Minutes of the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission meeting held November 28, 2006 Weber County Commission Chambers, commencing at 4:30 p.m.
Members Present: Members Excused: Staff Present: Louis Cooper, Vice Chair Jim Gentry, Director Jim Banks Kevin Hamilton, Planner Greg Graves Scott Mendoza, Planner Gary Allen Sean Wilkinson, Planner Keith Rounkles Iris Hennon, Planner Verl Creager Chris Allred, Legal Counsel Sharon Holmstrom Angela Martin, Secretary
Consent Agenda Items A. Final Approval of Emerson Hills No. 2 at 6200 N. Fork Road, 5 Lots B. Final Approval of the Amended Sunridge Highlands amended Lot 27 C. Final Approval of The Chalets Phase 4 at 6235 E 950 S, 11 Lots D. Conditional Use Permit CUP#28-2006 for Fairway Oaks revised Home Style at 3944 N Patio Springs E. Conditional Use Permit CUP#29-2006 by Brian Martin for a Agricultural Building at 5674 E 2700 N F. Final Approval of North River Ridge Estates located at 4000 N River Road, 10 Lots G. Preliminary Approval of Nordic Meadows Phase 2 located at 3170 N 3500 E, 3 Lots
Regular Agenda Items 1. Conditional Use Permit CUP#07-2006 Hidden Canyon Water Tank at 255 Ogden Canyon 2. Conditional Use Permit CUP#23-2006 by Wolf Creek Properties for a Condo\Hotel at 3718 N. Wolf Creek Dr. 3. Zoning Petition ZP#19-2006 by Thom Summers to amend Chapter 4 to allow material recycle, reclamation of rock, concrete, asphalt and dirt at approximately 7100 Stoker Lane 4. Zoning Petition ZP#20-2006 by Erich Sontag to amend the Zoning Ordinance from S-1 to AV-3 at approximately 1900 N. 5900 E. 5. Zoning Petition ZP#21-2006 by Audrey and Rod Carver to amend Chapter 5B (Agricultural Valley AV-3) of the Uniform Land Use Ordinance of Unincorporated Weber County by adding “Petting Zoo” as a permitted use 6. Final Approval of Hidden Canyon Subdivision at 255 Ogden Canyon, 9 Lots 7. Preliminary Approval of Bison Creek Cluster Subdivision at 8150 E. Hwy 39, 150 Lots 8. Preliminary Approval of Williamsen Subdivision at 3052 N Hwy. 162, 3 Lots 9. Discussion on the ordinances ______
Consent Agenda Items A. Final Approval of Emerson Hills No. 2 at 6200 N. Fork Road, 5 Lots
Finding of Fact: The petitioner is requesting final approval of Emerson Hills Subdivision Phase 2, 5 Lots at 6375 North North Fork Road. The property is zoned Forest F-5, which requires 5 acres and 300 ft of frontage.
Culinary water will be provided by Durfee Creek culinary water system. This system has no requirements for secondary water. Weber Fire District is requiring 3 new fire hydrants. Waste Water will be provided by a common drain field located on lot 2 in Emerson Hills Phase 1. A construct permit has been issued by the State Utah.
All improvements have been installed. Engineering has no concerns, but they want 10 percent of the total cost of improvements in an escrow for a the 1 year warranty period on the improvements.
Conformance to General Plan: The proposal conforms to the General Plan by meeting the area and frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance, and the proposal has a central collection for waste water.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Engineering Letter 2. Weber Fire District 3. Durfee Creek Water 5. Final approval letter from the state on the common drainfield
Page 1 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that final approval is granted subject to staff, and agency comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to move consent agenda items B and C to the regular agenda. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
D. Conditional Use Permit CUP#28-2006 for Fairway Oaks revised Home Style at 3944 N Patio Spring
Staff presented the following report:
Findings of Fact: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the PRUD governing Fairways Oaks. Subdivision, located at approximately 3944 North Patio Springs, Fairways Oaks lot 5. The proposed amendment is to add a second story over the existing garage and a bay window in the living room. The Subdivision falls within a FR-3 zone. The Plans have been reviewed by the Home Owners Association architectural committee, they have deemed the addition appropriate and that it meets with their specifications.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Fairway Oaks Homeowners Association maintaining the architectural integrity of the P.R.U.D.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
E. Conditional Use Permit CUP#29-2006 by Brian Martin for a Agricultural Building at 5674 E 2700 N
Staff presented the following report:
Findings of Fact: The applicant requests approval of a large Accessory building for agricultural use. It is located at approximately 5674 East 2700 North, Eden. The proposed accessory building will be on 7.15 acres The lot falls within an Agricultural AV-3 zone which requires a minimum lot size of 3 acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet. This building will be used for cows, hay, and tractor storage. The proposed storage barn will be 36x84 approximately 3024 sq ft. and the single family dwelling is 28x61 approximately 1708 sq ft, the storage barn will be twice the size. Large accessory buildings that are twice the size of the home are required to come before the Planning Commission for approval as a Conditional Use.
23-29. Large Accessory Buildings. Accessory buildings shall be located to the side or rear of the dwelling, with the exception that one accessory building which is subordinate to the dwelling in area and height may be located in front of the dwelling provided:
1. It is located no less than one hundred (100) feet from any public right of way, or private right of way that provides frontage for lots in an approved subdivision.
2. Conforms to the dwelling in architectural style and materials.
3. Is located no less than twenty-five (25) feet from a side property line and one hundred (100) feet from a dwelling on an adjacent parcel.
With the exception noted above, accessory buildings larger than 1,000 sq. ft. in area that accommodates uses meeting zoning requirements shall be located to the rear of the dwelling unit, have a side yard of at least 10 ft., a maximum height of 25 ft. and shall be located at least 6 ft. from the rear of a dwelling in the Residential Estate Zones and a least 10 ft. from the rear of a dwelling in the Agricultural Zones. The side yard may be reduced to 3 ft. and height increased to 35 ft. if the accessory building is located at least 100 ft. from a public street and at least 40 ft. from a dwelling on an adjacent lot.
Accessory buildings that exceed the dwelling in area, as measured by the footprint of the dwelling, by more than twice, shall require approval by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use.
Conformance to General Plan: This lot conforms to the current General Plan which requires the lot to have a minimum of three acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Must meet the requirements of the Weber County Large Accessory building requirements as stated above.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
Page 2 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
F. Final Approval of North River Ridge Estates located at 4000 N River Road, 10 Lots
Staff presented the following report:
The petitioner is requesting final approval for North River Ridge Estates Subdivision (10 lots) located at approximately 4000 N. River Drive. The subdivision contains 27.45 acres and consists of 10 lots. The subdivision lies in an AV-3 Zone which requires a minimum lot area of three acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet. However, this subdivision is designed as a cluster subdivision so lot sizes and frontage requirements will differ from the normal requirements. All of the lots in this subdivision contain at least 20,000 square feet and frontage requirements are reduced to a minimum of 100 feet.
Preliminary approval was given by the Planning Commission on September 26, 2006 for this subdivision to be gated. This recommendation will be passed on to the County Commission. The gate will be wrought iron, 6 ft. tall, with 4 ft. stacked rock pillars on the ends. A rock monument sign will also be installed near the gated entrance. This sign must not exceed 6 feet in height and 10 feet in width and it may be placed on a landscaped berm up to 2 feet high.
A cluster subdivision in the AV-3 Zone requires a minimum of 60% of the subdivision to be preserved as permanent open space, but allows for a bonus density of up to 30%. The petitioner is requesting the maximum bonus density. The following bonus densities were given preliminary approval at the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2006:
< This cluster subdivision contains 17.85 acres of open space, which is 65% of the total area for the subdivision and 5% above the minimum requirement. A 5% bonus was granted for this 5% of open space above the 60% requirement.
< The open space will contain an unpaved bike/walking path along 4100 N. which will continue along the new road in the subdivision terminating in the cul-de-sac and branching off through the open space area and around the detention pond. All of the trail areas will be landscaped and provide benches. A 5% bonus was granted for providing open space amenities which are open to the public.
< An agricultural preservation easement and plan are also provided for a 10 acre piece of open space which will be owned by one of the lot owners in the subdivision. The plan is described in the project narrative and the proposed building location is shown on the plat. A letter from the USU Agricultural Extension office provides recommendations for the plan and these should be followed. A 10% bonus was granted for providing this agricultural preservation easement.
< A 10% bonus was granted for developing a cluster subdivision which meets the intent of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 22B.
New roads will be built as a part of this subdivision and all roads must meet the requirements of the Weber County Engineers Office. 4100 N. is an 80 ft. right of way and will need to have a 40 foot half width dedicated on the petitioners side. A road dedication plat has been prepared for 4100 N. and the 33 feet to be dedicated is shown on the plat as “Right of way to be dedicated by adjoining property owners.” The road will not cover this entire section, but will be mainly built on the south side owned by the petitioner. Some of the existing asphalt will be removed to help align the intersection at 4000 E. and 4100 N. Specific road designs are being discussed by the petitioner’s engineer and the County Engineer’s office. Final approval by the Planning Commission will be subject to the dedication plat being signed and the final road design approved by the County Engineers office. These requirements must be fulfilled before the subdivision can be recorded.
Culinary water will be provided by the Liberty Pipeline Company. Secondary water will be provided by an on-site detention pond. A well will be dug and a 400 sq. ft. pump house with a 1,000 gallon Storage tank will be constructed just south of the detention pond to help fill the pond and for secondary water distribution. This system will need to be approved by the Weber County Engineers Office and shown on the plat with a well protection easement. Wastewater will be handled by individual septic tanks which have been approved by the County Health Department.
Conformance to General Plan: This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by:
• Meeting the requirements for the AV-3 Zone. • Meeting the requirements for Chapter 22B of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance.
Page 3 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
• Meeting the objectives of the General Plan Section 3.01 to “Identify and promote the preservation of open space” and “Establish mechanisms to preserve open space in the Valley” and Section 10.02 to “Provide incentives for developers to preserve open space and cluster development.”
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Engineers Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Health Department 3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber Fire District.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
Page 4 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Banks abstained from this item.
MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to approve Consent Agenda Item F subject to staff and other agency recommendations. Commissioner Holmstrom seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
G. Preliminary Approval of Nordic Meadows Phase 2 located at 3170 N 3500 E, 3 Lots
Staff presented the following report:
Finding of Facts: The applicant is requesting preliminary approval of Nordic Meadow Subdivision Phase 2 located at approximately 3175 North 3500 East (1200 feet north of Wolf Mountain’s existing main lodge). The proposed subdivision will occupy the remaining 15.47 acres of the previously recorded Nordic Meadows Phase 1 and will consist of 3 lots and approximately 1100 feet of road improvements. It falls within in a FV-3 zone which requires a minimum lot size of 3 acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet.
The proposed roadway will be dedicated as a public road and will continue easterly from Phase 1where it will terminate with a temporary turn-around until future development occurs. The Weber County Engineer’s Office has had an opportunity to review the preliminary plans and have responded with no significant concerns.
Culinary Water will be provided by Nordic Mountain Water Incorporated.
Waste Water Treatment will be by septic system.
Weber Fire District will be requiring 2 new fire hydrants and has approved the road which has slopes as steep as12%.
A trail conforming to the Weber County Pathways Ordinance will be a side path design located along the south boundary line of lot 5.
All students are eligible for bussing from designated bus stop at Wolf Mountain Resort.
Conformance to General Plan: These lots conform to the current General Plan which requires the lots to have a minimum of three acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Engineers Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber Fire District. 3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Surveyor’s Office. 4. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber-Morgan Healthy Department. 5. Requirements and recommendations of the Ogden Valley Pathways. 6. Requirements of the culinary water provider.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends final approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to approve Consent Agenda Items A, D, E, G, subject to staff and other agency recommendations. Commissioner Banks seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
Regular Agenda Items
B. Final Approval of the Amended Sunridge Highlands amended Lot 27
Staff presented the following report:
Page 5 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
The petitioner is requesting final approval for Sunridge Highlands Subdivision No. 1 Amended Lot 27, located at approximately 11816 E. Hawk Point. Lot 27 contains 1.66 acres and lies in a (Forest) F-10 Zone which requires a minimum lot area of ten acres and a minimum lot width of 400 feet. Sunridge Highlands was approved with requirements below current standards and is considered a legal non-conforming subdivision.
