Minutes for 2009-06-16, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 10:00 a.m.
Weber Center, Ogden, Utah
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, Vice Chair, and Jan M. Zogmaister. Craig L. Dearden was excused.

Others Present: Alan D. McEwan, Clerk/Auditor; Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima Fernelius, Clerk/Auditors Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome - Commissioner Bischoff
B. Pledge of Allegiance - Gloria Berrett
C. Thought of the Day - Commissioner Zogmaister

D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $202,398.26
2. Warrants #251046-#251259 in the amount of $1,139,035.99
3. Minutes for the meeting held on June 9, 2009
4. New business licenses
5. New beer licenses
6. Surplus 30 analog TVs from the Weber County Sheriffs Office
7. Approval of Polling Locations for 2009
8. Approval to remove certain parcels from the tax roles
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

E. Action Items:

1. Severance Benefit Agreement with Chad Barnett - Contract C2009-122

Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, stated that this contract had been negotiated between County Human Resources and the Sheriffs Office.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve Contract C2009-122, Severance Benefit Agreement with Chad Barnett; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

2. Contract with Enable Industries for recycling services at the Weber Center - Contract C2009-123

Commissioner Bischoff stated that the county had instituted a program to recycle. Delivery/pickup of recycle materials costs $.06/pound.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve Contract C2009-123, contract with Enable Industries for recycling services at the Weber Center; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

3. First Reading of proposed fee additions at Weber County Animal Control Services for kennel licensing and euthanasia

Sgt. Brandon Toll stated that it was proposed to add licensing for each kennel animal.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance fee additions at Weber County Animal Control Services for kennel licensing; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

 

 Sgt. Toll stated that currently there was only one fee for euthanasia ($25.00) and the proposed fee for non-serviceable area animals will be $40.00. Commissioner Bischoff asked how they arrived at the $40 figure and Sgt. Toll responded that it would cover the cost and was a reasonable fee.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment relating to the euthanasia fee; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

4. Discussion/action on an appeal of preliminary approval of Saddleback Village Estates Subdivision

Justin Morris, County Planning Division, showed area maps and an overall site plan. Mr. Morris stated that the applicant was appealing the recommendation of the Western Weber County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) relating to the bonus densities that had been requested for this subdivision located at 4300 W. 1800 S. The applicant was present as well as Becky Messerly, Chair of the Western Weber County Planning Commission.

This subdivision was submitted on 8/10/2007 and prior to submittal, County Planning Division staff, Engineering staff, and the applicant met on several occasions to discuss the various aspects of this application. In those meetings, staff focused on meeting the minimum ordinance requirements, recognizing the Planning Commission had full discretion over bonus densities based upon the information provided by the applicant. Staff saw several plans during those meetings, however, the applicant chose the plan to submit to the Planning Commission for preliminary approval. Mr. Morris showed a table of the densities that had been requested by the applicant and those that were granted by the Planning Commission.

The design submitted to the Planning Commission allowed for 127 lots by right with a maximum of 190 if the full 50% bonus density was granted. The applicant platted 172 lots and requested 55% bonus density, although only about 37% was needed for the 172 lots. As part of the preliminary approval, the Planning Commission granted 20% total bonus density, resulting in 152 lots. The Planning Commission discussed bonus density items and used its discretion to reduce the number of lots based upon the following:

1) The applicant requested 15% bonus density and received 5%. Theres a maximum of 15% for developing a cluster subdivision that meets the intent of the Cluster Subdivision Ordinance (which is to encourage the creation and permanent protection of open space, preserve rural character of unincorporated Weber County, and not to create open space subdivisions with lots sprawled over large areas). The Planning Commission determined that the design of this subdivision did not fully meet the intent of this ordinance. The high concentration of lots in the southwest portion, while preserving a larger agricultural piece, created many lots sprawled over a large area and along the roadways.

2) The Planning Commission felt the proposed road stub and circulation plan did not merit a full density bonus and granted 5%. The applicant had requested 10%. County Planning Division and Engineering staff felt the road stubs and circulation plan were adequate for this and future developments and recommended that the full 10% be granted.

