Minutes for 2005-09-20, Direct pdf link.

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: Kenneth A. Bischoff, Chair, and Craig L. Dearden. Camille T. Cain was excused.

Others Present: Linda G. Lunceford, Clerk/Auditor; David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor's Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome by Chair Bischoff
B. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Nate Pierce
C. Thought of the Day by Chair Bischoff

D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $140,853.79
2. Warrants #205508- #205744 in the amount of $2,431,946.37
3. Minutes for the meetings held on August 30, 2005 and September 13, 2005
4. New Business Licenses
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve the consent items; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

E. Action Items:

1. Final approval of The Fairways at Wolf Creek P.R.U.D. Phase 2 consisting of 24 lots, including 2 financial guarantees totaling $364,433.20

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed an area map stating that this P.R.U.D. was located inside the Wolf Creek Golf Course. There are two financial guarantees totaling $364,433.20.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this item. Chair Bischoff asked if all the concerns had been addressed and Mr. Hamilton replied they had.
Commissioner Dearden moved to grant final approval of The Fairways at Wolf Creek PRUD Phase 2 consisting of 24 lots, including a financial guarantee in the amount of $15,636.50 for landscaping; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

2. Approval of a closure of an Abutter's Alley for the alley abutting lots (1 through 52) in block 5, Rushton addition, O.C.S., in Ogden City

Ward Ogden, Ogden City Community Development, stated that Ogden City had been working with neighborhood residents on Oak Street and 21 Street of the 1000 block to close an abutter's alley. However, Weber County owns a 12 ½ ft. wide strip of land that abuts this 16 ft. alley, and Mr. Ogden asked that Weber County sign as the last abutting property owner for the closure of the alley.

Mr. Ogden said that a number of property owners on either side of this alley expressed an interest in fencing the alley down the middle. One of the property owners would like to take and maintain the 8 ½ ft. portion of the alley that abuts the county's current strip of ground if the county is agreeable to deeding it. That property owner is not interested in the county's strip of ground, which actually is part of a resident's yard. This issue would have to be handled at a later time.
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve the request for closure of an abutter's alley that abuts lots 1 through 52 in block 5 of the Rushton Addition, O.C.S., in Ogden City; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

F. Public Hearing

Commissioner Dearden moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearing; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye. 1.

2. Public hearing on Zoning Petition ZP #06-2005 to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 23-37 River and Stream Corridors. The new section places setback requirements for building adjacent to year-round and ephemeral streams

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, presented this ordinance amendment to create setbacks from rivers and streams in the county. It called for setbacks to be set 75 ft. from the high water mark of year-round streams and 100 ft. from the high water mark of the Weber River, the Ogden River below Pineview Reservoir, and of the north, south and middle forks of the Ogden River. The Ogden Valley General Plan, adopted in 1996, did not include the Ogden Canyon and recommended setbacks to be set from 50 ft. on both sides of year-round streams for any structure, and 75 ft. from both sides of the north, south, and middle forks of the river and that this distance be determined from the center of the streams. Mr. Hamilton noted that Dr. Mike Miner, Weber Basin Water Quality was present and could address water quality issues.

In 1998, a Sensitive Lands ordinance, that was all encompassing and addressed this issue, was heard by the Planning Commissions but was not adopted. Various versions have been proposed over the years without approval and a lot of interest has been sparked over the last year to get at least the stream and river corridor setback portion created.

A lot of concern was expressed at the Ogden Valley Planning Commission meeting regarding this proposed ordinance relating to the Ogden Canyon due to the fact that the lots abutting the river are very small. In many cases the 100 ft. setback from the river would take up the entire lot. The Ogden Valley Planning Commission was very desirous that this ordinance, with a setback of 50 ft. from the highwater mark of the river for the Ogden Canyon below Pineview Reservoir, be approved but was concerned with the large setback. The motion passed with a 5-2 vote. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the Western Weber County Township Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. Commissioner Dearden asked why the change from the center line of the stream to the highwater mark and Mr. Hamilton said that it was to create a more uniform setback because stream widths can vary greatly thus varying the actual setback distances.

