Minutes for 2009-12-22, Direct pdf link.
MINUTES
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 10:00 a.m.
Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd., 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: Craig L. Dearden, Chair, Jan M. Zogmaister, and Kenneth A. Bischoff.
Others Present: Alan D. McEwan, Clerk/Auditor; Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.
A. Welcome - Chair Dearden
B. Pledge of Allegiance - Doug Dickens
C. Thought of the Day - Commissioner Bischoff
D. Presentations:
Presentation of a check to the Veteran’s Nursing Home from the County Fair
Chair Dearden noted that last year Jan Wilson, County Fair Coordinator, had brought up the idea of the Weber County Fair Board funding a room at the Veteran’s Home. Ms. Wilson presented a check to Terry Schow, Executive Director, Utah Department of Veterans Affairs, in the amount of $3,500, who expressed gratitude to the county for all of its support.
Presentation of Seal of Service Award to Sandy Cook
Chair Dearden read the submitted nomination that spoke to Ms. Cook’s knowledge and dedication to the county and its customers. Ernest Rowley, County Recorder/Surveyor, also spoke of Ms. Cook’s dedication and outlined her responsibilities in the records vault. Chair Dearden presented Ms. Cook with a seal of service pin, a plaque and $100. She expressed thanks stating that they have a good team in the records vault.
E. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $113,776.03
2. Warrants #257144- #257376 in the amount of $1,827,732.05
3. ACH payment to US Bank in the amount of $40,243.79 for purchasing card transactions through the billing cycle ending December 15, 2009
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
F. Action Items:
1. Final reading of an ordinance of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County to prohibit parking on public streets within Weber Industrial Park - Ordinance 2009-26
Ron Kusina, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency of Weber County, had presented the first reading of the ordinance last week. Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, said that the County Attorney’s Office, will prepare the final ordinance.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-26 prohibiting parking on public streets within the Weber Industrial Park; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
2. Resolution to open two new bank accounts for short-term investment purposes - Resolution 41-2009
John Bond, County Treasurer, noted that it is advantageous for the county to have money in diverse bank accounts because the county receives better interest rates and also safety and liquidity improves as the funds are dispersed more broadly.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Resolution 41-2009 of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County to open two new bank accounts for short-term investment purposes; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
3. Approval of the Official 2010 Voting Map of Weber County
Gloria Barrett, County Elections Administrator, noted that she had given a copy of the proposed voting map to the commissioners and she outlined the changes for this year: 1) all the annexations are included from the various communities and 2) during the review process it was discovered that unincorporated Weber County North Ogden had two Weber County School Board districts which were only being recorded as one precinct, and these have been separated.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve the official Weber County 2010 voting map; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
4. Contract with Zions Bank Public Finance for a Financial Advisor Agreement Extension - Contract C2009-223
Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, stated that in 2004 the county issued a Request for Proposals for financial advisor services to assist the county when it desires to issue long term debt. Zions Bank Public Finance was selected in 2004 for a 4-year contract with two 1-year extensions. This is the second 1-year extension. He noted that the county has received excellent service from Zions Bank.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2009-223 with Zions Bank Public Finance for a Financial Advisor Agreement Extension; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
5. Final approval of Cedar Cove Estates 3rd Amendment
Justin Morris, County Planning Division, stated that this amendment is to reduce the private right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet along Bybee Drive, 6500 South and 2850 East. Nine homes in this subdivision are built over the 30 foot front yard setback and/or the 20 foot side yard setback. This amendment resolves that problem for those homes. The applicant is also requesting to vacate three subdivision plats (the original and two amendments), which will be handled later today in a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this item (on 5/12/2009) and staff also recommends approval.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to grant final approval of Cedar Cove Estates 3rd Amendment; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
6. Final approval of the Golden Mountain Estates Subdivision (consisting of 1 flag lot)
Ben Hatfield, County Planning Division, stated that this subdivision is located at 9215 East 500 South, East Huntsville. The Ogden Valley Planning Commission recommended final approval on 6/23/2009 and staff also recommends approval. Chair Dearden noted the condition for approval–that the applicant understand and agree that all flag lot requirements of Chapter 29-3(10) of the County Zoning Ordinance must be met. Mr. Hatfield said that the lot conforms to the requirements.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to grant final approval of the Golden Mountain Estates Subdivision; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
7. Final approval of The Heavens Estates Subdivision (1 lot)
Sean Wilkinson, County Planning Division, stated that this subdivision is located on Snow Basin Road and consists of 1.34 acres. It fronts on Snow Basin Road in two locations but a no-access line is located on the southeastern road frontage. The lot has slopes exceeding 25% across the majority of the lot, is considered a restricted lot (1-R), and requires a Hillside Review prior to the issuance of a building or land use permit. Although this lot does not currently meet the area requirement of the FV-3 Zone, staff has determined through research that this parcel was created prior to 1992 with the appropriate area and lot width for that zone. All applicable ordinances have been met and the Ogden Valley Planning Commission unanimously recommended final approval of this item on 4/28/2009.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to grant final approval of The Heavens Estates Subdivision; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
8. First reading of an amendment to the Transient Room Tax Ordinance increasing the tax from 4.10 percent to 4.25 percent
Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, stated that years ago the transient room tax rate was 3%. About four years ago the legislature allowed counties to increase that rate up to 4.25% and Weber County at that time chose to stop at 4.1%. While working on the 2010 budget, staff realized that the county is falling short on restaurant and leased vehicle taxes. This small increase allows the offsetting of some of the loss–on an annual basis the increase tax will raise about $36,000.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the first reading of an amendment to the Transient Room Tax Ordinance increasing the tax from 4.10 to 4.25%; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
9. Request to approve a Wildland Fire Participation Agreement by/among Utah State Division of Forestry (Fire & State Lands), Weber Fire District and Weber County
This item was held.
