Minutes for 2006-01-17, Direct pdf link.
MINUTESOF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 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: Craig L. Dearden, Chair; Camille T. Cain; and Kenneth A. Bischoff.
Others Present: Linda G. Lunceford, Clerk/Auditor; David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima
Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.
A. Welcome - Chair Dearden
B. Pledge of Allegiance - David Wilson
C. Thought of the Day - Commissioner Cain
D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $3,134,015.49
2. Warrants #209297 - #209514 in the amount of $965,232.57
3. Minutes for the meeting held on January 10, 2006
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Cain seconded, all
voting aye.
E. Action Items:
1. Contract with Stirrin’ Dirt LLC for an Indoor Demolition Derby to be held on
1/21/2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center - Contract C2006-6
Jim Harvey, GSEC, stated that this was the third year the county had participated in this standard
contract with Johnny Gullo for this event. The same carbon monoxide testing will be performed
as in the past. Mr. Harvey addressed Commissioner Cain and legal counsel’s questions stating that
Chris Allred, Deputy County Attorney, had reviewed liability waivers recently, and that Mr. Gullo
collects the waivers which are then submitted to the county.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2006-6 by and between Weber County and
Stirrin’ Dirt LLC for an indoor demolition derby to be held on January 21, 2006 at the Golden
Spike Event Center; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.
2. Contract with Minimax Die Gute Laune Band for entertainment at the Sneddon
Hof Winterfest on 1/20-21/2006 at Golden Spike Event Center - Contract C2006-7
Jim Harvey, GSEC, stated that this band had performed for the Hof Winterfast in the past and that
this contract had been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office.
Commissioner Cain moved to approve Contract C2006-7 by and between Weber County and
Minimax Die Gute Laune Band for entertainment at the Sneddon Hof Winterfest being held on
January 20-21, 2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all
voting aye.
3. Contract with Salzburger Echo Band for entertainment at the Sneddon Hof
Winterfest on 1/20-21/2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center - Contract C2006-8
Jim Harvey, GSEC, stated that this band, from Salt Lake City, had performed for the Hof
Winterfest in the past.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2006-8 by and between Weber County and
Salzburger Echo Band for entertainment at the Sneddon Hof Winterfest being held on January 20-
21, 2006 at the Golden Spike Event Center; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.
F. Public Hearings:
1. Commissioner Cain moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings;
Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
2. Public hearing on a re-zone petition at Wolf Creek Subdivision Phase 1 Lot 1 and
a portion of adjoining property from Forest Valley(FV-3) to Commercial Valley
(CV-2), and the vacation of Wolf Creek Subdivision Phase 1 Lot 1
Sean Wilkinson, County Planning Department, presented this item asking that the Commission
move forward with the public hearing but take no action on it. The County Attorney’s Office will
review an allegation of insufficient notice. There was much discussion on this item.
Wolf Creek Resort (Wolf Creek) had submitted plans for a Reception Center/Office Space, an
Athletic Center, and parking lots to serve them. The proposed buildings are located in a CV-2
zone. Parking will be adequate for the Reception Center/Office Space in this zone, but the area
intended for the Athletic Center parking lot is located partially in an FV-3 zone, where an Athletic
Center is not a permitted use. A parking lot may only be constructed as an accessory to a permitted
use. A change in zoning from FV-3 to CV-2, along with the vacation of Wolf Creek Subdivision
Phase 1, lot 1, where the parking lot would also be partially located, would make it possible for
both the Athletic Center and the parking lot to be built. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approving the vacation of lot 1 with all utility easements, and rezoning lot 1 and a
portion of adjacent property from FV-3 to CV-2. There is a Zoning Development Agreement
associated with this rezoning which states that a parking lot is the only thing that could be
constructed in this proposed CV-2 rezoning.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and following is a summary:
Al Sharidan spoke in opposition to this proposal. Their home is across the street and their deck
looks directly down at the proposed location of the Reception Center and parking lots. Before
purchasing their property they looked at the zoning and had believed that it would remain Forest
Valley, which is to provide area for low density residential development in a forest setting and to
protect as much as possible the naturalistic environment of the development. Mr. Sharidan was
surprised when Wolf Creek took out trees and bushes in the lot, which was contrary to that zone’s
plan. He stressed that residents should be able to rely on the zoning. Additionally, reception and
athletic activities would bring traffic in and out regularly.
