were planned for the commercial corner across from this property on Snow Basin Road. Dr. Catanzaro said that a precedent had been set in the approval of Lakeside Village in that the sewer would be expanded as the condos would be built. He said that sewer hookups had been recently increased from 124 to 165 by the State, equating to 300 gallons/day of sewage to be treated. The Sewer Board will be asking the State to put the sewer system on a demand basis, which would allow three times the amount of hookups. He asked that the project be approved tonight as he had been in the process for seven months. Mark Babbit, Great Basin Engineering, stated that they had adjusted the plan as requested by the Planning Commission except for the three issues outlined by Mr. Hamilton. He said that one issue the fire department had struggled with was how to serve buildings that were above 35 ft. in height and changes were made to accommodate this. Mr. Babbitt said the subject property sloped down off the road between 5-6% grade to the north end and the buildings would be below the road level.
Because comparisons and references to a set precedent were made, Chair Cain pointed out that the petitioner's request was inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements, thus the development next door did not have such a bearing on this project.
Chair Cain invited public comments, and the following addressed the Commission:
Marian Fowers Martin, expressed her strong opposition to the proposed development, outlining the reasons and requesting that the application for a conditional use permit be denied, unless there were significant modifications. Her property is adjacent on the west to the proposed project and she showed large color photographs of the area, including Hwy. 39 along the view corridor and along the edge of Pineview Reservoir, pointing out that this development would be in the entry way into Ogden Valley from Ogden Canyon. The proposed buildings would be on the edge of the county road, basically a driveway/one lane dirt road, which would not provide a buffer to her property. She asked the Commission to require a buffer zone on the west side of the development. This farm was homesteaded by her grandfather and her family had lived and farmed it over 100 years, and to retain its beauty, she placed it into a conservation easement agreement providing that it will forever remain agricultural, which is in keeping with the goals of the General Plan. She asked the Commission to adhere to the General Plan policies and zoning ordinances and to require that the developer significantly reduce the density of the units so that it would be compatible with the 5-acre requirement next door and the 3-acre requirement to the south, and to consider the surrounding area, which was a reservoir, a shoreline, and a working farm. She noted that a goal of the General Plan was to keep Ogden Valley as a beautiful and scenic spot, and emphasized keeping open the entry corridors and the view of the reservoir so all people could appreciate the beautiful view.
Because Pineview Reservoir is on the north side of this proposal, she felt it was important that the development remain consistent with the shoreline regulations limiting building heights to 25 ft. by the reservoir and on the west. The General Plan repeatedly emphasizes that any development should be compatible with and should not cause adverse effects on its surrounding area, and this proposal was not compatible with a working farm. Ms. Martin referred to the precedent Dr. Catanzaro had mentioned regarding Lakeside Village and said that his previous proposal had expired. Now, the current proposal came under the existing Ogden Valley General Plan and the current zoning ordinances. She stated there was no buffer zone or gradual transition between the farmland, but instead he proposed a 45 ft. high wall of buildings, particularly those on the north side by the reservoir. One of the photos of the reservoir taken from the south side of the highway in front of Lakeside Village showed it blocked all views and Ms. Martin stated that if the proposed buildings were the same height, it would also block the reservoir view, even if there was a lower grade. She suggested an open park or open area next to the dirt road in hopes it would provide a transition and blend better with the agricultural area, concentrating the buildings on the east side, and graduating to higher buildings to the east where there is a precedent to have the higher buildings.
Anita Oliveri of Lakeside Village said that Dr. Catanzaro had committed to the original condo owners at Lakeside in 2001 that the new buildings in that development would not exceed the height of the existing buildings but this was not true. She said they had no views anymore. Had they kept the same height, some of the views would have been preserved. She felt the comparison made today should be made to the original heights that the original condo owners had been told.
Nathan Buttars of Huntsville referred to an informal petition he had drafted and said that all, with the exception of one person, wished to sign a petition that opposed development. He said there were 75 names of people on that petition in opposition to this proposed the development.
Jim Hasenyager, speaking on behalf of the Ogden Valley land trust, stated that this trust was now protecting over 5,000 acres. Mr. Hasenyager was not against development as Ms. Fowers had also expressed, but to illustrate the size and scope of the proposed buildings adjacent to Ms. Fowers property, he referred to the photograph showing the dirt lane and the approximately 25 ft. high telephone poles near the lane. The buildings would be about double the height of the telephone poles. Because this area is considered one of the signature areas of Ogden Valley, he felt the conservation easement would be much more important to the people than the proposed development at this size and scale. The General Plan recognizes that one of the amenities important to many Valley residents is the view and scenic beauty of the area. He agreed with Ms. Fowers' proposal to have a buffer between the properties and to have an upslope to the buildings, which would mitigate the size and scope of the project.