G. Public Hearings:
1.Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
2. Public hearing to consider the vacation of 3 subdivision plats: Cedar Cove Estates, Cedar Cove Estates Amended Lots 17-19R, and Cedar Cove Estates 2nd Amendment
Justin Morris, County Planning Division, noted that this item was a follow up to vacate the three plats–the original that amended lots 17-19, the amendment to 19 and 20 approved about one year ago, and the third amendment approved in item F.5 above reducing the private right-of-way.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.
3. Public hearing on an amendments to County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30 (Land Use Permit, Building Permit & Certificate of Occupancy) & Chapter 31 (Administration)
Jim Gentry, County Planning Division, stated that there were items in these chapters that should be under one ordinance–items in Chapter 31 will be moved into Chapter 30–and language in Chapter 30 is being clarified. Both Planning Commissions unanimously recommended approval.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.
4. Public hearing to amend Chapter 35 Petitioners Requirements, Rezone Procedure, Development Agreement
Jim Gentry, County Planning Division, stated that this amendment was to clarify the processing of rezoning applications and to provide criteria that will help the County Commission and Planning Commission determine if a rezoning application should be granted, criteria for application submittal and for concept development plan submittal. Both Planning Commissions unanimously recommended approval of this item. Chair Dearden said that the Planning Commission had made a motion to approve as presented but discussion followed concerning some issues and then a motion was made to include revised language as prepared and directing staff to look at speculative rezoning monopoly and vesting of developing rights for property owners. Mr. Gentry responded that those changes had been made.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.
5. Public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4-A Gravel G-2 Zone, to allow Contractor Equipment Storage
Jim Gentry, County Planning Division, stated that because concerns had been raised by some contractors in the Ogden Valley regarding the lack of contractor equipment storage area, the County Commission had given direction that Planning staff explore options to provide additional opportunities for contractor equipment storage in the Valley. After site visits and working with the Planning Commission, it was recommended that contractors be allowed to store contractors equipment in the Gravel G-2 Zone with additional design and operational standards. If the storage is not in an enclosed building, additional landscaping would be required to help screen the area.
Mr. Gentry noted that the Commission had copies of comments from the Growth with Excellence Mandate (GEM) Committee, Steve Clarke, and other members of the public. Both Planning Commissions unanimously recommended approval of this item.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and following is a summary:
Steve Clarke, representing GEM, stated that in presenting their comments to the Planning Commission they were informed that the County Commission was the more appropriate forum. GEM had invited three contractors to meet with them and two accepted.
Mr. Clarke said that the direction County Planning received was to find locations suitable for rezoning to expand the amount of space for contractor equipment storage. As they discussed the issue, it became clear the contractors were confused about the need for more area and much more important to them was whether there was a level playing field or equality between all the different contractors in the Valley that have large equipment; whether there was proper enforcement of the ordinance, whether this issue had been thought out completely and what was motivating the need for expanded area; what type of contractor equipment needed to be stored in such a designated place; why should a landscaping business be permitted to have dump trucks and large back hoes in a commercial CV-2 area; why should some farmers be permitted to have large equipment, i.e., back hoes and dump trucks, as part of their agriculture operations and not be required to store them in a contractor equipment storage area when they rent out for commercial purposes; and how many trailers can a farmer have before his trailers are considered large equipment and be stored appropriately.
He reiterated that GEM was not at this point protesting the selection of sites, that the main issue was whether there was a level playing field; it seemed an issue of fairness to the contractors. He said that the excavation contractors are clear targets for this type of storage because they have a predominant amount of large/heavy equipment, but there are many other businesses in the Valley that also have large equipment, including track hoes, dump trucks, etc., and they want this issue resolved prior to rezoning new property.
Mr. Clarke outlined other issues: whether the penalties for compliance with this ordinance were commensurate with the cost of complying–currently, it is a lot less expensive for a contractor to ignore the law and pay the penalty than it is to purchase property to store equipment; and it might be more efficient to set up a system where contractors could rent space easily, perhaps even including office space where they could operate their businesses and have a reason to put their equipment in a central place (i.e., security). GEM felt that the issue of identifying expanded zones for contractor equipment storage is premature and the focus should be whether the right law is in place and if the issue is being addressed at the root cause.