Chair Bischoff invited public comments and following is a summary: Dr. Jim Bird, Ogden Canyon resident, asked why the Ogden Canyon, a prime waterway, had not been included in the Ogden General Plan and felt there must have been good reason not to have included it. Mr. Hamilton explained that when the General Plan had been crafted, it had been unclear whether the Ogden Canyon should be considered part of the Ogden Valley. Before going to the current two township planning commissions, the Ogden Canyon was part of the Weber County at large township planning commission, which covered a large part of the lower valley. Dr. Bird indicated that other waterways had been studied and asked if there had been a study since then whether the Ogden Canyon should be included or if it was just being assumed that it should be. Mr. Hamilton was not aware of any such study.

Keith Rounkles, Ogden Canyon resident, had sat in the Ogden Valley Planning Commission and had also heard this issue when it was being studied for the General Plan. He had dissented on the Planning Commission vote because the language had been changed from the General Plan's. It had been presented as a stream corridor amendment and the language had not been written so that people could be part of the public process. The setback had changed from the center line mark to the high watermark and to 100 ft. The 100 ft. on both sides of the road took up all the land. A lot of the language for Weber County's Sensitive Land ordinance came from a Park City ordinance, however, Weber County's ordinance left out an important process, the Application Review, of which he gave a copy to the Commission. A sensitive land analyst visits the site, and gives a recommendation directly to the Planning Commission which then makes a judgement call on a case-by-case basis that is better for the environment. He supported river corridors and felt that Ogden Canyon residents were wise stewards of the Canyon and have regular cleanups, etc. He said the setbacks were too large for the Canyon, particularly for the homes that were already in existence.

Jay Blamires, Ogden Canyon resident, stated the Blamires family was opposed to adding Ogden Canyon below the Pineview Reservoir to this zoning petition and believed the Canyon had been added to this petition without study of the canyon, its geological aspects, the river's width, the highwater mark, without considering the property owners' uses and future needs or their input. The Canyon needs to be addressed separately and upon its own characteristics and must involve the property owners as well as others who may have an interest. They were especially concerned with the possibility of a trails network along this river corridor because it would jeopardize the use of their property by making it more accessible to the public and the damage they could and have caused in the past. The greater part of this canyon is private property.

Larry Acree, owns property at 2680 N. & 2630 Hwy. 39, Beaver Creek, and stated that the river ran through the middle of his property, in which he had a lot of money invested. He wondered how this proposed ordinance would impact him and if he would be able to build on his property. Chair Bischoff recommended that Mr. Acree visit the Planning Commission to review possible impact to his property.

Curtis Baker, Ogden Canyon resident, asked if there was a trails network exemption in this proposal and Mr. Hamilton responded that trails were not part of this ordinance. Mr. Baker said that his house was right on the edge of the river. He preferred a setback from the center of the river and noted there wasn't much land left to develop in the Canyon.

Jeff Furton stated that there was development in the Ogden Valley and regulations were necessary, however, the Canyon was already mostly developed. It would not matter whether the setback was 75 or 100 ft. from the highwater mark or from the center of the river because it was in his front yard. He concurred with adopting regulations relating to future growth and to prevent problems but the Canyon was already mostly developed.

Chair Bischoff asked how this proposed ordinance affected existing development and Mr. Hamilton said that existing homes, legally built, could be rebuilt within the foundation of the former building within a one year period. However, additions or any accessory buildings, were not allowed if they fell within that setback, unless they received approval from the Board of Adjustment.

Allan Olsen, Ogden Canyon resident, spoke against those wanting to take away the use of their property. The only way some people could expand would be out into the road. He has driven the canyon for 30+ years and has never seen a 10 ft. wide section of the river. Mr. Olsen recommended keeping the setback from the middle of the river. He pointed out that the Canyon was just about built out and this proposal would take away building options from the homeowners.