Robin Roberts, representing the family that has been managing and farming the Fowers' farm since the mid 1970's, expressed concern with traffic since 180 units would produce a minimum of 180 more vehicles, and getting in and out of a road was already difficult with all the recreation in the area. Commissioner Burton said the total traffic load that could be handled in and out of the Valley had been considered in adopting the General Plan and it had been part of the reason the 3-acre minimum density had been selected at that time. He said Trappers Loop still had not reached capacity and it was hoped that the traffic load from Ogden Valley would start using it more. The county is in negotiations with UDOT to put an interchange at I-84 at the Trappers Loop road connection on the Mountain Green side.
Gerry Keech, Lakeside Village homeowner and president of that home owners association, stated that a lot of the homeowners had sent emails to Mr. Hamilton and most of them were opposed to the people density and height density, mainly because the proposed buildings would obstruct their view of the mountains and in some cases of Pineview Reservoir, which they had paid for. He said these issues also tied into traffic and the number of people using the area.
Frank Cumberland of Ski Lake spoke in opposition to this development. He read the county's regulations regarding conditional use applications stating that "Planning Districts should not authorize a conditional use permit unless evidence was presented to establish that the project is necessary or desirable for the general welfare, that it not be detrimental or injurious to property already in existence, that the project comply with the zoning ordinance, that it conform to the General Plan, and that evidence be presented to establish that the project would not lead to the deterioration of the environment... or detrimentally affect to any appreciable degree public or private properties in the immediate vicinity." It would block his view and that of others of Pineview to a large extent from the road as well as from up to the hills south of Hwy. 39, where he and others live, and would virtually obliterate their view of the Fowers/Martin farm. This he considered injurious and detrimental. He referred to words used by Dr. Catanzaro of "a taking" and "arbitrary and capricious" and stated that not allowing a development that violates zoning and the General Plan was not a taking. He said that this project was so out of character with everything in the area, except for Lakeside Village, which already blocks part of the view of Pineview and which when complete will block all of his view of the reservoir in that section all the way to the Cemetery Point peninsula. He also referred to the usage of "precedent" used by the petitioner indicating the petitioner was saying that he had been allowed to do it once, now he had to be allowed to do it again, but even bigger.
Dale Campbell said he was in support of this project, that he was the president of R&O Construction which had been selected as the general contractor on this development, and that as chair of the Weber County Township Planning Commission years ago he had participated in the Ogden General Plan. At that time, the consensus was that residents and members of the Planning Commission wanted to create villages within the Valley, thus areas were kept intact for commercial, high density, etc., such as Dr. Catanzaro's property, which allowed higher density.
Ross Matthews, Vice President of Sinclair Oil Corp. but speaking on his own behalf, said that Dr. Catanzaro was asking for 12.8 units/acre which was about a 50% increase. This would also yield more than 250 residences in a ½ mile along Hwy. 39, which would probably create a tremendous traffic burden. Although he would like to see Dr. Catanzaro develop his property, he would not like to see 45 ft. high buildings put there.
Dave Nielsen stated he was in favor of this proposed project.
Dr. Catanzaro said he was willing to review the issues and make some modifications to the project.
3. Public hearing on a proposed Ordinance of Weber County Adopting Certain Restrictions Relating to the Use of Pineview Reservoir and Surrounding Areas: Including Prohibiting the Possession and Use of Alcoholic Beverages on the Beaches of Cemetery Point and the Parking Lot Servicing Cemetery Point
Reed Richards, Deputy County Attorney, referred to the ordinance he presented to the Commission (on 4/20/2004) to regulate some of the activity at Pineview Reservoir and on some beach areas. At that time he had indicated the Forest Service and the Sheriff's Office were discussing a possible prohibition of alcoholic beverages for certain parts of the reservoir. This ordinance prohibits the use and possession of alcoholic beverages in the beach and parking area at Cemetery Point as indicated by the Forest Service's special order. This would not prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages in other areas of the lake, camping areas or other areas not under this ordinance. If this is successful, there may be future consideration to include other beach areas. Rick Vallejos, Recreation Staff Officer with the Forest Service, stated that the Forest Service had done a Management Plan for Pineview Reservoir in 1998. At that time, it was felt there were sufficient laws in place to deal with alcohol issues. However, the problem has been discussed every year, and after careful observations, it has become necessary to implement a law. The Forest Service had originally felt this prohibition should apply to all its managed beaches (Middle Inlet Beach, all of Cemetery Point & Anderson Cove Campground beach) but will evaluate it. Chris Zimmerman, County Sheriff's Office, stated that this issue had been carefully evaluated and referred to the problems of alcohol where there were a large number of people gathered in a small space. Chair Cain invited public comments. Susie Wood, Huntsville, stated her support for this item. Her family had been involved in several accidents because of drunk people at Cemetery Point coming onto the road.