Chair Dearden asked if the Valley’s General Plan called for finding locations for this type of storage and Mr. Gentry replied that was correct, that the original 1998 Plan identified an area in Eden as a manufacturing area as well as other areas that could be looked at in the future. Chair Dearden referred to other items mentioned by Mr. Clarke and asked about fairness and Mr. Gentry responded that the Agricultural Zones (AV-3) allows farmers, who have 10-wheel trucks, dump trucks, back hoes, etc., to be used as part of the farming operation, and as a conditional use to do offsite contractor work with the equipment and to store it on their 5-acre parcel. Nurseries in the Agricultural and Commercial Zones can have a dump truck and back hoe as part of the operation in the Valley. Chair Dearden asked if there was a set limit on the number of back hoes and dump trucks that they can have in those operations and Mr. Gentry replied that no limit was specified but if they became a nuisance, their conditional use permit could be reviewed. Mr. Gentry discussed the penalties with Chris Allred, Deputy County Attorney, who had said that State Code established that any violation of a zoning ordinance is a Class C misdemeanor and if the county wants to add different penalties, additional ordinances would have to be created and perhaps use a different system. Commissioner Bischoff asked about a landscaping business, for example, that has heavy equipment and uses it for another business or use, such as putting in septic tanks, and Mr. Gentry said that it was not what they were approved for and could be in violation of the conditional use permit.
Thom Summers, owner of S&S Excavating and S&S Recycling, stated that he had been required to have an MV-1 zoned lot (for 10+ years) and to date was the only one in the excavating business to have such a lot. He has lots available for sale but no one approaches him to purchase them. He asked if the existing excavating contractors are not being persuaded to seek available lots, then why create more if enforcement is not being carried out. The two major Valley landscaping businesses are digging about 25-30% of basements, putting in septic tanks and water lines. There is no enforcement and he felt strongly that everyone should be abiding by the same rules, people should have a commercial lot to store the equipment, not just be able to store it on someone’s farm land.
Kirk Langford, of Eden, stated that the county needs to be careful when adopting zoning ordinances that affect people’s businesses and the cost of doing business. There is commercial property for sale but the economy is really bad. A problem occurring in the Valley is that commercial space has been designated and all the uses adopted but then someone wants to rezone residential property to commercial and it gets rezoned, which is not fair to those who followed the rules–purchased space in the existing commercial area–and assumed the rezones would not be happening all over the place, creating an economic mess. He said there was an obligation to try to make it fair across the board so that there are sustainable businesses, and not require one person to have a building for the equipment and allow another to park his equipment in the river bed. Enforcement has not worked and the process is not fair. People should have to buy a lot in the existing commercial space; when that is built out, then look at rezoning.
Commissioner Bischoff noted that currently there was only one area to accommodate this storage and Mr. Gentry said that was correct, there are seven lots and five of them are being occupied. Commissioner Bischoff did not see the problem with zoning additional areas, which opened up some competition and logistics in the Valley. Mr. Clarke replied that the core issue was that they were working on identifying space with an ordinance that was not fundamentally sound and it would be better to re-write the ordinance to permit fairness and enforcement, not that rezoning was a bad idea. Commissioner Zogmaister asked if anyone from the Planning Commission was present to address the issue but no one was.
6. Public hearing regarding amendments to the Weber County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 32B (Ogden Valley Signs)
Sean Wilkinson, County Planning Division, stated that the County Planning Division staff was recommending amendments to the Ogden Valley Sign Ordinance to make clarifications and additions that will allow greater flexibility in implementation of this ordinance. These amendments were not intended to address every section in Chapter 32B but focused on several topics that had been addressed in previous work sessions and field trips with the Ogden Valley Planning Commission. A future work session will address internally lit signs.
The Planning Commission recommendations have been added to the ordinance, with the addition of one minor clarification that staff felt was appropriate. This clarification consists of including plexi-glass in the list of permitted materials for signs in Section 32B-13. Staff felt that this clarification was necessary because plexi-glass is currently allowed. In order for a sign to be internally lit, the face must be glass or plexi-glass. Most of the signs in the Ogden Valley, use plexi-glass material for the sign face. At the 12/9/2009 meeting the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this clarification.
The major amendments included:
32B-3 (Master Signage Plan) - the language has been clarified to ensure that the master signage plan is in compliance with the number and types and sizes of signs allowed in this chapter;
32B-6 (Allowable Signs by Zoning District) - after several meetings and site visits (to Ogden Valley, Ogden & Clinton) to see different sizes of signs, the recommendation is that ground monument signs be changed from 6 ft. X 10 ft. to 8 ft. high X 12 ft. wide and entrance ground signs for multiple tenant projects can be 14 ft. high X 12 ft. wide;
32B-9 (Prohibited Signs) - one pole sign will now be allowed for a public, private or charter school limited to 6 ft. high X 10 ft. wide, not less than 10 and not more than 15 ft. above ground;
32B-13 (Sign Material & Display Standards) - metals will be allowed to remain untreated and develop a natural patina; the language from Chapter 18C (Ogden Valley Architectural guidelines) has been incorporated into this section for support structures; a clarification that the total size of the sign and support structure combined shall not exceed the maximum height and width specified in 32B
Chair Dearden invited public comments and following is a summary:
Steve Clarke, of Eden, stated that he was speaking for himself (not representing the GEM Committee, which had not formally addressed this issue). He said that with some encouragement from Planning Commission members he had researched signs in resort areas and learned that signage in a resort area has a lot to do with the character and feeling projected in that area. He concurred with the presented modifications with the exception of the inclusion of internally lit signs. There are some historical signs in the Valley that are internally lit and some new ones but if the goal is to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Valley, as the General Plan states, then the internally lit signs he has seen are not conducive to that. He requested that the County Commission ask the Planning Commission to review the sign ordinance with the intent of not just amending some of the details being discussed today, but to do so with the General Plan’s intent and see if these signs should continue to be permitted. He addressed Commissioner Zogmaister’s question stating that he was in favor of appropriate externally lit signs. Commissioner Zogmaister noted that an externally lit sign could put out a lot of light, and he agreed but had found in his research that other communities did not have a problem in defining the way the signs should be lit externally. However, the ordinance language was a long ways off to articulate architectural guidelines, sign lighting, encouraging specific types of signs, etc. He felt that the county should not move ahead to officially endorse internally lit signs at this time.