Briana Blamires, Ogden Canyon resident, stated that under previous ordinances she had been told she could build an unattached garage on her property. Ms. Blamires indicated that when the Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance they were told by the county attorney present that there were no zoning regulations for Ogden Canyon and one of the commissioners then said it should be. She pointed out that a lot of the properties across the river from hers had built walls alongside the river which pushed the water to her side causing the highwater mark to be underneath her present house, and that mark also fluctuates as walls are built on the opposite side of the river.
Anna Record, Ogden Canyon resident, said she wanted to improve her property, not impact it negatively, but Canyon residents had a difficult time getting anything approved. Ms. Record felt that land owners should be allowed to improve their property as long as they were not developing closer to the river. She owns a private parking lot east of her property and people abuse it and leave much garbage along the river bank and she would like to prevent people from doing that. Fishermen are eroding her ground when they go down to the river bank. She posted part of it this year as private property.

Marilyn Chamberlain, Ogden Canyon resident, stated that her family was young and they were trying to clean it up. They had been taking out bushes and would like to put in grass but this proposal stated they could not even put in grass.

Marino Toulatos, Ogden Canyon resident, stated his opposition to the proposed ordinance. He asked if it was going to take a flood to be able to improve their properties. Chair Bischoff said that they would be able to improve within the footprint of the property. Mr. Toulatos had heard that the Board of Adjustment granted variances 1%-2% of the time. David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the Board of Adjustment was charged by state law, not county ordinances, and their criteria for granting a variance was narrow. Jim Gentry, County Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission recommended that Ogden Canyon be included as part of this process relating to rivers and stream corridors. Mr. Wilson noted that the Planning Commission was charged with developing ordinances they felt were appropriate for their jurisdictional area and worked with County Planning to bring those to fruition. Mr. Toulatos noted that if property owners were not allowed to improve their property, the values would decrease.

Cindy Beger, Nordic Valley resident, noted the difference in developable land between the Ogden Canyon and the Ogden Valley. She suggested making a special exception for the Canyon and not holding up the Sensitive Lands ordinance for the Ogden Valley. The Sensitive Lands ordinance has been in the works for some time and has had about thirteen drafts.

Dr. Bird noted that there were only about three properties that had not been developed in the Ogden Canyon. He said the highwater mark is controlled by the dam and that mark does impact property. His property is about 25 ft. from the highwater mark and he only has 75 ft. He stated that the current Health Department requirements were very restrictive for the Canyon.

Lori Schlichting, Ogden Canyon resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed way the Ogden Canyon was to be included in the river and stream corridor ordinance. One concern was the ambiguity of Section 1a that stated that the area within a setback should be undisturbed, except it may be developed as a trail. She outlined some questions this raised such as whether homeowners would be able to maintain the vegetation around their homes and what guarantees there were that a trail would not be developed through their private property if it fell within the proposed setbacks as outlined in Subsections 1, 2 and 3. The extent of the setback in the Canyon was also a major concern. Combining the highwater mark and a 50 ft. setback on both sides of the river might negatively impact the homeowners in Ogden Canyon and would not affect growth in the Canyon because it is almost completely developed. A consequence of the proposed ordinance is that it may curtail homeowners making improvements to their properties that would positively affect the environment. The setbacks in Subsection 2 would require most property owners in the Canyon to apply for a variance for any improvements they wished to make. Mr. Schlichting asked the Commission to look at Ogden Canyon for its unique geographic situation and to craft a subsection applicable to it.

Commissioner Dearden moved to adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the public meeting; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye. 3.

 4. Action on public hearing:

The commissioners took no action on this item and will carefully review all the input and material. They thanked everyone for their comments and will take them into consideration. They hope to have the ordinance adopted within the next couple of months.

G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tues., September 27, 2005, 10 a.m.

H. Public Comments:

Nick Breeze, Ogden Canyon resident, stated that the Planning Commission had not spent the time needed on this issue and had not really visited the Canyon. He offered his help and expertise to the County Commissioners with a site visit on the middle section of the Canyon at their convenience. He said other residents had expertise with other sections and they could show assist the commissioners on a site visit.

I. Adjourn
Commissioner Dearden moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 p.m.; Chair Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

Kenneth A. Bischoff, Chair
Weber County Commission

Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Clerk/Auditor