This amendment will adjust the boundary of Lot 27 by moving common area from the north boundary line to the east boundary line (shown as common area H1). The petitioner owns Lot 26 to the north of Lot 27 and this amendment will allow for a common lot line between the two while maintaining the same area for Lot 27, the same open space area, and maintaining open space access off of a road.
The Sunridge Home Owners Association has approved this amendment but the official minutes or an official resolution from the meeting when this amendment was approved will be required before the subdivision is recorded so that they can be recorded as well. There were no concerns from the County Engineers office and all required improvements are existing. Proof of wastewater treatment, culinary water, and other requirements will need to be met before obtaining a building permit. Conformance to General Plan: The amendment to this subdivision will not change the area of Lot 27 or the common area so it will meet the subdivision requirements of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Engineer’s office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber Fire District. 3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Health Department.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
Robert Foxley, Lot 49, stated that he would withdraw his objections.
MOTION: Commissioner Rounkles made the motion to recommend to the County Commission final approval of the amendment to the Sunridge Highlands Lot 27, subject to staff and all other agency recommendations. Commissioner Banks seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
C. Final Approval of The Chalets Phase 4 at 6235 E 950 S, 11 Lots
Staff presented following report:
The applicant is requesting final approval for The Chalets at Ski Lake #4 Subdivision located at approximately 6235 E. 950 S. This subdivision contains 11.8 acres, consists of 11 lots, and lies in an FV-3 Zone which requires a minimum lot area of 3 acres and a minimum lot width of 150 feet. This is a non-conforming subdivision which was submitted prior to the zoning change requiring 3 acre lots, and lot sizes are further reduced because this is a cluster subdivision. Approximately 3.8 acres in this subdivision will be designated as common open space.
Culinary water will be provided by Lakeview Water Company and wastewater treatment will be provided by Mountain Sewer Corporation. Road improvement drawings for Quail Lane and Eagle Point have been submitted and will be reviewed by the Weber County Engineers office. All improvements must be completed, or a financial guarantee must be submitted prior to recording the subdivision.
This subdivision was originally given final approval by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2006. One additional lot is being proposed which is why this subdivision is coming back before the Planning Commission. This new lot (Lot 14 on the plat) was part of the approved Chalets preliminary plat but it was removed due to possible problems with a 60 foot right of way which ran through Lot 14. These problems are in the process of being resolved and the petitioner feels confident in putting this Lot in Phase 4. This lot could have been included in the May 23 proposal but the petitioner wanted to wait. The right of way does not prevent this lot from being included, but no structure can be built over the right of way.
Conformance to General Plan: Nonconforming Subdivision
Page 6 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Engineer’s Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Health Department. 3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Fire District.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
Commissioner Graves asked if this still had buildable area? Staff replied that it does.
Vice Chair Cooper asked if the petitioner has increased the number of units? Staff replied no, this will still remain at 80 units. This was part of the original preliminary approval, however it was taken out due to concerns with the right of way, and now it’s just being put back in.
Frank Cumberland, 6563 E 1100 S. in Ski Lake, stated that he would like clarification of where this new location is. The notice that was sent to the homeowners showed it on the east side of Old Snow Basin Road. Staff clarified it on the map and apologized that the drawing on the map that was sent out was wrong.
Page 7 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Linda Schooley, Lake Side Village which is west of the Ski Lake Chalets, stated that at the last meeting she attended they said the sewer system was going to still feed into their lift stations. Is that still the plan? Staff replied yes, that was their understanding. Ms. Schooley stated that was a grave concern, the station has failed twice. They are very concerned about that and wonders as the building process is continued that staff could make that notification. They have sustained quite a bit of damage up there which has not been taken care of. They are having a lot of trouble with the insurance companies and getting their properties taken care of. Commissioner Graves stated that he was under the impression that this was taken care of.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked staff that since their requests were made very specifically when they previously discussed this at length, have they received anything in regards to their requests other than the letter from Mountain Sewer Corporation? Staff replied that there are two different projects they are talking about. They have a letter from the sewer company saying that they have capacity and they will provide service to the Chalets at Ski Lake Phase 4. That is what concerns this project. Whatever legal action has been taken, does not really concern this. If they do have concern with the engineering, they need to contact either the County Engineer or the County Commissioners, who is the body politic for the sewer district.
MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to recommend to the County Commission that final approval is given to the Chalets Phase 4 at 6235 E 950 S, 11 Lots, subject to staff and agency comments. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to move agenda item 8 to be heard at this time as was discussed in the pre-meeting. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
8. Preliminary Approval of Williamsen Subdivision at 3052 N Hwy. 162, 3 Lots
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to table the petition for Preliminary Approval of Williamsen Subdivision at 3052 N. Hwy. 162, 3 Lots, so that staff can discuss further options and gather additional information. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
1. Conditional Use Permit CUP#07-2006 Hidden Canyon Water Tank at 255 Ogden Canyon
Staff presented following report:
Findings of Fact: The applicant is requesting approval to construct and operate a 60,000 gallon culinary water storage tank located at approximately 250 Ogden Canyon. The project has been proposed as part of the Hidden Canyon Subdivision’s private water system and is situated on a portion (60'x80' easement) of lot 5 which lies in the northern most area of the subdivision. The project lies within the Forest Residential -1 (FR-1 ) Zone which conditionally allows such a water reservoir facility. Culinary water is going to be provided by Ogden City. The intent of the conditional use is to provide water storage for the Hidden Canyon Subdivision. The 60,000 gallon tank will be a 41.5' x 19.5' x 12.5' (rectangular) reinforced concrete structure constructed on a wooded bench area with moderately steep slopes of approximately 5-10% according to the applicant’s engineer. The tank will stand approximately 3.0' above the finished grade on the down hill side. The access road will be constructed into slopes ranging from 25% to 60% and will stabilized by intermittent soil nailing and rock retaining walls (10 ft. to 20 ft. height) on both the uphill and downhill sides. The applicant has guaranteed that all rock used for retaining will be native in color. The tank site and the access road have both had geo-technical studies prepared concluding that the soil and slopes are sufficient for the proposed construction if geo-technical recommendations are followed. The site has an extensive landscape plan that includes Rocky Mountain Juniper, Rocky Mountain Maple, Native Common Juniper, Rocky Mountain Penstemon, Firecracker Penstemon, Red Osier Dogwood, native grasses and Turf Reinforcement Matting. The site re-vegetation plan will need to be reviewed by Jerry Goodspeed of the Utah State University Extension Office and gain his approval prior to issuing the conditional use permit. The Weber County Engineer’s Office and Weber County Building Inspection have reviewed the proposal and have
Page 8 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
responded with no significant concerns, however, they are emphasizing that all geo-technical recommendations need to be followed very closely. The State of Utah, Division of Drinking Water has also reviewed the proposal and has approved the water system in a letter dated October 27, 2006. Any additional State or geo-technical requirements encountered during construction will be considered as “conditions of approval” and will be communicated to the Weber County Engineer’s and Building Inspection Office to ensure compliance.
Conformance to General Plan: Conforms to the General Plan by providing additional infrastructure for anticipated water needs.
Questions to ask: 1. Would it be possible to conceal the tank more by setting it further into the ground? 2. Could the tank be accessed from the rear (northwest) in order to avoid one road cut on the steeper slopes below the tank site? 3. Will the landscaping, as presented on page 16, be affected by the retaining walls? If so, how significant will the changes be?
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the County Engineers Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the County Fire District. 3. Requirements of the Weber County Health Department. 4. Requirements of the Weber County Building Inspection. 5. Requirements and recommendations of the State of Utah, Division of Drinking Water. 6. Requirements and recommendations of the Utah State Extension Office. 7. Requirements and recommendations of the Geo-Technical Engineer.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and requirements.
Commissioner Graves asked staff the location of the retaining wall. Staff referred to an aerial photograph and showed the members the location of the retaining wall and explained its starting and stopping point. Staff replied that it will be quite a large wall. What the applicant has guaranteed, is that he will use the native type rock that is up there.
Staff continued by explaining that if you are familiar with that canyon, it’s all that beautiful grey cliff rock that will be used, and they’re not going put a yellow or white type quartzite there. The petitioner has guaranteed that he will use the native color, if he can salvage or harvest enough rock from the site. Commissioner Graves said thought there were cages on the other retaining walls? Staff replied that was incorrect. There are Gabion Baskets, a common trail term, which is a wire box or a “Hilfhiker” retaining wall system. Commissioner Graves asked if this will be just rock set into where the earth has been cut away, and staff replied yes. The Geo-technical engineer is going to be following construction and if they feel that soiling, nailing and further slope reinforcement needs to happen, they will do that. All that is going to be phased with this boulder retaining wall. Down on the Ogden River, the subdivision will be using the Hilfhiker Gabion basket-type retaining wall system. As you climb and continue up this canyon, you’ll get to the top, which is that cul-de-sac and the turn around, above and beyond the end of their private road will be a short access road. The trees on that hillside will be impacted when they put the road in. They are going to stabilize that with the rock retaining wall made of native rock, and then add additional landscaping. They will put the tank up on top of the bench hidden behind what’s remaining there on the 8-foot strip along the lip of the bench. Then there will be additional landscaping on top of there to hide it. Up at the site, they’re actually going to stabilize the ground, they’re not only going to put a packed road base for maintenance vehicles, they’re going to use the grid system and plant grass. This grid system will hold the soil and everything in place, allow the grass to grow up through it, thereby stabilizing the site and the hillside.
Vice Chair Cooper asked staff if there was natural drainage, if there was a failure due to earthquakes or whatever, that it would get to the river without taking out any homes? Staff replied there is a natural drainage, which actually lies on the other side of the subdivision road. It’s actually going to be further east. Vice Chair Cooper asked if we had a failure, where would the water drain? Staff replied around that hillside there is a drainage that would probably eventually feed into the back of the home sites. If there
Page 9 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
were a failure on the back of that bench, there is a drainage which leads down. The natural drainage in the subdivision itself is located in this area.
Commissioner Rounkles asked staff where it is in a sensitive area and it’s a view corridor and he believes they are definitely going to see the cuts and the rocks. He asked staff if they had discussions regarding the water tank and its boundaries. Staff replied that they have talked about that and they do know that when you put soil over the tanks, it introduces much more engineering, contaminate possibilities, and things like that a developer may want to avoid not just because of cost, but because of potential problems that the soil may cause.
Commissioner Banks stated that he just had a sanitary survey done on one of his water systems in the valley, and it’s just about buried but surrounded with oak brush. The State docked him 50 points because he had too much vegetation around there. They are afraid the roots will grow down and into the tank itself and contaminate the water. They docked him 50 points and said he had to clear out the vegetation away from it for at least 20 feet away from the reservoir all the way around.
Page 10 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Mark Babbit, from Great Basin Engineering and representing the owner, stated that Jeff Mansell was here if they needed to talk to him. He stated that the tank itself up there is a 60,000 gallon tank which is a relative small tank from a drainage standpoint if you were going to have some failure or rupture. There is on the southwesterly side of the tank a little bit of drainage that goes down through there. There is also a little bit of drainage right at the toe of the slope as it levels out where the building pads will end up being. Unless all 60,000 gallons came down at the exact same instant, which you can have in a rupture, if it should ever happen that way, there should be sufficient drainage that would allow it to go around the perimeter. There is a little bit of drainage at that location which is slightly to the west of where the existing cobblestone house is. That existing drainage drops down and you have the cobblestone house, as you come to make that hair pin turn to go back around, there is a little garage or something sitting there, and the drainage goes between the garage and the house and continues to go down between the cobblestone house and the garage and it shouldn’t have impact on the house.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that the reason this was brought up was just to take a second to take a look at it and to see if there is a little backhoe work that will guarantee that you’re not going to have some damage. Mr. Babbitt stated that he didn’t know if there was a 100% guarantee, that water couldn’t come out into the lots a little bit. Unless you have the full 60,000 gallons come down all at one time, he doesn’t think there is even a chance of that happening. As to elevations, the only concern they have is they would like to maintain the elevation of the tank because they have a minimum water pressure of 30 psi they need to maintain for the lots. They have been trying to maintain 75 ft. of elevation difference between the tank and the location of the houses on those upper two lots. They have a little flexibility if they pushed it down in the ground a little bit, they would like to keep the elevation change, just so they don’t have the potential of water flowing up onto the tank itself. Of everything that they have read from the State Health Department, they want an 18-inch clearance between all vents and all discharge points just so it you have any animals, that they can’t get into the vents and the piping that would go into the structure. They could reduce the 3 ft. exposure to 18 inches without too much difficulty or bring the grade up within 18 inches of the top of the tank. They have found from the past of loading and burying the tank, that you seem to have less problems from infiltration into the tank by not having the top covered for long term in keeping the contaminates out. You can bury them, which adds extra load to the top of the tank so you have to design stouter reinforced walls in the tank. If you have a problem with the tank, they tend to crack about right where the walls and roof come on to the tank. If it’s exposed, it is a lot easier to maintain and take care of. That is one reason why they have kept the top of the tank exposed.