Kirk Langford, of Eden Planning Committee, stated that the Committee had discussed this issue and believed the internally lit sign for the Valley had been eliminated about 10 years ago. As one drives around in the Valley, it is visible how the ordinance has been interpreted differently because some of the signs give out a lot of light. Mr. Langford asked the commissioners to drive by the Valley Market to see the lighting in order to determine if internally lit signs follow the intent of the General Plan. He stated that the externally lit signs have been effective in following the General Plan and maintain the rural atmosphere. He agreed with Mr. Clarke’s comments that more needs to be done than just tweaking the ordinance–there should be a work session to carefully define an ordinance that follows the General Plan.
Shana Francis, of Eden, asked for clarification on pole signs and the definition of “school.” She was concerned that it would allow beauty schools, etc. Mr. Wilkinson stated that pole signs would be allowed for public and charter schools, that the definition of school did not include beauty schools, etc.
Brandi Hammon, of Eden, stated that her business had the new signage and she concurred with Mr. Langford that internally illuminated signs were not a good idea, that it cheapened the area. Shed roofs, goose neck lighting, etc., worked well and were also used in Ogden City. Removing internally lit signs now was a wise idea and followed the intent of the General Plan.
Keith Rounkles, Ogden Valley Planning Commission, expressed agreement with what had been said today about not allowing internally illuminated signs, that the same discussion had occurred in the Planning Commission. He believed these issues could be addressed in a work session. Themes, such as rural or resort, could be used, but internally lit signs were not conducive to a rural atmosphere. Chair Dearden referred to documentation before the Commission that said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended what was before them and a second motion called for a work session in January to discuss internally illuminated signs and Mr. Rounkles said that was correct, he had been surprised that the internally lit signs were allowed, but the Planning Commission did not have any concerns with the other ordinance changes.
7. Public hearing to consider an amendment to the transportation element in the Ogden Valley General Plan and the adoption of the Ogden Valley Transportation Master Plan Map
Ben Hatfield, County Planning Division, stated that this plan amendment was to address the future right-of-way status of Utah State Highway 39 through Ogden Canyon. In dealing with some building permit applications in Ogden Canyon along this roadway, it became apparent that there is an inconsistency between the existing Ogden Valley transportation map for the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinances.
Mr. Hatfield gave some history stating that the Weber County Transportation Master Plan map was first adopted as part of the General Plan in 1969 and was amended in 1984 with an update to the Ogden Valley Goals and Policies Physical Development Plan. However, in 1998 a new General Plan was approved and a subsequent transportation map was not presented or approved for that General Plan, thus the county is functioning under that 1984 Physical Development Plan.
The transportation map shows that the Ogden Canyon is a 100 ft. right-of-way. The text amendment to the General Plan would reduce the right-of-way in Ogden Canyon from 100 ft. to 66 ft. The current General Plan states that due to potential environmental and aesthetic impacts, Weber County does not support widening the Ogden Canyon route beyond specific improvements for safety and passing lanes. The Zoning Ordinance states that where a street is designated on the county’s Master Street Plan as major street and where the existing street right-of-way requires widening to meet the right-of-way standards of such major street, the minimum front and side yard setbacks for all buildings shall be based upon the future designated right-of-way width as shown on the Master Plan and shall be measured from the future lot line of the major street instead of the existing lot line of the present street right-of-way.
County staff sought clarification from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and inquired regarding their future plans for that existing right-of-way. It was determined that UDOT has a prescriptive right-of-way of 66 ft. for Highway 39 in the Ogden Canyon and at this time the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan does not project any new improvements for Ogden Canyon.
Due to this information, staff proposes two amendments to the transportation element of the Ogden Valley General Plan, using the roads and standards from the 1984 map: 1) specific language limiting the right-of-way width of properties abutting major roadways in Ogden Canyon to 66 ft. and 2) adoption of the updated Ogden Valley Transportation Master Plan map. Updating the map raised questions about other roads which may need to be changed on the new map. The new Trappers Loop road is reflected on the map as an arterial roadway with a 100 ft. right-of-way and the portion of State Highway 162/Avon Divide has been shown as a local roadway with 66 ft. width. On 10/27/2009 the Ogden Valley Planning Commission recommended final approval of these amendments. Staff also recommends approval.
Rob Scott, County Planning Division Director, noted that this project had engendered some comment and he wanted to help clarify the process. He said that this is a legislative matter that deals with county policies, some existing and some involve updating. This proposal is a benefit to the county and to property owners in the county. It is a recognition that there were disparities between the General Plan text, the Master Plan map and also the county’s Zoning Ordinance. The county strives to be consistent in applying county policy and the amendment brings these items into conformity. Comments were received expressing surprise that there were certain roads reflected on the county’s development map. One reason may be that the transportation map has not been widely disseminated, therefore, the intent of this project is to adopt a map that can be placed on the county’s website, thus ensuring the county policy is made available to the public. Mr. Scott said that these two amendments are minor and reflective of existing circumstances and if additional policy changes had been necessary the process would have been different. The General Plan and the Recreational Element suggest that additional items will need to be addressed, and after having discussions with Planning Commissioners, County Commissioners, and pertinent citizens it became apparent that updating the transportation element was warranted. If the county desires to do a more detailed analysis, it would be done on an overall basis and would be a much more involved process.