Mr. Morris indicated on the map the different road stubs that tied-in to existing road stubs stating that there was good traffic circulation.

3) The Planning Commission determined that the common open space park provided limited public access, and did not merit a full bonus density and granted 5%. The applicant had requested 10%.

Mr. Morris indicated the 6-acre park on the map, the three accesses, and the parking.
4) Relating to the preservation of the agricultural parcel with an agricultural preservation plan to be approved by the Planning Commission and an easement recorded on that 32-acre agricultural parcel, Mr. Morris said that 20% can be granted. The applicant requested 20% and received 5%. The agricultural parcel consists of a current dairy. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed lot configuration undermined the continued viable operation of the dairy because of the large number of lots adjacent to the agricultural parcel. This was based on a letter received from the U.S.U. Extension office, which reviewed the agriculture preservation plan, that stated, ...as development closes in, experience has shown that it will be difficult to keep the smells, flies, and noises down enough to keep residents happy, thus I expect that after full buildout the dairy operation will probably need to switch to an agricultural enterprise with fewer animal units.

The Planning Commission requested an additional plan that would outline the re-use of the agricultural parcel if the dairy were to fail. Such plan was not submitted by the applicant, although the dairy operator stated that he planned to continue the dairy operation. The Planning Commission also felt that the agricultural open space was not integrated into the subdivision and would not become a direct amenity for the residents who will live there.

Mr. Morris posed questions for the County Commissions consideration: What is the appropriate amount of bonus density that should be awarded? Is the information on the agricultural preservation plan provided by the applicant sufficient? Do the proposed roads provide adequate circulation/connectivity within the scope of the rest of the community? Should the Planning Commissions recommendation be affirmed or altered?

Mr. Morris said that this proposal conformed to the General Plan by providing dedicated open space for public use and preserving over 34 acres for an agricultural operation. The subdivision also conforms to the General Plan by meeting requirements of all applicable ordinances. He said that the County Commission needed to find to what extent the application met the County Zoning Ordinance and the bonus density. The appeal is centered on whether or not the Planning Commission discretionary determinations have a reasonable basis.

Staff recommended three options to the County Commission: 1) deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision to reduce the density bonuses to allow 152 lots; 2) approve the appeal by granting the applicants requested density bonuses and allow 172 lots; or 3) amend the subdivision density bonuses, which will result in a new subdivision lot total. Staff favors option 3 believing that the discretionary conclusions reached by the Planning Commission are defensible, with two exceptions: 1) the road stub option should be given the full 10% bonus and 2) the common open space option could be adjusted if the open space design is amended to require that the park have direct roadway access along at least two of its borders, and then could receive the full 10% bonus. This 10% bonus increase would result in an additional 13 lots for a total of 165 lots.

Commissioner Bischoff clarified that the appeal was confined to density and Phil Hancock, applicant, concurred, and addressed the four bonus density items as outlined by the Planning Commission: 1) Mr. Hancock said that the existing rural character in western Weber County was mainly rectangular-shaped parcels that are large enough for modern farming equipment and he showed an areal photo. He said that this proposal leaves agricultural parcels in rectangular shapes, which are ideal to farm. He said that the critique that homes did not meet the intent of the ordinance because of the high concentration of lots in the southwest portion was difficult to understand and asked, How can one preserve parcels large enough to be viable for farming and not cluster the residential lots?” He said that the lots were intentionally clustered with a mix of lot sizes as allowed. To divide the parcel intended for agriculture into smaller, separate parcels made it impractical to farm. The submitted design incorporates 40.29 acres of open space, 6+ acres in a community park, and 34 acres for an existing agricultural use. Mr. Hancock said that a 15% bonus density was warranted but the Planning Commission only approved 5%. Commissioner Zogmaister said that clustered subdivisions are a challenge and most of these cluster subdivisions were being used in areas that traditionally had larger lots, however that they are allowed. She said that the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time on this item but they were also under a lot of pressure from some citizens who do not like cluster subdivisions and the County Commission was trying to support the developer as well as the community. 2) the road locations and sizes were designed according to County Planning and Engineering and meet or exceed the ordinance and Mr. Hancock said it warranted 10% density bonus. Commissioner Bischoff had spoken with County Planning staff and did not know why the 10% bonus had not been granted. 3) the park of over 6 acres allows for curb side overflow parking with a short walk through three access points. A separate 20 space parking lot being provided is deemed by the County Planning staff to be adequate for this size of park. He said that limited access was not an accurate description for this park. An early design incorporated two smaller parks, but after numerous reviews, including meeting with County Planning staff, it was decided that one larger park would be more practical for the users needs. The park provides an increased level of safety to the users by separating traffic from the public park and warranted 10% bonus density.