Vice Chair Cooper stated there are other options that you can look at. On Hill Field Road and Hwy. 89 on the tank in Layton, they’ve rock faced it with brown rock and once that vegetation grew up, it took the cement look off the front of the tank and you can’t even see it. Mark Babbitt stated that you could face the edge of the tank if you needed to. The biggest concern, from the visibility standpoint, is that it’s a straight line. In going through the ordinance, they have indicated they don’t want any kind of a parapet or anything along the edge of the tank because of potential of holding the water on the top of it and not releasing it very easily. If a stopper or drain were plugged on top, then it would force it to stand on top of it. There are some things you can do, if you placed a rock or boulder out in front of it, just on the edge of it, it would break up that edge. Vice Chair Cooper stated that all they did was just on the front in that one, it’s just a facade and he is sure that any water wouldn’t get behind the brick, it’s just for looks, and it looks good from the road. Mr. Babbitt stated again from a visibility standpoint, the only people that would have the potential of seeing it would be some of the people from within the subdivision, or once you get to an elevation up on the mountainside higher than what the reservoir is.
Commissioner Graves clarified that there is just 3 feet of exposure on the front of the tank. Mark Babbitt replied that the design shows on the front of the tank that 3 feet is exposed. Commissioner Graves stated that their cross section doesn’t indicate that. Mr. Babbitt stated that he didn’t know what the cross section shows as he didn’t have it in front of him to look at.
MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to approve Conditional Use Permit CUP#07-2006 Hidden Canyon Water Tank at 255 Ogden Canyon to include some kind of screening effort with the native rock. The motion is also subject to staff and other agency comments and requirements. Commissioner Holmstrom seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
Page 11 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
2. Conditional Use Permit CUP#23-2006 by Wolf Creek Properties for a Condo\Hotel at 3718 N. Wolf Creek Dr.
Staff presented following report:
The applicant is requesting approval to construct and operate a Condominium-Hotel (condo-tel) located at approximately 3725 North Wolf Creek Drive. The project has been proposed as part of the Wolf Creek Resort and is situated on an undeveloped parcel within the resort consisting of approximately 114 acres. The project site consists of approximately 5.5 acres and is zoned Commercial Valley Resort Recreation (CVR-1) which conditionally allows such a condo-tel use with no minimum area or frontage requirement.
The intent of the conditional use is to provide condominium type residential opportunities with the flexibility to operate as a hotel. The proposed condo-tel will cover 17% (40,740 sq.ft. footprint) of the overall site with hard surface parking/roads and landscaping covering 26% and 57% respectively. The 161,475 sq. ft. condo-tel structure will house 65 units (121 keys), 36 of which will have one lock-out room and 10 of the remaining 29 units will have two lock-out rooms. These densities have been established by the CVR-1 Zone which requires 7500 square feet for the first 2 units, 2000 square feet for each additional unit and 500 square feet for each lock-out unit. The condo-tel’s other main components will include a conference area (4,450 sq.ft.), restaurant (7,200 sq.ft.), retail space (150 sq.ft.), spa (5,450 sq.ft.), underground parking (53 stalls) and an outdoor plaza with pool. To reduce the buildings footprint the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission vary the maximum height requirement of 35 feet and consider an average height of 51.5 feet (as defined by Weber County Ordinance).
This proposal may be the largest and most massive in the Ogden Valley and may require a larger scale to the landscaping to mitigate impacts even though this may be an appropriate project for a resort community. The aesthetics, visual impact and height of the condo-tel is a consideration of the Planning Commission and will require approval.
The building will be constructed of a cultured stone veneer, Hardiplank “Board & Batten” and “Shingle”exterior (weathered brown/grey) and trim (med. brown), accented with heavy timber trusses (med. brown) and a combination of metal (weathered copper) and asphalt shingle (weathered grey/brown) roofing. The Design Review Ordinance and Ogden Valley Architectural, Landscape and Screening Design Standards do apply to this project and have been satisfied due to adequate site layout, parking and landscaping with the exception of the use of 6' evergreens (18C-5J.3) in the landscaping and the intermittent placement of plants against long expanses of building walls to create a softening effect and add variety (18C-5J.4). The project also meets the above ordinance due to the fact that the proposed building materials are predominantly natural, muted earth tone colors. The Planning Commission will need to consider the request to use native grasses to satisfy the landscape requirement. A lighting plan for the project will need to be submitted and approved prior to granting approval unless the Planning Commission feels that staff can review and approve the applicant’s lighting.
The Weber Fire District, Weber County Building Inspection and Weber-Morgan County Environmental Heath Department have reviewed the proposal and have responded with no significant concerns. The Weber Fire District is aware of the additional height of the structure and has reaffirmed that new fire equipment located in the Ogden Valley can work with taller buildings. The Weber County Engineer’s Office has also reviewed the project and has responded with two significant concerns regarding stream setbacks and stream alteration. The plaza (structure) area located at the building’s southeasterly most corner appears to be encroaching on the required 50' stream setback. It has also come to the Weber County Engineer’s attention that the stream’s location or alignment has changed from a site plan previously submitted. The County Engineer’s Office may require more information to verify the “high water mark” of the stream. The State of Utah Department of Natural Resources has also reviewed the proposed project and has issued a stream alteration permit. The Utah Department of Transportation has issued a letter stating that they have received plans for the condo-tel and have began reviewing the access.
Questions to ask;
1. What is the average height of the building when the low and high elevations of Wolf Creek Drive are used in height calculations? 2. Would larger trees and shrubs reduce the impacts of the large mass and the increased height of the building? 3. What stream alteration work will be done?
Weber County Zoning Ordinance States: "The purpose and intent of Conditional Uses is to allow in certain areas, compatible integration of such uses as special exceptions but which are related to the permitted uses of the zone, but which may be suitable and desirable only in certain locations in that particular zone due to conditions and circumstances peculiar to that location and/or only if such uses as designed, laid out and constructed on the proposed site in a particular
Page 12 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
manner."
Weber County Zoning Ordinance further states: 22C-5. Basis for Issuance of Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission shall not authorize a Conditional Use Permit unless evidence is presented to established:
1. That the proposed use of the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the community, and 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case and the conditions imposed, be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons nor injurious to property or improvements in the community, but will be compatible with and complimentary to the existing surrounding uses, buildings and structures when considering traffic generation, parking, building design and location, landscaping and signs, and 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this Ordinance for such use, and 4. That the proposed use conforms to the goals, policies and governing principles and land use of the General Plan for Weber County 5. That the proposed use will not lead to the deterioration of the environment or ecology of the general area, nor will produce conditions or emit pollutants of such a type or of such a quantity so as to detrimentally effect, to any appreciable degree, public and private properties including the operation of existing uses thereon, in the immediate vicinity of the community or area as a whole.
Conformance to General Plan: Conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements of the Commercial Valley Resort Recreation-1 Zone and the Design Review Ordinances but does not meet the landscape requirements of the Ogden Valley Architectural, Landscape and Screening Design Standard.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the County Engineers Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the County Fire District. 3. Requirements of the Weber County Health Department. 4. Requirements of the Weber County Building Inspection. 5. Requirements and recommendations of the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources. 6. Requirements and recommendations of the State of Utah Department of Transportation. 7. Requirements and recommendations of the water and sewer provider.
Page 13 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends tabling the Conditional Use Permit proposal to construct and operate a condominium-hotel at approximately 3725 North Wolf Creek Drive. The recommendation to table is based on inadequate landscaping, an uncertainty of the stream location, stream setback encroachment, approval for access from UDOT and the submittal of a lighting plan meeting the requirements of the Ogden Valley Lighting Ordinance.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that perhaps they shouldn’t call it a height buffer, they’ll just call it a condition of the conditional use. Staff stated that one of the things in their recommendation is that the variety of landscaping and plant size may help with that buffering. Instead of going out and meeting the requirement of 2 inch caliper trees and some evergreens 6 feet tall across the entire landscape, they were thinking a variety of heights may help to do that. Another concern they all had was potential traffic. There are going to be several components to this condo/hotel, a restaurant, a convention center, a spa, the units, the lockout rooms, and the potential for a large amount of traffic here is quite large. What they originally recommended was tabling this until they received further information from UDOT or an approval. The applicant has been working with UDOT, and UDOT recognizes the potential traffic here, they also recognize future development up the road from this beyond Wolf Creek’s boundary on up to Powder Mountain. They’re asking that the applicant in this case takes a much more inclusive look at traffic involving a lot more than the resort area possibly the connection of that 4100 North coming to Powder Mountain Road, where Wolf Creek Drive is, future development up in Powder Mountain affecting that corridor. What the applicant is looking for tonight is approval subject to UDOT approval. They are going to invest a lot time and money into this further study that UDOT is requiring, they’d like to have some confidence at this point, that after that study, they have a project. They thought that was reasonable. They don’t have any specific information as far as traffic potential, a larger study will be coming, and they should be hearing from UDOT shortly after that study is complete.
Commissioner Banks said so 4100 North would be required by UDOT to be in place? Staff replied that was just an example. What UDOT is asking them to do is take a look at future development, to take a much more broad look at the possibilities and address those along with this. They think everything is going to stop at this point until this much larger scale study is complete. The Planning Commission also had staff look at condo/hotel or condominium occupancy rates as they had some concern about densities. The condo/hotel consisted of 65 units and 121 keys. The question was there are 121 keys, so how come there aren’t 121 units/dwellings. The lockout rooms in every case, whether the condo/unit has one lockout room or two lockout rooms, do not have kitchen units so it doesn’t meet the county’s definition of a dwelling unit without that component. Due to that, they don’t see those lockout rooms as a dwelling unit. In the meeting packets, in the pre-meeting, staff supplied some information that they gathered. They received information from the Weber County Chamber of Commerce and according to all the businesses, hotel and condominiums alike within Weber County that are participating, their average occupancy year to date is 64.9 percent. The average rate of a nightly stay was about $70. Staff thought in the Ogden Valley in a resort community that those nightly rates may change so they went a little bit further. They went to another resort community and received some additional information. If the members aren’t quite comfortable with this, and this doesn’t quite apply to the community that’s up there, staff received some information from Sun Valley in Idaho. They were nice enough to tell staff where it shows their lodging occupancy by month, which is again, the participating businesses throughout that area. They range from 44% on up to 60 nearly 70%. The occupancy rate was much higher in the summer time, there is a lot going on during the summer. They also received some additional information from Park City, on that second page provided, Table 37. You can see by month or quarter and the years the occupancy rates they have experienced clear back to 1992. They also have a little more information from Valley Lodging up in the Ogden Valley. In 2004, prior to Valley Lodging taking control of what was going up there, their occupancy rate was 15%. In 2005, it grew to 25.3% and in 2006 year to date, it’s about 30%. They are pleased to see these numbers increasing. You may be able to formulate an idea of how many days out of the year these may be occupied and not empty.
Staff stated previously they were addressing inadequate landscaping, the stream location, the stream setbacks, approval from UDOT, and a lighting plan, but all of these have been addressed and meets the standards that they need to. They will continue to talk about the height tonight, and to remind them of what they’ve been asked for which is according to Weber County Ordinance, is 51½ feet. Again, that is taking this project and hundreds of feet that it spans, they have taken the lowest elevation, the lowest finished grade, the highest finished grade, and averaged those and measured to the highest peak of the condo/hotel. That’s how the Weber County Ordinance says to do. The ground climbs and the building climbs and they have some different numbers. They range in the 46½ foot range. They probably won’t be seeing a 51 ½ ft. wall. Staff is recommending approval subject to staff and other agency comments and
Page 14 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
requirements, including the height of 51½ feet.
Page 15 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Vice Chair Cooper asked staff to clarify if the petitioner was going to present that the building will be taller than 51½ feet? Staff replied no, they’re going to say that the hillside steps down significantly due to the hillside and it will blend in.