Mr. Scott explained that under State law the Master Transportation map identifies there will be a need for additional connectivity between two points but does not identify specific properties or anything beyond the aspirational aspect that there needs to be connectivity in a particular area. He noted that the county does not have a program for development of new roadways but that the county reviews accesses through the development review process when issues are considered, such as health, safety and welfare of residents. Chair Dearden referred to the map noting that the only comments he received were about the dotted line indicating the possibility of a road, but he stated that the county would not install the road, and if it was put in it would be because the property owners decided to subdivide that property.
Chair Dearden invited public comments (and much opposition was expressed regarding a dotted line/proposed road through the Browning Ranch). Following is a summary:
Eric Householder, of Wolf Creek Properties, noted that a cluster subdivision in the Wolf Creek area (The Retreat) that has received final approval of phase 1 by the Planning Commission, but has not yet been reviewed by the County Commission, on a section of Elkhorn Drive had been dedicated as a 66 ft. right-of-way. He asked if that road could be considered as a local road instead of a collector road. This was the first time he had seen the 80 ft. right-of-way on the map. Their other projects were all 66 ft. right-of-ways. Mr. Scott said that Planning staff had taken this into account because all along that roadway it had been constructed at 66 ft. and the county was not proposing to change that. He noted that the map showed the existing roads at 80 ft. and the proposed roads without a specific designation because they wanted to make sure they had flexibility to deal with the specific nature of it. Commissioner Zogmaister then asked if the map should indicate the 66 ft. right-of-way where it connects with 158 and Mr. Scott did not feel it necessary stating that the intent was that the existing subdivisions are already reflected by the red line on the map. Chair Dearden also wanted consistency because SR 39 was being constructed at 66 ft. and felt that it was appropriate to note other roads on the map at 66 ft. and Mr. Scott said that Planning staff could make the change if the Commission wanted them to define the roads more specifically.
Keith Rounkles, of Ogden Canyon, had been part of meetings with UDOT and stated that he had never seen the 100 ft. right-of-ways before in the Canyon and with the setbacks it ended up being 150 ft. This is the problem residents of Ogden Canyon are facing. UDOT had said that they had to own/purchase any right-of-ways over 60 ft. In Ogden Canyon, most property goes right up to the 2 ft. stripe on the shoulder. He had been surprised by the proposed road indicated by the dotted line because it goes through the wildlife area along the Middle Fork. He realized the property owner should be able to do what he wants with the property, but he preferred that the road location was finalized on the map. Commissioner Bischoff noted that Mr. Rounkles wanted a firm road designation but that this was a concept. Mr. Rounkles stated that the Planning Commission had approved the subdivision Mr. Householder had mentioned and there were two accesses into that area. Commissioner Zogmaister said that currently it was just a construction road and would provide a second access to that subdivision but would not be a collector road.
Steve Clarke, GEM Committee representative, had read the minutes of 1967 when this map of the Physical Development of Ogden Valley had been approved, that the next reference was in 1984 and then 1985 was the most recent mention of this map in the General Plan. The 1988 General Plan does not refer to this map, from which he read, “Under the plan there will be a need to develop an efficient internal road system. This network should be master planned so that development of roads does not occur in a haphazard manner that needs to be reworked in the future.” He supported Wolf Creek’s concern about the line marking the proposed collector road through their subdivisions when it was limited to a 66 ft. roadway. He did not agree with calling this map the “Transportation Master Plan Map” stating it was not appropriate because it had not earned that right–it is a historical map but is not a current transportation master plan map. It conveys the wrong impression, because as Mr. Scott had described the process, it relies on a historical nature and not on any type of public input or process. Additionally, to publish it on the website as the Transportation Master Plan would alarm the citizens who had not heard Mr. Scott’s explanation, and it was the wrong message to send the public. He suggested taking out the dotted line and inserting text that said that there needs to be connectivity between certain points. Putting the dotted line on the map implies a level of planning and public process that has not taken place. He further suggested that the right-of-way issues be worked on, that the Planning Commission not accept this as a Transportation Master Plan but as a historical map from which a transportation master plan might be developed.
Chair Dearden asked if the dotted line was new because he was hearing it had been on the map since 1985. Mr. Scott said that this is county policy today–it is on an official map and staff is simply making an electronic version of it. Commissioner Zogmaister asked how Mr. Scott felt about the suggestion that text be added along with the map to abate concerns, and he said that some explanation could be included on the website but it need not be part of the text in the amendment.