Darla Longhurst-VanZeben, president of the Home Owners Association for Wolf Creek
Subdivision 1, wished to protest formally alleging there had not been sufficient notification of this
hearing nor of the Planning Commission meeting–that subdivision changes required everyone in
the subdivision to be notified by mail and this had not been done, and the petition to vacate the plat
did not include the required information as set by State Code.
Ms. Longhurst-VanZeben said that Wolf Creek Subdivision 1 was the original residential
development in the Wolf Creek area platted in 1965 and had 18 different long-time owners who
were unanimous in their position about this issue: they wanted the FV-3 zoning and opposed the
CV-2 rezoning and vacating lot 1 out of the subdivision; they wished to point out that Wolf Creek
had purchased the property from a private owner and had been aware that it was a residential lot;
the land slopes to the west from the road down, there are natural springs at the top of that land, and
there are serious drainage issues associated with it; there is no place for snow removal storage;
noise is a concern because of the proposed non-residential use, parking lot lighting and headlights
are a concern and shrouding lights may not be sufficient. The Homeowners Association would not
protest the parking lot if the zoning did not change and the lot was not vacated from the
subdivision. She said that Wolf Creek had been working with the most impacted homeowners,
the Simmons, but they had not spoken with any other lot owners. Additionally, they recognized
that the Zoning Development Agreement could be changed.
Bob Dyer, Director of Planning & Development for Wolf Creek Properties, showed an artist’s
rendering of their Master Plan. The zone line divides one parcel into CV-2 and FV-3 zoning. Two
other buildings currently exist where the proposed ones would be constructed–the golf cart storage
and golf maintenance–and these, along which the parking lot and the existing clubhouse are part
of the approved Wolf Creek Master Plan. The site for the proposed buildings is currently zoned
CV-2. Lot 1 is zoned FV-3 and allows for a parking lot for a permitted use in the same parcel but
that location did not work for Wolf Creek; it did not make sense to put a building right next to a
subdivision. They wanted the members clubhouse to be as close as possible to the golf course club
house and to the pavilion. Putting the parking lot in the proposed location put all three buildings
together and the parking lot served as a buffer between the adjacent neighborhood and the
proposed clubhouse. This plan was essential to the success to the Wolf Creek recreation resort
around the golf course. Mr. Dyer said that the Planning Commission minutes reflected that Mr.
& Mrs. Simmons, who live adjacent to the parking lot, had been asked if they had any objections
to the parking lot and they had none. Their Master Plan showed nothing else taking place on either
of those lots; drainage would be addressed, the parking lot had been designed by an engineer and
met all the requirements and a sediment pond was built into the drainage plan; the parking lot
would be built in tiers because of the slope of the land and there was ample snow removal storage
area because of the approximately 60 ft. from the north side edge of the parking lot to the property
line and the tiers in between the parking areas; and there were one or two trees on the lot when
they purchased it, which had not been disturbed. Mr. Dyer indicated a three rail fence with some
low landscaping and taller fir trees to help deflect headlights but not obstruct the mountain view.
They fully intended to comply with the lighting ordinance and had no problem working with
individual home owners on shielding until they no longer received direct lights into their windows.
Al Sharidan asked for clarification as to where the Athletic/Reception Center would go. Mr. Dyer
indicated on the rendering its proposed location stating that the existing golf course maintenance
building would have to be torn down in order to construct the Athletic Center. Mr. Dyer indicated
the existing building produced a lot of diesel fumes, noise from mechanics, welding, etc., and it
was a testimony to how far the building was–about 500 ft. from the nearest house–because no one
had complained. Mr. Sharidan noted that the CV-2 zone allowed a myriad of uses and asked what
would stop Wolf Creek from putting any of those other uses in that property if it was rezoned. Mr.