Commissioner Rounkles stated they do have a unique situation with the slope. However, if they approve this project at a taller height, they will set a precedent for the next proposal. Part of their discussion was that because of this slope, it’s a conditional use, and these conditions could be brought up. The other thing is the extensive landscaping. When we talk about the landscaping, it wasn’t like adding more bushes, more trees, it was the maturity of the trees and he doesn’t know if that was addressed. Due to the downslope, there would be larger trees to hide the walls to kind of camouflage that. Like the way you said that it would be a mixture of the heights. He asked the height of the tallest tree? Staff replied that our ordinance specifies that they will plant two inch caliper trees and evergreens that are no shorter than 6 feet tall.
Commissioner Graves stated they’re finding a lot of that blue spruce for a lot of that open area. Staff replied that they are showing 8 ft. trees there which exceeds what is required by 2 feet. What would be nice is to have some 6 ft. trees.
Commissioner Graves said some of the other trees that they are specifying are some 45 ft. Ash. The Colorado Spruce, depending on how long they live can reach 60 feet. Initially, you aren’t going to see much. They are all going to be long gone before the landscaping is big enough to screen. Staff responded that what they are proposing are 8 ft. trees, those Colorado Spruces are 6 ft. Commissioner Graves stated that helps a little bit, but it’s still going to take a long time before they get to 60 ft., but that’s how tall they can get. Commissioner Rounkles asked on the extensive landscaping if they were going to have larger trees or just more? Commissioner Graves stated that 8 ft. trees is taller than you get in any kind of commercial development, you’re lucky to get 6 ft., and two inch caliper is quite standard on the other trees. You can go 3 “, or 4", you pay a lot more, but after 5 to 6 years, it’s still about the same as a 2 inch would have been. There is nothing wrong with a 2 inch. An 8 ft. tree is generally two feet higher than most that he has seen.
Commissioner Rounkles stated and the other question that was asked of staff, to get the rest of the commission thoughts on, that if we were to go along with this, if someone else comes, if you felt like this was a legitimate question. Commissioner Graves stated that where this is a conditional use, they are looking at all the specific characteristics of this sit and one thing that it has going for it, is the slope and how it steps down. He believes there are enough unique characteristics that someone else couldn’t automatically say, I want the same height, unless they can prove they have precisely the same site characteristics. In terms of setting a precedence, by granting this conditional use, he doesn’t think they are doing that.
Commissioner Allen stated that from the engineering standpoint too, the ordinance needs to be clear and not interpreted in different ways. It should be interpreted as it is written. It’s not hard to write a good technical engineering document where you can interpret it. Commissioner Graves stated that height is pretty straightforward on this. Commissioner Allen stated that he agreed.
Staff stated to Commissioner Holmstrom, that she had one question during the last presentation about the scale of one of the pictures where they had superimposed the cond/hotel and they were looking from Cascades at Moose Hollow, a cross section at the proposed condo and the other condo’s behind it. Staff went up to the architect’s office just to look at the software that is used to get a feeling of how they do this and how it can be manipulated. It’s some type of illusion, when you look at information they put in, they put in a camera height, the put in the position where they took the photo from, and they enter all this information. The software is quite incredible, and they did take a look at it so they understand how it was done. They can still understand the question Commissioner Holmstrom had regarding the scale of the building, and they feel that they are putting the right information in their computer software program.
Bob Dyer, Wolf Creek Properties, Petitioner, stated that one of the things Commissioner Holmstrom asked about at the last meeting was if they had any of our photographs from locations other than close to the building. He doesn’t know if they recall or not, but at the last meeting they presented a dozen photographs that were taken fairly close to building, and that 500 to 1,000 foot perimeter range, and the reason they did that, is the closer you are to the building, the larger it’s going to look. They felt that those presentations were the worst case scenario. At the Commissioner’s request, they have taken other photographs from around the valley. He presented the photographs and explained them.
Page 16 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Bob Dyer further stated that the County ordinance on how to measure building height is absolutely crystal clear and the County staff has held their feet to the fire on how it is interpreted. Just because a rule is crystal clear, does not mean it necessarily makes sense. What he meant by that, is if he drew a picture of a hillside, and they had a building that is connected together like this, it has exactly the same building height the way the county ordinance measures it as one single large building. So the motivation of stepping down the hill, which he believes obviously meets the intent of the ordinance, which is to reduce building height, there is no credit gained for the way things are measured because the low elevation and the high elevation where the building enters the ground line is exactly the same for a building that steps down the hill as it is for a building that’s like this. So while it’s crystal clear, he doesn’t know if it perfectly captures the intent of what they are trying to accomplish.
Vice Chair Cooper asked other than it makes sense to follow the ridge line, why would you want to go against that step down? Mr. Dyer replied that is what they have done, they have stepped down the hill. Vice Chair Cooper stated that they are making it that there should be an incentive for him to do that. Mr. Dyer stated that they think it’s just good development and they are trying to sell these and rent them out. With that, he would be glad to answer any questions that the members might have.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked about the flat roof. It’s very obvious that the flat roof is the least obtrusive on the landscape. Assuming that the roof sits only over the convention center portion, how much square footage is that flat roof part? Mr. Dyer introduced Ray Bertoldi to answer this question.
Ray Bertoldi, Bertoldi Architects, stated they don’t want to call it a flat roof because behind the parapet is a limited slope roof. It is about 4,000 square feet, and it is over the meeting space which is a convention- type space. There are a couple of reasons why they did that and located that on that location. One, was to mitigate the impact of height along the roadway. The building along the northeast side, is 17 feet from grade, the grade starts to drop down so by the time you get to the back, you’re in the 22 ft. range to the west. The rest of the kitchen area is on the main floor here, and underneath the convention and kitchen area is where the underground parking is. As we come along the front, the building is 42 ½ feet high from grade. There’s a covered entryway. Down where the creek is the building gets higher obviously because the grade drops. This is where the 51 ½ ft. height is due to the grade. They have stepped the height of the buildings with the slope to mitigate the impact of the street. The second reason is, they are going to use that space for mechanical equipment. They don’t want to have a bunch of thing sticking out and have it sitting on top of the roof over a width of four stories. They are hiding all of that equipment on that roof and it makes it easier for access, and they gain a lot by doing that. It’s a pretty typical type of construction in a commercial application and they will see that. They have a couple of areas between where they have wedges in the building and that breaks up the roof to where the ridge comes across, and then it drops down and they have a flat roof area. This allows them to control water, put vents in, and so forth.
Melba Page, who owns property along 1900 North next to the Sontag property, stated that she was concerned about what the sewer provisions are with this development. She is also concerned about ground water problems. She wanted to know if this could be addressed. Vice Chair Cooper stated the the County Engineer would review the proposal as well as the Health Department. In this case, it’s going to be a packaged treatment facility and there won’t be surface discharge so there won’t be any ground water impact per se. Ms. Page stated that being the lower end, she is concerned about high ground water. She lived in Hooper and ground water was a problem. Vice Chair Cooper stated that they are also concerned so the plan that they are proposing is better than a subsurface disposal for that purpose.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that she wanted to make sure that they are actually planting some larger trees such as 8 ft. ft. Trees. She wanted to clarify what they are approving. Staff responded that in their recommendations, it would be up to the Planning Commission to discuss that and come up with some requirements as far as additional landscape sizing. Commissioner Holmstrom indicated that she wanted to make sure the landscaping issue on the west side was addressed.
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to approve Conditional Use Permit CUP#23- 2006 by Wolf Creek Properties for a Condo\Hotel at 3718 N. Wolf Creek Drive subject to staff and all other agency considerations and that as a final caveat, that they attempt to put in as many and as large of trees as they can handle. That in no way does it set a precedence because it’s part of a very specific conditional use permit for this very specific site. Commissioner Rounkles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
Page 17 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
3. Zoning Petition ZP#19-2006 by Thom Summers to amend Chapter 4 to allow material recycle, reclamation of rock, concrete, asphalt and dirt at approximately 7100 Stoker Lane
Staff presented following report:
Findings of Fact: The petitioners are requesting that Chapter 4A (Gravel Zone G-2) of the Uniform Land Use Ordinance of Unincorporated Weber County be amended by adding Material Recycle, Reclamation and Redistribution of Rock, Concrete, Asphalt and Dirt as a Conditional Use. The only property in the Ogden Valley zoned G-2 is located east of 7100 E. on Stoker Lane. The change will allow for the importation of rock, concrete, asphalt and dirt for processing. For example, rock could be imported from construction sites, crushed and sold.
Issues for Consideration: 1. Access for large trucks off and onto State and County Roads. 2. Impacts on adjoining property owners.
Conformance to General Plan: The General Plan does not identify locations for this type of use in the Ogden Valley.
Staff Recommendations: A location for this use is needed in the Ogden Valley to reduce commercial truck traffic in Ogden Canyon. The County is also seeking locations for contractors equipment storage yards in the Southeastern part of the Valley.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission give consideration to this site. If this site is determined to be inappropriate for this use staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the need for this use and make recommendations as to areas where the type of use may be considered.
Vice Chair Cooper stated he believed this was once brought before them (2002) to extend the life of that gravel pit as it was. He doesn’t know if they promised, but they came very close to promising people that lived around there who came to the meeting, that once Mr. Stoker’s site was leveled, once the existing gravel was removed, that it would be leveled and reclaimed. He is not saying that this precludes any site anywhere in the valley like staff has recommended. He believes they probably should have the Planning Commission members and staff drive the valley, or do whatever they need to do, to see if they could find a site that they think is a good site for this type of operation. He does not know what the minutes reflect, but they were pretty confident that the gravel was going to be taken out, it was going to be leveled, and the site was going to be reclaimed.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked if that action was made by the East Huntsville Township? Staff replied that it was the East Huntsville Township Planning Commission who took action. They do not know if there was a specific promise made, but one of the concerns that has been raised was there seems to have been a feeling that the surrounding property owners were promised, that in the original approval, once it went ten years and once it went to twenty years, that at some point, it would revert back to an area that would be zoned for residential. The G-2 zone could be reverted to an RE-20 or RE-15 Zone which for the valley is a high density residential zone. Things have changed and every property owner has the right to petition to have their property zoned and submit a site plan. Even though that promise has been there, the property is zoned G-2 and they could come in and ask for any of the permitted uses in that zone and we would have to essentially allow them to engage in those zones.
Vice Chair Cooper stated like you said, he doesn’t believe they could make a promise, but it was his recollection that it was a hard decision and they had a lot of people who showed up for that meeting. There were comments made about rock crushing, dust issues and truck traffic on the dirt road. It was said that they were in a lower bowl and the people in the subdivision to the north just across the ravine could hear it and see it.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked staff to clarify a question regarding the manufacturing zone. It would seem that the quest they are on is for a manufacturing zone. When she looks at the manufacturing zone that’s in the commercial node at Eden, a rock crushing operation there would not be a compatible use to the existing manufacturing businesses who are there because this use is so intrusive, and a manufacturing zone would need equipment storage and perhaps would need a larger structure for that type of manufacturing. Staff replied that Commissioner Holmstrom is correct. They are actually in the process of working on three ordinances with BioWest, consultants out of Logan, and also in their process of trying to identify appropriate areas in the southern part, southeast of Middlefork areas for MV Zoning. That zone does not necessarily allow the rock crushing, and that is why they are petitioning to allow it in these gravel zones. The G-2 zone is a gravel zone and intended for that use.
Staff said an interesting concept came up last summer as they discussed rock crushers, one of the concepts that was put out by the Planning Commission, was the question of “Was it more appropriate to find one spot in the Ogden Valley, and designate that as the spot where when people excavate and have excess materials, they take it to that place and the materials are crushed or recycled, or is it more
Page 18 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
appropriate to say as someone is developing, such as in that case, while they are developing in that area they move the rock crusher in, neighbors are annoyed but the annoyance lasts a year or two, as opposed to 30 or 40 years by picking a specific site? As part of your policy discussion, this question should be answered as to which direction they want to go. You need gravel when people excavate for homes, they’re going to pull rocks out of there, they’re going to dump that rock into dump rocks, and they’re going to sell it. That’s just the way a development works. Do they want to pick a permanent location for rock crushing and this type of activity, or do they want to say the crusher will move with the development as people are developing a subdivision. They will come in and do it for their subdivision and once the subdivision is complete, they are out of there.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that this particular area is surrounded by residential homes. A rock crushing operation would absolutely destroy those residences. Staff responded that you have one residential subdivision here and obviously these residents would be impacted across the ravine. Commissioner Holmstrom stated those residents to the north. Staff stated that they are aware of that, in fact, that are falls outside the 500 ft. normal notice, but they did notify those property owners.