Kirk Langford, of Eden, stated he had sent the commissioners a letter outlining six reasons why the dotted line should be removed from the map now and others had also sent letters strongly asking them to do that. He stated that it is difficult to remove something once it is on a map. In 1984-85 it was not called a Master Plan and there is a significant difference from how it is being proposed. In the 1985 plan, where this map is referenced, there are two maps–the one of the existing roads and a “Future Road Improvements.” It is not called as a transportation plan map or transportation master plan map but the Ogden Valley Goals and Policies, Physical Development, Plans and Interpretations were a looser guideline than how it is being referred to today. He said that the county was taking the Future Road Improvements (consisting of 1-page in the Ogden Valley Goals and Policies) and naming it the Ogden Valley Transportation Master Plan map. He said that government can change and begins by taking people’s property rights away by defining something it might need such as additional connectivity, then putting it on official maps, such as dotted lines, then using the “health, safety and welfare” criteria and finally the Brownings would be forced to connect into an 80 ft. right-of-way that would have to be built all through their property, and if Powder Mountain wanted to build the road, they might use condemnation and get the road under the public welfare criteria. Mr. Langford said that the road made no sense because it runs from cluster subdivisions, not arterial roads, at 66 ft. wide then turns into 80 ft. as SR 166, comes around, where there are 30 ft. setbacks and 3-acre zoning. Property owners have to pull out of their driveways right onto that road and the traffic is heavy between Eden and Huntsville (from the east loop) and cannot be driven at the 50 mph speed limit. He asked that the dotted line be removed, to ensure that the road in Ogden Canyon is designated 66 ft. wide, that Mr. Clarke was correct that this road was not what was on the 1998 General Plan. UDOT did a survey that he participated in 2-3 years ago; they toured the Valley and came to the conclusion that the high speed egress/ingress out of the Valley would have to be off of the west side. Multiple meetings had been held with citizens who let them know what type of UDOT projects they desired.
Shana Francis, of Eden, expressed concern with changing the name to Transportation “Master” Plan, because legally it stepped it up to a whole another level as far as the county’s rights. She said this was not a small road but a huge thoroughfare with cars driving up to 60 mph and if it was called a Master Plan on a map the rights of property owners will be downgraded. A “master plan” implies it has gone through a broad public process, which it has not. At this time it was unknown what would happen with the Browning Ranch in the future but anything that would restrict/confine/define what they might do with their property in the future is a step that should not be taken.
Sharon Holmstrom, of Eden, asked if any members of the Browning family were present. None were present but the commissioners noted that they had received a letter from Scott Browning. She concurred with removing the dotted line, with removing the title “Master Plan Map.”
Scott Walker, representing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), stated that the DWR was concerned with the dotted line. This is adjacent to the wildlife management area and the DWR holds a conservation easement that would preclude the construction of any roads. It was difficult to tell where that road goes, but it could intercept the conservation easement. Typically, when master plans are developed by a county or city and impacts Wildlife Resources–and the county has recognized that this is in a critical wildlife area–the DWR has an opportunity to comment. The DWR was taken aback when they saw this item a couple of days ago as a “Master Plan” when they had no opportunity to comment and evaluate the impacts to wildlife. He noted that there was a lot of area and that this was a connectivity issue, that if it were a true developed master plan, one would expect to see more roads. He concurred with what had been said that this was not a master plan. The DWR would like to have an opportunity to provide comment on the impacts to wildlife if this becomes a master plan.
Jim Yeager, lives next to the Brownings, stated that the dotted line should be taken off the map and if a subdivision was constructed there, it was up to the developer to put in a road.
Kathy Grandin, of Eden, stated that if this road was put in that subdivision it would be right above her home and one of her concerns was public safety because that traffic would come right through the neighborhood where a lot of children live. Additionally, if that road was constructed, it would cut a lot of driving distance for Powder Mountain skiers and they would take that short cut to Powder Mountain and the residents did not want to see that kind of traffic in their neighborhood.
Brandi Hammon, of Eden, spoke of the importance of a well designed master plan and said that there were already several developments in the Valley that were not completed, such as Eagles Landing, and their road was designed to come out onto Highway 166/Wolf Creek Drive. There was a lot of high density housing and the proposed road would run through a highly residential area and did not make sense. There are a lot of lots on the market currently–over 10 years inventory and supply in the Valley–thus she felt it would be a long ways off before there would be a lot of new lots developed. She said that homes were sitting at about 2 years inventory and condos at 4 years, and putting a road on a map at this time was premature. She agreed with others that it was difficult to take something back once it was in writing.
Dan Harris, of Eden, expressed opposition to the dotted line on the map portrayed as part of an official master plan map. He expressed concerns and wanted to preserve corridors for wildlife because in the Valley there is not a lot of bench land that has not be developed–the State recognized that years ago and procured the Middle Fork area. He said that any roads that fell where that dotted line is would also involve somehow extinguishing the conservation easement and the State and Wolf Creek have a portion of an easement. He did not want to see any more critical winter range for wildlife being developed or degraded. If there was ever a road there, it would present an impossible barrier for deer and elk to continue to survive there.
Mr. Scott stated that the dotted line was not on the agenda for discussion–it has existed on a county map and no changes were being suggested to that. If that dotted line were ever to become a roadway, it would be as a precursor to a development. He felt that a subdivision developed in that area would have far more impacts to the sensitive lands than that one roadway would. There should be an extensive update to the transportation element before that line is removed. Commissioner Bischoff asked if the word “master” was appropriate and Mr. Scott believed it was because it was using the current language of State law and it was the map that the county has used for over 25 years. Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, noted that “general plan” was now called “master plan” and this is State law language.