Mr. Hancock addressed the commissioners questions pointing out on the site plan where the parking was located, stating that the storm drainage was part of the park. 4) Mr. Hancock said that 13 of the requested lots, or only 7%, are adjacent to the proposed dairy operation and it was difficult to equate 7% with a large number used by the Planning Commission. Larger lots were intentionally located west of the dairy to provide as much buffer from the dairy as possible and still meet other ordinance requirements. He said that it was unreasonable and unprecedented for the Planning Commission to ask for an alternate plan if the dairy fails and that the ordinance does not require a plan B to be submitted for subdivision approval. If the dairy fails, the agricultural parcel still needs to be maintained for that use. He added that there are protections in place that address farming noises, smells, etc. He said that the Planning Commission was concerned about the nuisance potential and then wanted the agricultural area to be dispersed throughout the subdivision with more separation between the lots and the dairy, which was a paradox. A bonus density of 15% was warranted and he wondered how objective the review had been when an across-the-board reduction of 5% bonus density was received in each of the four categories. The requested bonus density of 50% was therefore reasonable and would allow 190 lots. A compromise was discussed with the County Planning staff and agreed on 172 lots total or a bonus density of only 37%, therefore he was only requesting 172 lots.

Commissioner Zogmaister asked if the larger lots adjacent to the dairy operation allowed farm animals and Mr. Hancock said that they were large enough. Commissioner Zogmaister said that the chart showed a requested bonus density of 20% in the agricultural parcel preservation plan and asked if Mr. Hancock was only requesting 15% and he said that was correct. She asked how the agricultural land would be owned and Mr. Hancock said it can be privately owned but by someone who owns a lot in the subdivision. Commissioner Bischoff asked Mr. Morris if the road stubs received the full 10% allowance, how many lots would that affect and he responded that it would be 6-7 lots in addition to the 152. Commissioner Bischoff reiterated he did not know why the roads did not receive the 10% density bonus. Commissioner Zogmaister said that one of the comments from the Planning Commission minutes essentially said that it was more of a park for this area, and she noted that cluster subdivisions have open space but that it generally appears to be more of a neighborhood park. She felt comfortable with the 6 acres for the park and access to it would depend if they wanted walking or parking access. Both commissioners felt comfortable with the 20 parking spaces, with the park, and that the roads met the ordinance. Mr. Hancock said that if increased parking was needed, it would not necessarily change the lots, that there were other options such as the park being reduced in size or the retention basin being relocated/redesigned. Commissioner Zogmaister did not agree that the developer could be penalized in advance because the dairy operation might fail. She recommended that the agricultural parcel receive 10% density bonus, which she felt it was a compromise because the developer could have been granted 20% due to the importance of agriculture.  The commissioners looked at each of the four density bonus items discussed by the Planning Commission and gave each one a density number, without looking at the total density figure, and according to the ordinance–finding no fault with some of the items–the result was 171 lots.

Commissioner Zogmaister noted that the County Planning staff, at the recommendation of the Western Weber County Planning Commission, was currently studying and readdressing the cluster subdivision ordinance to see if it could be improved.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to amend the Western Weber County Planning Commissions recommendation in adopting bonus densities of 5% for meeting the intent of the cluster subdivision ordinance, 10% for the roads, 8% for the common areas and parks, and 12% for the preservation of the agricultural parcel for a total of 35% bonus densities; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

 

F. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 10 a.m.

G. Public Comments: None

H. Adjourn
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adjourn at 11:04 a.m.; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, both voting aye.

Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission

Alan D. McEwan, CPA
Weber County Clerk/Auditor