Commissioner Banks asked staff if they had any place in the valley, other than this, for a rock crushing operation? Staff replied that they need to do something, that’s the issue. Is there a place where it’s not going to impact anyone? Vice Chair Cooper stated that they need to get a recommendation to get a committee together to look at all options. Commissioner Banks stated that the valley is going to continue growing and material will be needed for that growth, whether it’s for a home project or a development, they need it.
Commissioner Rounkles asked staff if there has there been any thought of requiring some kind of a bunker that will reduce the sound? As for the noise that goes across, those who live in Ogden Canyon deal with the noise also. It is a double edge sword. Staff responded that when they came in before for the extension, one thing that they agreed to do was to wait to excavate the final material just along the north side of the gravel pit, to leave a berm there. Because this is not just site specific, although that sounds kind of hollow, since there is only one area currently zoned for that, what they would do, as a conditional use, is an applicant would apply and as part of the site plan show berming along the north side of their property to block that from view. Commissioner Rounkles stated that is going to be a problem whatever location is chosen. His point on the crushing is, maybe something could be done to have some type of structure, building, or large cement wall, not just a berm built that could go along a subdivision wall. Staff stated that’s where they are at. Are they going to have people crush rock on site as they build their subdivisions, or are they going to have a place where it is a permanent site. Vice Chair Cooper stated that if they do find a place, that maybe they could add a condition or requirement of having a sound barrier.
Commissioner Banks asked if there has been an environmental study done on it? Staff replied no, they certainly can request that of the petitioners if they wanted them to go to those lengths. Before you would approve any rezone, they would want to know what type of noise level would be experienced and what types of things could be done to reduce those noise levels. They do have some of that information on the existing rock crusher and they will get that information in a future meeting.
Patrick Dean, representing S&S Excavation and the petitioner, stated this is a very sensitive issue and they understood that. This is one of the situations they feel they need to address this issue, especially up on the valley, to help keep things safe, help keep things moving forward as they have and will, and keep things more in tune as with what our Master Plan is for the valley. One of their first objectives is to try to eliminate the up and down traffic of trucks going up and down the canyon, making it very safe. Mr. Summers and S&S Excavation make about 35 round trips, that’s 70 trips up and down the canyon every day, with the truck and pup-hauling material. That alone would reduce the amount of traffic making that a safer highway. The other thing is they’d like to be a better servant to their public too, for the people that have the materials. Say for instance, you have the materials that you need to have broken down and crushed, that you can import them into our facility there, turn around and take them back out. It would definitely be a recycling project, where if you were breaking down concrete, you don’t have to haul it down the canyon, it can be brought to us, it can be crushed, it can be turned around and reused back out in the same valley floor and you would not have to renegotiate that canyon. They definitely recycle asphalt, concrete, trees, even the ardent tree waste. They envision this as being more like if you are familiar with Sandee’s rock products in West Haven. That’s the type of environment they want to create in the Valley.
Page 19 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Mr. Dean said with that type of operation, a customer or developer could drive in and load the decorative rock product without having it transported all the way up the canyon and footing the extra bill. That’s one of the items that they want to look at and also turning your composting into decorative bark. Turning your trees that are coming down, rather than taking those and having a midnight burn somewhere, they would turn them into a recycled product that they can use. Even in our trails, what’s nicer than a bark-lined trail. Everybody seems to enjoy that. Currently, they have in operation a rock crusher conditional use permit at the Fairway Subdivision. They have limited hours and days of operation. They have an independent noise and sound specialist and take decibel readings. Just to give an example of what the sound engineer has come up with, directly right next to the crusher when it’s in operation you have a decibel level of about 85 db. At about 100 feet away the level drops to 71 db. At 500 feet away you’re about 51 decibels.
Mr. Dean said they understand that this may not be the ideal site, but this is the site that they have to work with, and this is the site that they know it has historically been a gravel and rock product operation. They would like to improve the site and make it nicer. They would have to come back to the Planning Commission after this approval with a site plan and would like to know what will be required. Their main objective is to keep everything in the valley and keep that cost lower to you as developers and as people that live in the valley. They want to make sure that they can continue to thrive.
Jason Peterson, 4898 E. 2875 N., Eden, stated that he felt that there is a real need for some type of location that allows for import/export material to cut down on truck time up and down the canyon. The comments have been made concerning specific sites, and he believes cutting down the amount of truck traffic in and out of those particular sites is great. The downside that he sees is that it does not allow other builders, home builders, developers, to use that and he sees that as a real benefit to having a permanent- fixed site, that would allow all building and all developers in the valley to have one place to go to long term. Where the site specific is limited to that builder and developer, no one else gets the benefit of it. The sound barriers are huge issues, and one of the things that make this site a benefit, and maybe there are others, is just the big south wall that is already there. Maybe things can be done on that north end to help accommodate it. That may be one thing that makes it a more logical site. If you pick a site that’s in one far corner or the other of the valley, that may make it not as attractive and as a solution as the fact that truck time is one of the biggest factors on materials being hauled. A more central location is going to be more beneficial to truck traffic from all corners of the valley than one specific spot way out in the middle of nowhere. Those are some of the things that he believes that they could consider when trying to find a suitable site.
Pamela Mitchell, Casey Acres which is the first subdivision to the north, 7149 E 1000 N, stated that she was aware that Weber County now allowed crushing at individual subdivisions, which is a temporary impact as the crusher moves from site to site. That minimizes the traffic. Because the materials don’t have to be shipped somewhere to get crushed and then set to the next spot where it’s going to be used, it’s crushed right there and goes to the next spot when they are done. This location has a big factor against it. This wall that has been formed along the south edge, if you’re looking at it from the sky, it forms an amphitheater. That is why their subdivision and the next one a mile up can hear things operating there. Yes, it helps people on this side, but on their side, it amplifies. So they would have some serious mitigation to do there. In general, she is opposed to bringing in materials to this location and believes it does not conform to the surrounding land uses. They have increased residential and recreational use and Pineview Reservoir is a view corridor. There is a new recreation area directly to the west that has been just in the last couple of years, an access to the water there. And they have the middle inlet swim area just a little bit north. They have all lived with the operations of the existing zoning, because it was there before they were. The gravel has been mined and they have dealt with the crushing of the mine material from that location. They have not had to deal with bringing in new materials, with a permanent impact for many years, as opposed to what’s currently happening where a crusher is moved from subdivision to subdivision. She doesn’t know if the Planning Commission has received their emails since they had very short notice for this meeting. The petition was signed by all homes in the area, probably more than 90% within a mile that are against this.
Mark Reed, a property owner west of Stoker’s excavation area, stated that the Commission in June 26, 2002 made a motion, and Commissioner Cooper moved to recommend a three-year excavation extension, to include a view by the County Engineer’s office for a more reasonable bond. Later in this motion it says, “at the end of the three-year period, the commission would like a reclamation plan not to exceed one year, and would recommend that the planning staff begin to investigate the density of that zone, and if it would be more appropriate that they should change the zone to become more conducive with the Master Plan of the zoning in that area.” In 1998, the Weber County Commission unanimously approved the Ogden Valley General Plan.
Page 20 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
That plan included, two-fold; 1) To protect the natural beauty and natural resources of the valley, and 2) to maintain the valley’s rural atmosphere and rural lifestyle. This petition to redefine agricultural land to be a rock, concrete, and asphalt distribution center, grossly violates both of these guiding principles. In short, it destroys the natural beauty of the land, brings a high activity industrial zone to the center of rural life replacing rural tranquility with industrial activity, it encumbers a state-registered scenic byway (Highway 166) and an Ogden Valley Plan Designated Scenic Corridor Highway 166 with heavy high-profile industrial trucks that detract from the scenic vistas of Pineview Reservoir and surrounding agricultural land and mountains. In addition, the entry and exit point of this high profile heavy multi-trailer vehicles, is near a blind corner on the scenic byway, creating a road hazard to all that travel. Last and most importantly, this council has already ruled that Mr. Stoker was in violation of the zoning ordinances of the area, and that this area must be closed and restored back to it’s original form according to designated time line. Mr. Stoker failed to comply and came back to this council requesting an extension on June 26, 2002, the extension was granted, with a specific time line for compliance. Mr. Stoker again failed to comply and now he appears before the board again requesting a rezone of the area. The reality is, this issue is closed.
Mark Welton, 7229 E. 1000 N, Casey Acres Homeowners Association, stated that he had some aerial photographs. They have counted 61 homes within this area. The floodplain is actually within 75 feet of that Stoker Pit. Right now, they have been doing native rock crushing and things they have done in the past. However, now you are talking about asphalt and other contaminants. They need to really look at an Environmental Impact Statement on this groundwater use and anything else depending on what they’re going to crush and put there. Because it is now considered SG-2, it doesn’t follow into the new land zone ordinance Chapter 38B, which talks specifically about areas that we need to save, residential areas, recreational areas, this has both of those. It has the potential for more development for residential areas more than it does for industrial type activities. This isn’t the place for a one-time pit for producing rocks and crushing. People are not going to accept that. He also has a petition signed by 86 people .
Ivan Quist, 732 N 7100 E, stated that he is one of the two houses that have fought this issue. He approved when Mr. Stoker originally wanted approval 35 years ago. He supported him and he has lived with dust, noise, dirt, and speeding trucks. When trucks cross the road, they come on his property so they can pass. They have been assured time and time again, when Mr. Stoker reached road level, he would level the property off, landscape it, and that would be it. Now, here comes another episode, to extend the misery that they have gone through. They have had enough dust, noise, and asphalt brought in. People come and try to give them money to go stay some place during the night because they are going to be hauling all night. He believes it’s time integrity took place and what has been assured is followed up on and executed, rather than extended. He believes that the people that are in favor of it are in favor of making money, which he can appreciate, but to the people who have lived there for 35 years, it’s a bunch of nonsense, and they have been promised many times and those promises have not been kept. He believes it is time to stop.
Doug Ross Kelley, 7201 E 1000 N, Casey Acres, showed a photograph and stated that he also wanted to point a couple of things out, across the way from where the trucks come in and out is an informal beach area, one of the three beach areas that are used right now. This area is where most of the youth go in the valley on their youth outings because it’s free, people can pick and drop off from boats, it’s a pretty good informal beach. The Forest Service put some restrooms down here, this area is used quite a bit more because it’s closer to the beach. What is being proposed will funnel more traffic there. They have lived with the crushing operation, there is already a berm there. They have also had a petition previously with another owner asking to extend that pit. Now he understands if that were to occur, the current zoning petition, this neighboring area as before, will probably have the ability to extend that pit.
Vice Chair Cooper said he remembers that meeting too. He thought it was an issue of trust, from that meeting he understood there were comments that Jack Stoker was a good neighbor, that the operation was a good thing that they could extend it, that the crushing operation was going to be limited, and that if it wasn’t extended, the pit was going to be mined out and reclaimed. The pictures in the packet show where the actual level of the pit is. It is below grade now as compared to where the road should be. They should enforce what is already there. As neighbors, you feel bad if you have to complain, and there has only been a couple of times that when they have complained directly to the County. When you start up six in the morning, when you’re suppose to start at eight, it gets tiresome very quickly and they had that. Now with the zoning petition change, he wonders how much enforcement they will have in the future. They could say it will happen, but in reality the neighbors will enforce it. Frankly, he doesn’t like to work that way, it’s tiresome.
Page 21 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Russell Peterson, 7210 E 700 N, Huntsville, stated he was right at the gate to this gravel pit. I’ve always backed it somewhat, so they could get it done and get it over with and get it out of there. I’ve lived with it from day one and I’ve had enough. It’s been promised to stop, and every time it get’s down to slows down to nothing, then it’s right back down here again. Please, just stop, I’ve had enough.