8. Public hearing requesting to amend the County Zoning Ordinance by adding 74 Commercial Uses from Chapter 18B (Commercial Valley - 2 Zone) to Chapter 21B (Manufacturing Valley -1 Zone)
Scott Mendoza, County Planning Division, stated that the petitioner, Thom Summers, is requesting adding 74 commercial uses found in Chapter 18B to the uses listed in Chapter 21B. This petition was originally presented to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission on 9/22/2009. The original proposal was to add all existing commercial uses found in the CV-2 Zone (187 uses) to the MV-1 Zone (which has about 19 uses). Staff and the Planning Commission had these concerns: 1) compatibility, 2) taking commercial uses out of what should be a vibrant, active commercial pool and putting them into an industrial area and 3) filling that industrial type area with commercial uses because it has been a challenge to find other areas within Ogden Valley that are suitable to that community for light industrial type activities. Currently, in downtown Eden approximately 60% of the dedicated commercial lots remain undeveloped. At the 9/22 meeting the Planning Commission asked that the item be tabled and to have a work session to give the petitioner time to reconsider the proposal and submit a list of more selective uses. Mr. Summers did that and came up with a list of 74 uses and Planning staff came with 28 uses. The Planning Commission agreed with the list submitted by Planning staff. In a public meeting on October 27 the Planning Commission moved to deny the request for the 74 uses but approve adding the 28 uses to the MV-1 Zone as submitted by staff .
Mr. Summers stated that his request was an attempt to try to make the businesses more profitable and help pay for some of the debt in this downturn economy. He agreed with the list of 28 uses and would have liked a few others added, such as part-time daycare.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.
9. Public hearing to discuss an Ordinance to amend Title 26, County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 4
Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, stated that she was requesting amending the county’s financial guarantee based on a letter received from the FDIC. A couple of developers put money into an escrow agreement with banks and when the county made the demand for the money because the developers had not completed the improvements, the banks had folded. The FDIC responded that under federal law they determine if an agreement is too burdensome and cumbersome for them to comply with. The FDIC decided that the county’s escrow agreements were too cumbersome and burdensome and refused to give the money for the county to finish the developments.
Based upon that, county departments became concerned with being in that same situation with FDIC insured banks in the future and wish to no longer allow financial guarantees that are not held in county escrow. Chair Dearden said that a couple of contractors had expressed concern and Ms. Hurtado replied that this did not impact existing financial guarantees. If developers do not comply with the agreement and do not complete their improvements within the time period in their recorded financial guarantee, they will have to comply with the new ordinance. Commissioner Zogmaister noted that this put more of a financial burden on the developer but the county has been put in a difficult situation because the banks had not upheld their end of the agreement as had been historically understood.
Chair Dearden invited public comments and following is a summary:
Eric Householder, of Wolf Creek properties, asked if the new escrow accounts with the county were interest bearing and Ms. Hurtado replied that the Engineer had set them up so that they were, but she explained that just like when one pays the bank back, one does not get interest on the money held in escrow. She said that financial guarantees are a courtesy because it allows the developer to record prior to completing the improvements and have the ability to start marketing those lots during that time period. She said that the developer could market the lots and/or get a loan from a bank.
Nathan Boswell purchased the Aspen Fall Subdivision (in Eden) in October, and it was his intention to use the escrow account to finish the improvements, which were about 90% completed. Under the agreement, it states the county would finish those using the money or contract with a third party for completion or the new developer-owner. He asked if under the current agreement he would be able to finish the improvements using the money that is already existing in the account and finish the improvements. Ms. Hurtado said that this case did not apply to this ordinance. She noted that the developer of his property had defaulted and the county had already called for the money. Mr. Boswell stated that the initial developer defaulted and the property went back to the bank and he had purchased it from the bank. Ms. Hurtado said that this situation was different and explained that had Mr. Boswell purchased from the developer, a written agreement could have been provided at that time and he could have completed the improvements within the time period of the recorded financial guarantee
10. Public hearing to approve a resolution approving amendments to the Operating and Capital Budgets of Weber County for the 2009 Calendar Year
Eric Barrett, County Clerk/Auditor’s Office, noted that at the end of each year the county attempts to forecast the budget needs for the coming year. This requires handling some housekeeping items at the end of each year to reflect what has occurred during the year. He presented the major changes that included a decrease in tax revenues which affects the General Fund; identified grant revenues, particularly in the Sheriff’s Office and the jail for funds they received but had not been anticipated; reviewed RAMP grants awarded to the county; in July the county refunded the Municipal Building Authority bonds that renovated the Weber Center and the Conference Center to obtain a lower interest rate (a $23 million budget change); completion of the Pleasant Valley Library branch and the feasibility for the Animal Shelter construction; in the Health Department’s budget the booking of WIC food vouchers (a $4 million line item); a rate change between the Paramedic Fund and the Health Department; the Health Department received grants for the H1N1 mass clinics; there were improvements made to the generator affecting the Landfill Gas Fund ($105,713); and the Ice Sheet purchased a new Zamboni (approved under the 2008 budget).
Chair Dearden invited public comments and none were offered.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.11.