4.Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
5. Action on public hearings:
a. Decision on a Conditional Use Permit CUP #12-03 for a Planned Residential Unit Development, Edgewater Beach Resort at Snow basin Road, 180 units in 15 buildings, located at approximately 6350 E. Hwy 39
The commissioners stated that the design of the buildings was beautiful but indicated they could not approve the project as presented because of non-compliance with the General Plan and zoning regulations. Commissioner Burton said he could agree with reducing the building heights along the county road and he disagreed with grouping them tightly on the east side. Chair Cain felt the buildings were too tall and that Dr. Catanzaro could do a better job of accommodating the surrounding area–that the buildings could be moved, that the location of open space and amenities could be changed so they flowed better toward the farm area and the view corridor that the community had desired to protect. She hoped Dr. Catanzaro would not increase the density because that would create a problem.
Dr. Catanzaro felt he had been in this process quite a while and Chair Cain pointed out that he knew all along that the plan was not one they could approve, that it was outside the zoning regulations and was not consistent with the General Plan, and that he'd had seven months to make changes. He felt there had been no clarity at the East Huntsville Planning Commission's meetings. Mr. Hamilton said the Planning Commission had tried very hard to find some type of a compromise in the February 27, 2004 meeting and in the March meeting Dr. Catanzaro had agreed to disagree that the Planning Commission could never approve the project as is, and Planning staff had recommended they deny the request. Dr. Catanzaro expressed concern with having to go before the newly formed Ogden Valley Planning District and David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, explained that it was the regulation, but the County Commission would give specific guidance to help him and the Planning Commission. Chair Cain would like for the buildings to not be directly adjacent to the farm land, would like to see more buffer space between the farmland and construction of buildings, would like to see buildings near the farm not to exceed 25 ft. high, and for the maximum height of any building on the property not to exceed 35 ft. She explained that these were the things that made it possible to approve the conditional use permit which was different than just approving a building that was permitted, and he had not established the criteria for a conditional use permit. Dr. Catanzaro recapped that the request was to move some of open space from the center of the development to go between the farm, that the buildings closest to the farm were not to exceed 25 ft. in height and the buildings farther away were not to exceed 35 ft. Dr. Catanzaro felt this was a very fair compromise.
Commissioner Burton moved to send this item (regarding the Conditional Use Permit CUP #12-03 for a Planned Residential Unit Development, Edgewater Beach Resort at Snow Basin Road, 180 units in 15 buildings, located at approximately 6350 E. Hwy 39) back to the Planning Commission with the recommendations outlined by Chair Cain; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
b. Ordinance Adopting Certain Restrictions Relating to the Use of Pineview Reservoir & Surrounding Areas: Including Prohibiting Possession & Use of Alcoholic Beverages on Beaches of Cemetery Point & Parking Lot Servicing Cemetery Point
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Ordinance 2004-12, an ordinance of Weber County adopting certain restrictions relating to the use of Pineview Reservoir and surrounding areas, including prohibiting the possession and use of alcoholic beverages on the beaches of Cemetery Point and the parking lot servicing Cemetery Point; Commissioner Burton seconded.
Roll Call Vote
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Commissioner Burton aye
Chair Cain aye
G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at 10 a.m.
H. Public Comments:
Anita Oliveri thanked the Commission for how they dealt with item F.5(a), regarding the Edgewater Beach Resort at Snow Basin Road stating they had given the same information as the East Huntsville Planning Commission, and people appreciated their input.
Marian Fowers Martin thanked the Commission for their consideration of this matter. She would prefer not to have any development in that area but it was important to compromise. Ms. Martin would like the buildings kept to the absolute letter of the law regarding the zoning regulations of 25 ft. height maximum.
I. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 8:40 p.m.; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
Camille T. Cain, Chair
Weber County Commission
Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Clerk/Auditor