Frank Clawson, who owns property south of Gravel Pit, stated that he thought they have all been good neighbors in accommodating the removal of the product from the pit. There were some things that were brought up that certainly raised concern. How do you enforce the compliance with the existing zoning? He hated looking at the scarred site that was supposed to be revegetated. It was not supposed to be greater than a 1:1 slope, yet if you went over off his property and some kid’s were playing there, there is nothing that would prevent them from venturing over there and they would fall and hurt themselves. There has been no vegetation on the south slope at all. They’re in the business of making money, they’re not in the business of reestablishing or restoring the site to a proper condition. He has also seen what type of material is brought in when they recycle. It is construction site material. He talked about woods, bringing trees and shredding them up, but they bring in all the products out of a construction site, sheet rock, pieces of lumber, and it gets all chewed up and becomes a mess. The wind will blow that stuff and they will have a dust bowl there. This is not without strict compliance, this is going to be a real mess. The traffic down that dirt little road is more than what people need to bear. He is concerned about the safety and how do they enforce requirements. He is also speaking for his brother Neal Clawson, who owns property just to the south of the pit as well, and he is also opposed to the zoning.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that one of the gentlemen that came forward had refreshed his memory of what their previous motion was and now staff needs to move forward. If that’s what their motion said, that the site needed to be finished, and reclaimed, that they follow up with reclamation, seeding, leveling, this should be done. As chair, he can’t formulate the motion, but if he was able, he would recommend that they deny this application, and as part of the motion that they recommend to staff to take representatives from this body, staff, and possibly these gentlemen that have come to us before with this situation and form a committee. It’s not that this isn’t needed in the valley, it’s just they need to determine where it should it be, they need to evaluate it. This is an issue that they talked about before, it’s time to step forward and do something. That’s his recommendation to whomever formulates a motion.
Commissioner Graves stated that again, as staff has said, this is a policy decision we’re supposed to making tonight, not a site specific thing. They aren’t asking for any rezoning here. They are asking for this kind of language to be added to the ordinance as a conditional use, which it currently isn’t. They have to decide whether or not they want this kind of operation in the valley anywhere. If they do, they have to have the zone to put it in. Another thing they have to decide is, do they want one permanent location, do they want several locations as it currently is, where you have a big project and you have a crusher on site and allow several of those? Do they want both? He agrees 100% that this is not the site for this operation to take place.
Patrick Dean clarified that the members would then make that decision when they find a site? Vice Chair Cooper stated no, what Commissioner Graves is saying, is that they evaluate it, then they change the language, until then, there is no need to change the language until they evaluate sites in the valley. Maybe the group that gets together, say there’s not a good site in the valley, they are going to have to go down the canyon. He doesn’t think that will be the decision, but that may be one of the recommendations that goes to the County Commission. They might decide they don’t want one period, or that they have found a site and they want it centrally located where they could have a roving unit that is going to be sound proof and it’s going to go from subdivision to subdivision, but it’s something that they can live with.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that they need two motions. They need a motion concerning the request for a conditional use in GS-2 Zone. Perhaps, they need a motion to have the staff refresh the original agreement that was made by the East Huntsville Planning Commission. That was a decision that was supposed to proceed and be enforced. Staff stated that they wanted to clarify that the petitioners are not necessarily the property owners in this case. Their petition should not be held to that. Even though they may wish to say no, this is not appropriate to add to that zone, they should keep those separate.
Page 22 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Rounkles stated that if there were some agreements made, he thought it was a good site. But if there were agreements made, and if agreements are made and people would put up with it, you have to flip a coin. The other thing is, when they have another place proposed, they are going to have the same residents come in with the same story. They have also heard how many trips that just Mr. Summers is making with his trucks, just think of all the others. He can tell them that it starts at six in the morning and goes until ten at night. It is needed in the valley somewhere, and he doesn’t have any answers for it.
Commissioner Allen asked staff who was responsible for making sure that the land was to be returned to its natural state? What part of the county is responsible for making that happen? Staff replied that would be the Planning Department.
MOTION: Commissioner Holmstrom made the motion to deny Zoning Petition ZP#19-2006 to amend Chapter 4A (Gravel Zone G-2) of the uniform land use ordinance of unincorporated Weber County for reasons that at present, these uses are not allowed in the G-2 Zone, that if any of them were allowed in the G-2 Zone, they would have to have a serious consideration of what the impacts both aesthetically and environmentally would be on the community. Commissioner Banks seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
Vice Chair Cooper said they can evaluate it later based on the fact that it’s not currently in the zone and they would need more information before they could recommend allowing some of these things. They need to direct staff to get to the minutes, find out what they said they were going to do and what they said they were going to do to bring that into compliance with the motion in 2002. Staff can put together a committee consisting of Planning Commission members, staff, and community representatives so they can evaluate the valley to see where an appropriate zone would be and if there is a place in the valley.
4. Zoning Petition ZP#20-2006 by Erich Sontag to amend the Zoning Ordinance from S-1 to AV-3 at approximately 1900 N. 5900 E.
Staff presented the following report: Findings of Fact: The petitioner is requesting that his property at approximately 1900 N. 5900 E. be rezoned so that the entire parcel is zoned AV-3. The property is approximately 17.05 acres in area, of which about 7.8 acres are zoned S-1. Issues for Consideration: How this property differs from other properties in the S-1 zone. Conformance to General Plan: Promotes private property rights. Staff Recommendations: Unlike most properties in the S-1 zone, this property does not border on reservoir property. In fact, this parcel is over 500 feet from reservoir property. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked staff how many properties in the future will come in asking to rezone from S-1 to AV-3? Staff replied not many. Most of the properties are in the S-1 zone. They are showing in the AV-3 Zone, this property actually is 350 feet back, and is not in the S-1 zone as the map shows. This piece of property is contiguous and the owners are trying to respect private property rights. The owner sits quite a bit further away from the reservoir than all of the properties in this area that have purchased along the reservoir.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated to staff that because they have been very concerned about eroding the shoreline, setback requirements are there for a reason. It’s a reason that deals with Weber County, Ogden City and the Federal Government. They are establishing two criteria, it does not abut Federal Property and that it’s 500 feet from the shoreline. Staff replied that it is 500 feet from the Federal Property. Commissioner Holmstrom clarified that in the future, if they approve of one rezone petition, they are going to have to approve three or four more. They have to talk about precedence setting and what the criteria is for future petitions. Staff replied that is exactly what the Planning Commission members need to consider, the precedence that they would be setting, if somebody owns a piece of property that does not abut the Federal Property, and is over 500 feet from that Federal Property, then they would consider that for possible rezoning to AV-3 from S-1. Commissioner Holmstrom clarified that the criteria they just spoken about are the criteria they are working under tonight. Staff stated that they may also find some other distinguishing characteristics about this property that would make it so they could approve a zoning change.
Page 23 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Holmstrom said another concern she has is she does not know if there will be a school in the area. Staff replied, the petitioners have shown a concept of how they would like to develop their property. That concept plan would not meet the ordinances, even if the ordinances are changed. They could possibly sell the property for a school, however, that would be between them and the school district. As part of the rezoning, they’re not promising that the property will be developed with homes, although it very well could be. School Districts are somewhat exempt from County regulations so if they sold that property, the School District could put a school there, however, there is no guarantee that a school will go on that property. Commissioner Holmstrom stated that’s what she was concerned about, the fact that the School District appears not to have to meet the Ogden Valley’s architectural standards. They are talking about this proposal that is saying that it wants to preserve open space and it wants to help preserve the views of the reservoir, and if a school is built on this property they will have no architectural jurisdiction over it, they know what kind of monstrosity that they could have. Staff responded that as to clarification, the school would be irrelevant to this discussion because the school is exempt. Whether they rezone the property has no bearing on what the school district can or cannot do.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that the property couldn’t be in the shoreline zone, but staff replied that they could because the school is exempt from zoning regulations. They may be just exempt from our height standards, but staff believes a school would be allowed almost anywhere. The School District is exempt from our architectural standards and they do not have to come in for site plan approval. They are not required to have building inspections by the County building inspectors, which has been a controversial issue over the years. They can hire private building inspectors and the County doesn’t really have any control over that. The state sees them as a separate entity.
Erich Sontag, 1911 N. 5700 E., Eden, the petitioner, stated he submitted the petition based on the Board of Adjustment’s recommendation. It was their suggestion and recommendation based on their review of some of the conflicts in the zoning as it relates specifically to this property and the distance from the lake, that they make this petition.
Commissioner Holmstrom asked Mr. Sontag to explain the school element of his petition. Mr. Sontag stated that he had been approached by the school, so as a family, they felt good about the potential of selling to the school, but under certain very strict parameters. One parameter is that it would be an elementary school exclusively. In their discussions, they would want to preserve, and put it in the deed, certain restrictions as to what they could or couldn’t do architecturally, most importantly height. They are in the process of building a new home and they will be neighbors to this school so they have a direct interest and concern by making sure that the school is a good neighbor.
Gage Froerer, 8067 E 1050 S, Huntsville, stated he had a couple of issues regarding this petition: 1) He was a Board of Adjustment member that made the motion to suggest to Mr. Sontag that he might want to come and look at a rezone. As the Board of Adjustments struggled with a couple of issues with this particular property, it was obvious that it was in conflict and some of the County maps were in conflict with what was being explained to property owners. From the Board of Adjustment standpoint, it made a lot of sense, especially looking at adjoining property owners in the S-1 zone that had the requirement that they abutted government property, and that they were a certain distance of that government property. With Mr. Sontag’s property being 500 feet away from that, the Board of Adjustment, felt that it was very appropriate to come before the Planning Commission. 2) As he also wears another hat for the Weber County School District, he knows that the District is in negotiations with the Sontag family for the ten-acre site. He can assure the Commissioners that the School District will not put a school on that site until such time that they have public input in terms of design and the structure itself. As Mr. Sontag has mentioned earlier, he will have some control in terms of the architectural design. The Land and Acquisition Committee at the Weber County School District has agreed to that. The Board as a whole has not approved that yet, but it should be approved in their December meeting. The architectural standards will be addressed, and he can tell the members that in working with the School District for over 16 years, that if you look at their recent elementary schools now being built or to be constructed such as in North Ogden, Plain City, and other parts of the County, they are all structured in a way that everyone could be proud of the buildings. The neighbors in North Ogden, Plain City, West Weber gave great accolades about the design. They work with the communities before they construct a school so he suggests that this is not a big issue. The School district is exempt, under State statutes, they can be in an S-1 Zone and an A-1 Zone. The reason for that is that when there is a demand for schools, they have to look for a place that’s going to make the most sense for the taxpayer. As a school district, they also try to eliminate transportation costs as much as possible, but at the same time encourage walk-ins, especially at an elementary school site. This site, because of the size, will be an elementary school site only.
Page 24 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Graves asked if there was a need in the valley for an elementary school because the grade school population in the Valley is getting smaller? Gage Froerer replied that the school is getting older and this may be a replacement. The valley may not support two elementary schools. Valley Elementary is a smaller site where they are sharing the public park, however that may come to an end sooner or later.
Gage Froerer further said that there is no intention, and he doesn’t want to convey a message that a school will be built at this proposed site in the near future. Right now under current budget constraints and even with the approved bond recently passed, that he estimates it may be 8 to 10 years before another school is considered. If the growth continues to go down, which is presently happening, it may not be built. As they look at the future, this is a good site for an elementary school if the valley does grow.
MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to approve Zoning Petition ZP #20-2006 by Erich Sontag to rezone property at approximately 1900 N. 5900 E. from S-1 to AV-3 because that it does not border any reservoir property, and in fact is over 500 feet from reservoir property. Commissioner Creager seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
5. Zoning Petition ZP#21-2006 by Audrey and Rod Carver to amend Chapter 5B (Agricultural Valley AV-3) of the Uniform Land Use Ordinance of Unincorporated Weber County by adding “Petting Zoo” as a permitted use Staff presented the following report:
Findings of Fact: The petitioners are requesting that Chapter 5B (Agricultural Valley AV-3) of the Uniform Land Use Ordinance of Unincorporated Weber County be amended by adding Petting Zoo as a permitted use. Issues for Consideration: The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of allowing expansion of an otherwise commercial use into the AV-3 zone. 1. Petting Zoos are regulated as zoos by the Code of Federal Regulations. 2. According to the Humane Society of the United States, humans can contract more than 75 diseases from animals including E. Coli. Petting zoos in other States have been responsible for outbreaks of E. Coli. Conformance to General Plan: The General Plan does not address Petting Zoos specifically. A Petting Zoo featuring domestic animals would “Promote a sense of Pride in the Valley’s History and Heritage” as called for in the general plan. Staff Recommendations: A Petting Zoo featuring primarily domestic animals would be compatible with other uses in the AV-3 zone, with the exception of traffic created by the zoo’s patrons. The traffic impact could be mitigated by making Petting Zoos a Conditional Use allowed only where the Zoo is accessed off a major right-of-way. While Petting Zoos have the potential for spreading disease for animals to humans, so does eating. The risk for the spread of disease can be reduced by requiring the Zoo to provide patrons with hand washing facilities. The strict Federal regulations should also reduce potential problems with Petting Zoos. Staff recommends that Petting Zoos be added as a Conditional Use in the AV-3 zone where accessed by a collector road as shown on the County Road Plan, subject to health department review and Federal licensing.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that originally, when he read this proposal he was going to recommend that it be a conditional use. Staff stated that they are recommending that it be added as a conditional use so they can set the condition of it being off of a major right of way. Vice Chair Cooper asked staff if that condition would also give them latitude as to type of animals or the size of the Petting Zoo, etc.? Staff responded that if they want to add conditions, they should add them to the ordinance, otherwise they are leaving it open for interpretation. Vice Chair Cooper stated that they could have exotic animals. It’s not only E. coli, it’s the possibility of even turtles that you’re not going to eat, there is potential for parasites. It may not be a problem, but all of a sudden, they say they have the right to put snakes there, because it is a use. Staff responded that the petting zoo is for domestic animals and other animals would be allowed on a case by case basis. If the petitioners have any desire to have lions, tigers, and such, the Federal Government doesn’t regulate them separately, they treat them just like a zoo. In this case, they could make the use conditional featuring domestic animals. The Federal Government doesn’t see any difference between a petting zoo and a petting farm.
Audrey Carver, 2329 N 5025 E, Eden, Petitioner, stated that their intent with the Petting Farm is exactly what she said in her application. It is a Petting Farm and they are licensed with the USDA. They consider a farm a zoo in their licensing. Although they are specific in their language with the USDA also, they are a petting farm. They have farm animals, anything that is considered by the Federal Government as a farm.
Page 25 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
The most exotic animal is a llama which is considered a farm animal. They do not have lions, tigers, bears, or snakes except for those that are in the area naturally. They are licensed for 50 animals, which sounds like a lot, but they are a working farm and so rabbits, chickens, and other small animals are considered animals so 50 is not such a large number. Ms. Carver showed a picture of her property where they do not have buildings. People come to their gates, go around and feed the animals. They start with the horses, then the cows, and they explain what they do, how they got them, and other information about the animals. They have sanitizers sitting several places on their farm where people are welcome to wash their hands, and they encourage them to do so.
Ms. Carver said the farm is mostly a teaching tool. They are there to try to keep their animals and teach kids about the family farm.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that it sounds like they have researched the issue. The proposal sounds fine to him. Ms. Carver stated that they are a very simple operation. They only operate part time and not in the winter. They operate in the Springtime when the babies come, and they get to see the lambs and goats and then they close down in the Fall. They live on a lane and have no neighbors so they don’t impact anyone as far as sound and noise. Their restrooms are portable and they feel like they have tried to cover everything required, or tried to. The operation is not going to make them rich or famous, it’s going to supplement their income on their farm. They would appreciate the Planning Commission’s consideration.
John Brantz, Huntsville, stated that this is the first time he had heard about this petting zoo and it sounds to him that it would be a great addition to the valley. It’s in harmony with what the valley is and it certainly beats a rock crusher.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that the only concern that they would have is what they all perceive as a domestic animal. They don’t want it to be overrun with animals that they don’t want to have in the area. If they don’t put specific language in the ordinance like staff has suggested, then they might get an animal someone might not believe is a domestic animal . MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to approve Zoning Petition ZP#21-2006 by Audrey and Rod Carver to amend Chapter 5B (Agricultural Valley AV-3) of the Uniform Land Use Ordinance of Unincorporated Weber County by adding “Petting Zoo” as a conditional use accessed by the collector road, subject to Health Department review and Federal licensing, and that it features domestic farm animals. Commissioner Creager seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.
6. Final Approval of Hidden Canyon Subdivision at 255 Ogden Canyon, 9 Lots
Staff presented the following report: The applicant is requesting preliminary approval of the Hidden Canyon Subdivision located at approximately 250 Ogden Canyon. The proposed subdivision will occupy 62.79 acres and will consist of 10 lots and approximately 2100 feet of road improvements. It falls within a Forest Residential-1 Zone (FR-1) which requires a minimum lot area of 1 acre and a minimum lot width of 150 feet. This subdivision was originally presented to the Planning Commission on March 22, 2005 and was found to have several concerns regarding the location and very steep terrain. As a result, the motion was made to table the proposed subdivision until it could go before the Hillside Review Board. The Hillside Review Board evaluated the site and has set conditions for approval such as adequate area below 25% slope, geo-technical studies, structural details on retaining walls and guardrails and the requirement that all dwellings will have a 30' (vegetation) clear zone and be equipped with fire sprinklers. With consideration of these and other conditions, the Hillside Review Board has recommended approval (November 15,2005) and agreed that the subdivision may proceed to the Planning Commission for preliminary approval. The proposed roadway will be dedicated as a private road intersecting State Road-39 and extending northward up Johnson Draw (according to USGS Quadrangle Map) where it will cross the Ogden Canyon Conduit (72" water line) and eventually terminate with a permanent turn-around. The applicant will be constructing a bridge across the Ogden River and has been working with agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Utah Division of Water Rights and UDOT. The Army Corps of Engineers have determined that there are no waters of the United States or wetlands impacted by the proposal and will not require a Department of the Army Permit. They have also determined that the proposed bridge will completely span the Ogden River and will not require a permit. The Utah Division of Water Rights has been contacted and will review the applicant’s Stream Alteration Permit Application but has verbally acknowledged that, due to the height of the bottom of the bridge (3' above the 100-year flood or 4' above the high water mark), they will most likely not be required to obtain the permit. UDOT has reviewed plans for access to the State Road and have issued a letter granting preliminary approval for access.
Page 26 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
The applicant has also been working with the Ogden River Water Users Association and the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation in order to gain access over and across the Ogden Conduit (72" water line) that carries Pineview irrigation water through the canyon to the lower valley. This access has been granted by a License Agreement between the United States and the applicant. The applicant will be responsible for meeting all conditions of the agreement in order to maintain access. Paragraphs 3 and 5 of this License Agreement refer to a time limitation or expiration date of 50 years which cannot be considered a guarantee of perpetual access, however, the General Manager of the Ogden River Water Users Association has indicated that this License is a very “standard” agreement and access most likely will never be questioned. He explained that the expiration date usually acts as a “review time” where conditions of the License could be changed to suit current pipe conditions. Recording this License Agreement along with the final subdivision plat may be a helpful step towards informing future lot owners of potential changes to access requirements. The Weber County Engineer’s Office has had an opportunity to review the preliminary plat and has responded with some questions concerning the following: falling rock and debris flow hazards; structural details for retaining walls and guardrails; water system approval by Ogden City; cul-de-sac (turn-around) slopes and radius; and excavation of lots 9 and 10 that may be near the 72" pipe line. The Engineer’s Office feels that these questions can be adequately addressed and will continue working with the applicant’s engineer. The Engineer’s Office has also been approached and asked to consider a non-standard turn-around located on the north side of the proposed bridge. This turn-around is called a “Hammer-Head” and has been requested due to the steep hill side and lack of area that can accommodate a 55' radius (standard) turn-around. It has been agreed that the Hammer-Head can serve as an acceptable turn-around and will mitigate impacts to the adjacent hill. This road design does vary from the County Subdivision Standard and will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A gated entry is also being requested by the applicant. The gate will be constructed of black wrought iron, stacked stone and rustic timbers (see attached) and will operate with remote, keypad, back-up battery system and have an emergency opening device approved by the Weber Fire District. The location of the gate will be on the north side of the Ogden River and will be situated so that any traffic that is unable to access the subdivision’s private road will have room to turn around safely and return to the Highway. The proposal for the “gated” private road, like the Hammer-Head road design, does not fall within the County Subdivision Standard and will require a Planning Commission recommendation. Lot markers (3.25' tall x 1.5' wide) will be the only monumentation on the property and will be constructed with materials similar to the gate. They will provide a location for the home address and will be dimly lit to illuminate the numbers at night. All lighting will conform to the Ogden Valley Lighting Ordinance. Culinary Water will be provided by Ogden City Department of Public Services. A Conditional Use Permit will be required as part of the approval process for the proposed water system and storage reservoir. Waste Water Treatment will be provided by septic system with the applicant’s engineer being required to show and certify that there is a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. of contiguous area within the lots that have an average slope of less than 25%. This area is intended to accommodate one home, it’s septic system and give additional area for a replacement system if necessary. The Weber Fire District will be requiring 6 new fire hydrants and has placed additional requirements for fire sprinklers and a 30' vegetation clear zone around each dwelling as a result of the hillside review.
Comments regarding trails conforming to the Weber County Pathways Ordinance have not been received. The trails, as required by ordinance and recommended by Ogden Valley Pathways will be shown or noted on the plat prior to final approval.
Conformance to General Plan: These lots conform to the current General Plan by meeting the minimum area and width requirements for the zone in which they are located.
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the County Engineer’s Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the County Surveyor’s Office. 3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Health Department. 4. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber Fire District. 5. Requirements and recommendations of the Hill Side Review Board. 6. Requirements and recommendations of the US Army Corps of Engineers. 7. Requirements and recommendations of the Utah Division of Water Rights. 8. Requirements and recommendations of the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 9. Requirements and recommendations of the Ogden River Water Users Association. 10. Requirements and recommendations of the Utah Department of Transportation. 11. Requirements and recommendations of the culinary water provider. 12. Conditional Use Permit for proposed water system.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends preliminary approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations. This recommendation includes approval of the private, gated road, the “hammer-head” road design and the aesthetics of the
Page 27 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
welded wire retaining walls. The list of “conditions for approval” is quite long due to the number of individual agencies involved with this particular development and not because of significant concerns.
Commissioner Holmstrom clarified that staff is not requiring the petitioner to build the pathway at this time? Staff replied that’s correct.
Commissioner Holmstrom said it doesn’t connect to anything, they have more than one case of that and they know that down the road it will connect, and she is concerned that it sets a precedent. Staff replied they are having no construction done right now. They may be scrambling to find a trail location that may not be the best fit in the future. They could see this as a benefit. Financially, when a pathway goes through, by the Ogden Valley Pathways or some other organization, they will probably have to come up with the financing for that trail where it’s not required tonight. Maybe that can be discussed further tonight. What the applicant is offering is an easement through the property for a trail, when or if a trail goes through. He is going to write that into their CC&R’s so the landowners will have the opportunity to read and be aware of that requirement.
Page 28 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that she has walked that property and if you are saying today, that you can’t see a place where it would go, how can you take an easement for it, and down the road when you’re trying to get that pathway done, which probably won’t be in her lifetime, it will be difficult to lay out. She believes this subdivision should be treated just like any other subdivision in the upper valley. Staff replied that their very first recommendation from Pathways was a side path. That’s physically impossible on this road. This was the next best thing, this is what Pathways has recommended to staff and they agree. If the members would feel better with an actual survey description of a centerline of an easement and a width described off of that, they are sure that is something they can talk to the petitioner about. There have been some questions as far as the trail location and if it will be located up high in the development or is it going to be down along the river on what is somewhat the old trolley path that runs along the river right now. You would definitely lock yourself into a trail easement location if it is decided now.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated that in fairness and consistency, this developer should do what every other developer in Ogden Valley does, he should have it laid out before final approval is given. Staff replied that they are very willing to discuss that. They have had other developments in the same situation.
Commissioner Creager stated that there is a letter from the Ogden Valley Pathway’s in the meeting packets agreeing with the proposed subdivision. Staff responded that was subject to an easement being given, is that correct? Commissioner Holmstrom stated yes, but they don’t know where the easement is located. If you don’t have an indicated easement, you don’t have an easement.
Commissioner Rounkles stated that you can have easement, but in ten years from now they might say we don’t want it there. He understands staff because when he was on a committee when they were trying to get a pathway down Ogden Canyon and there wasn’t a route picked. Every time a route was picked, there were problems and it was tough. Maybe it should be worded so that it is at the Ogden Valley Pathway’s discretion for the location if there was ever going to be a community pathway.
Staff responded that they agreed and maybe they could get a surveyor to locate it so there’s no question about it.