12. Action on public hearings:
G.2.-Vacation of Cedar Cove Estates, Cedar Cove Estates Amended Lots 17-19R, & Cedar Cove Estates 2nd Amendment - Ordinance 2009-27
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-27 vacating Cedar Cove Estates, Cedar Cove Estates Amended Lots 17-19R and Cedar Cove Estates 2nd Amendment; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.3.-Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30 (Land Use Permit, Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy) and Chapter 31 (Administration) - Ordinance 2009-28
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-28 amending the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30 (Land Use Permit, Building Permit, and Certificate of Occupancy) and Chapter 31, (Administration); Commissioner Zogmaister seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.4.-Amend Chapter 35, Petitioners Requirements - Rezone Procedure, Development Agreement - Ordinance 2009-29
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-29 amending Chapter 35, Petitioners Requirements - Rezone Procedure, Development Agreement; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.5.- Public Hearing to amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 4-A Gravel G-2 Zone to allow Contractor Equipment Storage
After receiving all the public comments today, Commissioner Bischoff felt it would be wise to review the ordinance and the comments and consider whether to expand the contractor equipment storage into other areas, and he moved to bring the item back before the Commission at a future date; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
G.6.-Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 32B (Ogden Valley Signs) - Ordinance 2009-30
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-30 amending the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 32B (Ogden Valley Signs), by adjusting size requirements, adding design standards, and clarifying existing language, with direction to the County Planning Division to further study the type of lighting that is permitted for signs in Ogden Valley; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.7.-Amendment to the transportation element in the Ogden Valley General Plan and the adoption of the Ogden Valley Transportation Master Plan Map
Commissioner Bischoff noted that the Commission heard clearly from many people regarding their opposition to the dotted line (proposed future road). Planning staff had stated that this dotted line was not being added but has existed on the map. Additionally, the terminology “master plan” had been discussed at length and legal counsel had indicated that “general plan” was now called “master plan,” by statutory language, and that it did not make it more official than the map that has been in place. Where the map has been established but perhaps not made as public as it could have been, Commissioner Zogmaister recommended that it be put out to the public and that be the point of discussion to move forward. She noted all the concerns that had been received today on that proposed road and stated that this issue had not gone through the public process but needed to be in order to receive input. She did not see this as a master plan and wanted it posted as it was called in 1984, and this is where the discussion should start. Chair Dearden asked Mr. Langford for the name of the plan in 1984 and he showed it on the overhead projector. The Ogden Valley Goals and Policies, Physical Development Plan, contained a small map that was called, “Future Road Improvements.” Mr. Langford stated that there was a big difference in something that is a master plan and a small map that is called future road improvements. Mr. Scott said that State law had changed since that time but the Commission could use what language they wanted. Commissioner Zogmaister asked if that policy had changed since 1984 and Mr. Scott said it had not, that in the 1988 discussions the policies did not change. Ms. Hurtado said that when State law changes and a general plan is adopted, it requires that specific master plans be adopted to go with the general plan. She recommended that the Commission comply with current law and give it the titles that are part of the current language so it can show that the county has complied. Commissioner Zogmaister expressed difficulty in calling it a master plan when it has not gone through the public process and Ms. Hurtado said that perhaps the Commission would want to have more public input before adopting it with that title, but if the Commission wanted to recognize the existing plan, they should call it what it was called back then. Mr. Scott said that it had not had received recent public comment but had when it was approved, and if the Commission desired to change it, a process should be established.
Chair Dearden asked if the Commission was re-approving what had been approved in 1985 and if the clincher was whether it was called a master plan or future road improvements. Mr. Scott replied that was correct and that it could be called by a number of different titles, such as the Transportation Element. Chair Dearden noted that it had not been changed except for the 66 ft. versus 80 ft. right-of-way. The commissioners agreed with calling it the Transportation Element. Commissioner Zogmaister asked if there would be any more public process and Mr. Scott said that when the Transportation Element is updated, an extensive process will be conducted.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Resolution 42-2009 relating to an update to the Transportation portion of Section Nine (Infrastructure) of the Ogden Valley General Plan with the amendment as presented; Chair Dearden seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.8.-Amend County Zoning Ordinance by adding 74 28 Commercial Uses from Chapter 18B to Chapter 21B - Ordinance 2009-31
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-31 amending the County Zoning Ordinance by adding 28 commercial uses, as listed in Chapter 18B (Commercial Valley-2 Zone) to Chapter 21B (Manufacturing Valley-1 Zone); Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.9.-Ordinance to amend Title 26, County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 4 - Ordinance 2009-32
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Ordinance 2009-31 amending Title 26 of the County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 4; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
G.10.-Resolution approving amendments to the Operating and Capital Budgets of Weber County for the 2009 Calendar Year - Resolution 43-2009
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adopt Resolution 43-2009, amendments to the operating and capital budgets of Weber County for the 2009 calendar year; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Zogmaister aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Dearden aye
H. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 10 a.m.
I. Public Comments:
Brice Penrod, of Counterpoint Construction, said that the county was suing them to take a portion of their property for access to the C&D landfill. Tomorrow they were going to court regarding eminent domain proceedings. He said that there was some confusion among county staff and, subsequently, Counterpoint, about ownership of the 116 acres for the site. He asked if the county had purchased the property and if the county presently owned it. Legal counsel said that she was not working on this case and was not familiar with the facts. Mr. Penrod asked if the county had closed on the property and Chair Dearden said that the county had not.
J. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 1:15 p.m.; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission
Alan D. McEwan, CPA
Weber County Clerk/Auditor