Wilkinson referred to the Zoning Development Agreement that he mentioned earlier but Mr.
Sheridan pointed out that the residents had already thought that when the property had been zoned
Forest Valley that there was no risk of it being changed and it was now being discussed for
rezoning. Mr. Dyer noted that current zoning allowed them to put a commercial building right in
the middle of lot 1 in Wolf Creek Subdivision 1 and they would have followed a different process
if it had made sense to place it there, but it would place the parking lot between the Athletic Center
and the golf course club house and also place the Athletic Center right next to a residential
neighborhood. FV-3 zoning mostly anticipated construction of residential homes but did not
preclude construction of some commercial buildings, such as a recreation lodge like the one being
proposed.
Dan VanZeben, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. VanZeben stated he was an architect
who has been responsible for over $800 million worth of projects over the course of his profession
and was currently working on a $250 million recreation/hospitality facility. He noted that one of
his concerns was the apparent obfuscation of the purpose of the zoning change. He asked the
Commission to consider that if the FV zone allowed for parking and the project and properties
were contiguous to the golf course, that it was not necessary to change the zone to accomplish what
Wolf Creek wanted, that according to the layout and the current ordinances, the parking lot could
functionally go in there without a rezoning. Additionally, if it was always going to be a parking
lot then the zone change was not necessary. He did not see why this development, with over 2,000
acres, needed to take one acre out of the residential subdivision to make their project successful.
He asked that the Commission not close this public hearing in order to give the public an
opportunity to speak at the next meeting.
Steven Roberts, representing Wolf Creek, stated that this was an important project to the
development. Their master plan showed an additional 18-holes of golf which they had started
designing and all 36 holes would originate out of the golf plaza and the parking was needed at the
proposed location, not somewhere else on the 2,000 acres. They had looked at other options and
had spent most of their time with the Simmons because they would be the most impacted. Mr.
Roberts said that the Simmons were on vacation now but he had spoken with them on Saturday
and Mr. Simmons did not have an objection with the proposal but would have if the Athletic
Center was put there because it would have more of a negative impact on them. Mr. Roberts said
that they had been told that this was the only way to proceed if they wished to put in this proposed
parking lot, that they preferred not to go through a rezoning process. Mr. Wilkinson said that, after
reviewing the ordinance and having discussions with Wolf Creek, it was determined that the
Athletic Center could be built in the FV-3 zone but the parking lot would have to be a conditional
use because it did not have a building associated with it on the lot.
Layne Sheridan spoke in opposition to changing from residential to commercial zone because it
created a precedent that others could rely on. She expressed concern with the lack of notice for
the meetings. She received the notice of the Planning Commission meeting exactly one week prior
and had been told this was according to statue, and had also been told there would be 30 day
advance notice of this meeting and her husband had seen it in the newspaper this morning. Two
people whom she then contacted had not received official notification. She was also concerned
with setting a precedent, and a fairly consistent view from the Valley had been to maintain its rural
residential/recreational nature.
Kathleen Dowell, homeowner in Wolf Creek Subdivision 1, spoke in opposition to this proposal.
Ms. Dowell did not want lot 1 of this subdivision vacated and rezoned because she, along with
others in the neighborhood, would suffer material impacts due to the following issues: Lights.
Because this lot was above most of the homes in the subdivision–and even if the lights were
shielded from above–it would still shine down into their houses; Drainage. Asphalt of a parking
lot contains more hard surface than a home and there was great potential for water problems to
occur in the homes downhill of this parking lot. One neighbor directly downhill from this lot has
had flooding problems for the first time in over 30 years and this is probably a direct result of the
extensive site work already done by Wolf Creek in preparation for the parking lot. She asked that
the Commission deny this petition to vacate lot 1 and rezone it.
Dottie Satterthwaite, who has lived in Wolf Creek Subdivision 1 for 36 years, spoke in opposition
to the parking lot in that location citing serious drainage problems because it was the old Patio
Springs area with springs all over that hillside. Additionally, she did not want the 40-year old
subdivision with 1-acre building lots for homes broken up. She said the neighbors would not be
so opposed to having a conditional use permit to put the parking lot in.
Tracy Flashbarth, who lives at the end of Wolf Ridge Circle, spoke in favor of this proposition
stating that currently there was a lot of maintenance noise, fumes, and reverse sirens by the
equipment and would like to see that changed.
Brett Earl, lives in Wolf Ridge Circle and represents the Home Owners Association on Wolf Ridge
Circle. He heard that one reason the Simmons were agreeable to the proposal was that they were
offered membership at the club. Mr. Roberts responded that Wolf Creek had spent a lot of time
meeting with the Simmons, mostly showing them the exhibits relating to impacts to their view.
Mr. Roberts said that the Simmons were in the real estate business and had noted to Wolf Creek
the increase in value to be at a club, but they were without a membership. Because they would be
right on the parking lot Wolf Creek had agreed to give them a sports membership but they would
pay for the golf membership. Commissioner Cain asked who the memberships would be open to
and Mr. Roberts replied they were open primarily for new lot owners of Wolf Creek and there was
a short window offered to the community to buy a membership.
Eunice Schlenker, said she had lived there for 32 years and expressed serious concern with residual
water stating that they had experienced flooding in the driveway and basement and a lot of it was
a result from the paving that had been done.
Chair Dearden noted that everyone present had spoken.
3. Public hearing on a Fee Waiver for the Plain City Sewer Project
No representative from Plain City was present. Curtis Christensen, County Engineer, stated that
in June 2005 the county met with Plain City’s engineer, who had indicated the City wanted to
install a sewer line down 5100 W. At that time the county estimated the cost for the permit at
$1,600.00, based on a per square foot basis for a hard surface road.
The county did not hear anything about the project until recently when the county found out the
contractor was working on it and contacted their engineer indicating that the City needed a permit
from the county to proceed with any work in the right-of-way. The engineer indicated at that time
they had changed their design. The new design would reduce the permit to $420. Plain City is
requesting a complete waiver of the fee for the excavation permit. The county has never given a
complete waiver, but has on occasion reduced the fees to municipalities and Commissioner Cain
noted that this was when another governmental entity had its own inspector, etc., and it reduced
the amount of work to be performed by the county. Mr. Christensen stated that the ordinance
provided a mechanism to evaluate a fee that is over $200 and he recommended charging $200
because the City had an inspector onsite. There is a three year warranty period where the City
would have to guarantee the work.
Mr. Christensen stated that the City had moved forward with construction through that area, but
it still had not been fully repaired, there is only one open lane for traffic, which causes concern to
the county. Mr. Christensen would like to see the repairs move more rapidly. The City had
indicated they would put asphalt over the gravel base but have not done so as of today and this is
a concern. Commissioner Bischoff felt it was not prudent to start the precedent of waiving fees.
He noted that 6-7 years ago the county had gone before a group to get a fee waived but received
no relief, and the decision at that time had been that the fairest thing was that everyone should pay
their fees. He pointed out that the county did not set these fees to make a profit and Mr.
Christensen concurred stating that it covered the county’s cost. Chair Dearden invited public
comments and none were offered.
4. Commissioner Cain moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting;
Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
5. Action on public hearings:
F.2. - Public hearing on re-zoning Wolf Creek Subdivision Phase 1 Lot 1 & a portion of
adjoining property from FV-3 to CV-2, & vacation of said lot
No action was taken on this item. David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the County
Attorney’s Office would look into the allegation brought up just prior to this meeting of
insufficient meeting notice. They will also review if any protest was filed timely.
F.3. - Public hearing on a Fee Waiver for the Plain City Sewer Project
Commissioner Bischoff moved to deny the fee waiver request; Commissioner Cain seconded.
Chair Dearden voted nay.
G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tues., January 24, 2006, 10 a.m.
H. Public Comments: None
I. Adjourn
Commissioner Cain moved to adjourn at 7:26 p.m.; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting
aye.
Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission
Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Clerk/Auditor