Commissioner Holmstrom stated they have discussed this subdivision previously. She is not comfortable with the trail issue and would like to have a physical location tied down. Staff clarified that she would like a physical location tied to the easement. Commissioner Holmstrom replied yes, if they had an easement. If it never happens, that’s one thing, but if it’s ever to happen, the pieces of the puzzle need to be picked up, or they never will. Staff responded that maybe they could ask for a physical location on the upper route. They could see there may a potential for the trail to be down low along the river, or up high along that corridor. The Ogden River Water User Association has expressed concern about having the trail up high.
Commissioner Rounkles stated that is why they could have two locations with one being along the river. Commissioner Holmstrom stated that personally, she would look at where the pipeline goes, how it traverses this property. When they walked the property before on a field trip, it seemed to her that there was a logical location and very likely at this moment it cuts through a lot. Staff responded that this may be an issue to discuss with the petitioner when he comes up.
Commissioner Rounkles stated that on the landscaping, it looks that they are addressing these cages. He would be concerned about when you are driving up the canyon and you look up, these are going to be serious cuts. He didn’t vote for this because of the view and what it’s going to do to the canyon. As for the bridge, they did a great job, but right across it they put a one home into the canyon below and there are so many things that they have to do to make this blend in, and now you’re talking about putting debris basins, big holes, and more debris. They didn’t talk about the Debris Basin and he is concerned with screening. Staff showed a photograph and stated that this is a similar system as they have at Deer Crest near Deer Valley. That kind of gives you an idea of the size of the stone that’s been used inside of those baskets.
Page 29 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Rounkles stated that a type of vine could help the visual impact on the baskets. Staff responded that the applicant initially agreed with that and researched that and what he has agreed to use is colored native rock, so you won’t be able to see the rock on the gabion baskets down in the narrows. You would see the grey stone that’s up on the side. As far as vines, they have looked into that, and found that vines can actually impact the integrity of the wall itself, and another concern with those nonnative types of plants is the close proximity to the river. That river can transport that type of stuff all the way to Great Salt Lake. There has been some concern brought up that if an aggressive vine was used to cover the wall, it could actually be transported down the river and take over somebody else’s property. They have looked at that. The petitioner’s landscape plan can be discussed if the members are not satisfied with its contents.
Commissioner Rounkles stated that in this landscape plan, there is a loop with a bunch of circles and it’s really hard to tell what that’s going to be. We’re talking about 20 feet, 15 feet or more on both sides. Staff stated that those fills exceed 20 feet, which is what went to the Hillside Review Board in the very beginning. Commissioner Rounkles stated that was his concern from the beginning. He doesn’t see how they are going to hide that in any shape or form. Staff responded that it probably would have been helpful on this design to actually include what is existing on the highway side of the river such as other Cottonwood trees and other vegetation. Obviously, it’s going to be impacted by the road construction, but there is existing cover there. This time of the season it’s pretty barren through there, and you will see the baskets. When they came to you for preliminary approval, the concern is the same. They are going to be looking at these baskets and the cuts, but the petitioner was asked to bring a landscape plan and they have done that.
Commissioner Allen stated that the vine would not do anything for the walls much because it’s going to be a line of green at the bottom due to the height. He supposed that he could understand them thinking that these vines are going to plug up the whole lower valley with transported vine seeds; he can imagine that, but he doesn’t buy it. Commissioner Rounkles stated that he didn’t buy that either, and he could picture ivies that would climb, and they crawl because he has them at his own place and they’re an evergreen. An ivy would be a good answer and it would make it look nice. He is really concerned about these baskets. He is not against anyone building on their land, but he is against the 20 foot wall on both sides. Staff suggested to bring the petitioner up at this time to answer some of their questions.
Jeff Mansell, petitioner, stated that he would be glad to answer any questions. They have gone through a methodical process of dealing with all the conditions given at the Preliminary Approval stage and even some additional ones that came from those conditions. Methodically, they are trying to make sure that this was done and treated properly, and take some stewardship over this property to make it the best that they possibly can. With that, they would ultimately ask for approval but will answer any questions.
Commissioner Graves stated that Mr. Mansell has done a pretty good job of selecting species that are native. Mr. Mansell stated that he didn’t care if they put vines there. It’s okay to have it in your backyard, but you put up a vine that belongs in the mid-west, on this mountain side, in some respect it looks as unnatural as a rock. Commissioner Graves stated a basket filled full of rock will look as unnatural as anything. With an ivy, whether it’s from the mid west or not, they stay green all year long and it would cover the wall. Mr. Mansell stated that he was okay putting the ivy on. He believed that there is precedent of putting in nonnative species that they do tend to get places you don’t want them. However, he is okay with that, if that is what the members desire to see.
Commissioner Rounkles stated that the ivy could be planted, but they should have some control of maintaining it and not letting it spread and cause more problems by it going up and down the canyon. You could cut it back. The petitioner said they don’t have any problem putting in some ivy on those baskets and those walls. He doesn’t think the integrity part of it’s going to be such an issue that it causes any major problems engineering wise. They have put vegetation on those walls in the past, for instance, on the top of each of those baskets. They put a small layer soil and planted native grasses on top of the basket as well. Each of the baskets step up slowly and there can be native grasses growing on those steps as well. They can certainly put ivy in or other items like that. The intent of that landscape plan was really to augment knowing that it takes time for landscaping to take hold and become real effective, they understand that. For the long term, hopefully it continues to make a bigger impact on reducing the visual impact. They don’t think that they will see any loss of the large trees that are along the river bank.
Page 30 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Commissioner Holmstrom asked the petitioner about putting pathways in? Mr. Allen said there are two locations on their property that they believe that a pathway could go. One would be along the current easement where the water pipe and power line is on the upper side and that’s a good place for it. There is an easement there now and they can extend an addition. They are back from the current easement. They have no problems delineating that as what could be the future trail. In addition, they have no problem delineating an additional easement along the river if that were the future pathway location. This may actually help the homeowner’s association in the future as well. Commissioner Holmstrom stated that she thought it would because this prevented any future disagreements about it and if it’s on that pipeline easement, it is better than having no easement at all.
Commissioner Allen asked if this was a gated community? Mr. Allen replied that it is. Commissioner Allen asked if all the pavement will meet the County definitions? Mr. Allen replied yes.
Commissioner Graves clarified that a drip irrigation system is planned for this development. Mr. Allen stated that most of the development would be drip irrigated.
MOTION: Commissioner Graves made the motion to recommend to the County Commission final approval is given to Hidden Canyon Subdivision at 255 Ogden Canyon, 9 Lots, subject to staff and other agency comments and requirements and also that pathway easements are included on the plats in the locations as discussed, and that an appropriate vine be added to the landscape and be placed at the base of the wall, but not with the intent of it covering the entire wall. The belief was that there are appropriate vines available. Commissioner Holmstrom seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried by a 6-1 vote.
7. Preliminary Approval of Bison Creek Cluster Subdivision at 8150 E. Hwy 39, 150 Lots
Staff presented the following report:
The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Approval for Bison Creek Ranch Cluster Subdivision located at approximately 8150 E. Highway 39. The subdivision contains 458.868 acres, consists of 150 lots, and lies mostly in an AV-3 Zone with a small portion in an F-5 Zone. This subdivision is designed as a cluster subdivision so lot sizes and frontage requirements will differ from the normal requirements of these zones. The smallest lots in this subdivision could be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and frontage requirements are reduced to a minimum of 100 feet. The smallest lot in this subdivision contains approximately 16,000 square feet and the largest is over 2 acres. The majority of the lots are well over 20,000 square feet.
A cluster subdivision in the AV-3 Zone requires a minimum of 60% of the subdivision to be preserved as permanent open space and a minimum of 80% in the F-5 Zone, but both zones allow for a bonus density of up to 30%. The petitioner is requesting a bonus density of only 20%, and has shown four potential ways of gaining this density. The petitioner is asking for fewer lots than a 20% bonus allows, but the 20% is still being requested in case one of the proposed bonus items is reduced or not approved.
This proposed cluster subdivision contains 281.80 acres of open space, which is 60% of the total area for the AV-3 Zone and 80% for the total area for the F-5 Zone. The open space will contain a public trail system which runs throughout the entire subdivision, and a private 16 acre lake, boat house/sales office, and community center. Lighting for the community center and boat house/sales office will have to meet the requirements of Chapter 39 of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance (Ogden Valley Lighting).
Ogden Valley Pathways stated that “The pathways are integrated throughout the subdivision in a manner that promotes wildlife viewing with uninterrupted pathway corridors. The pathway in the open space on the northeast side of the subdivision may eventually be connected to the planned Ogden Valley Canal Pathway. The developer and engineers are to be commended on an excellent pathway design.” A 5% bonus is requested for providing a public trail through the open space. The petitioner also requests a 5% bonus for providing stub roads to adjacent properties, a 5% bonus for developing excess sewage treatment capacity, and a 5% bonus for developing a cluster subdivision which meets the intent of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 22B.
The entries for this subdivision will be off of Highway 39 and 300 N. in Huntsville Meadows. Entry features will include a log fence along Highway 39 with a natural grass and landscaped area just behind. A stacked rock wall will branch out on both sides of the road further in from the main entrance off of Highway 39. New public roads will be built as a part of this subdivision and all roads must meet the requirements of the Weber County Engineers Office. It is recommended that rolled curb or natural drainage swells be installed throughout the subdivision and that the pathways system serve as the
Page 31 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
sidewalk until sidewalk is required. After reviewing a traffic impact study submitted by Gardner Engineering the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is requiring a left turn deceleration lane and recommending a right turn deceleration lane for access off of Highway 39. All requirements of UDOT must be met.
A wetland delineation study for this project has been completed and accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers. Approximately 136.45 acres of jurisdictional wetlands have been identified within the boundary of this project. The current proposal does show approximately 13,316 square feet of right of way area within delineated wetlands. A permit from the Army Corps of Engineers approving this proposal will be required at final approval. A geological study has also been done for the property and it is considered suitable for the proposed development provided that a design-level geotechnical engineering study be conducted prior to construction. All recommendations from these studies must be followed. In addition the County Engineers office is recommending that the lowest habitable floor of any home be at least 1 foot higher than the elevation of the back of curb or drainage swell along the lot frontage.
Page 32 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Culinary water will be provided by the Eden Waterworks Company. A new 400,000 gallon storage tank is being proposed which will be given to Eden Water as part of their expanded system. The tank will be located on a knoll near the easternmost subdivision boundary and it will be completely buried below ground. A culinary well located near the community center may be dug to pump into the tank. This system will help serve two other proposed subdivisions located to the southwest of the Bison Creek property. A Conditional Use Application has been submitted for the tank and will be presented with final subdivision approval provided that a construct permit from the State is issued.
Wastewater treatment will be provided by a proposed membrane filter package treatment facility. This plant will be located inside an existing barn on the property just off of Highway 39. The barn will be renovated and will completely hide the treatment facility. This will also be a regional facility with the capacity to serve other developments including the two mentioned previously. The effluent from the plant will be treated to the point that it can be discharged into the pond for use as irrigation water for the subdivision. A Conditional Use Application has also been submitted for this treatment plant and will be presented at final subdivision approval. This plant will also require approvals from the State.
Secondary water will be provided by Huntsville Irrigation, the Mountain Canal Company, and water from the proposed lake. A secondary water distribution system will need to be approved by the Weber County Engineers Office. A 5 foot non-climbable fence will be required on both sides of the canal.
Conformance to General Plan: This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by: • Meeting the requirements for the AV-3 Zone. • Meeting the requirements for Chapter 22B of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance. • Meeting the objectives of the General Plan Section 3.01 to “Identify and promote the preservation of open space” and “Establish mechanisms to preserve open space in the Valley” and Section 10.02 to “Provide incentives for developers to preserve open space and cluster development.”
Conditions for Approval: 1. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Engineers Office. 2. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber Fire District. 3. Requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. 4. Requirements of the Utah Department of Transportation. 5. Requirements of the Eden Waterworks Company 6. Requirements of Ogden Valley Pathways
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends preliminary approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.
Barry Swartz, representing the petitioner of Bison Creek Ranch, stated that as was indicated earlier, staff barely summarized what they have submitted an application for. He is not sure what can be added at this point. They have engineers here who have worked on the waste water treatment plant, the civil engineering associated with the development itself, and are working on the civil engineering for the extension of the Eden Water Works system. They have their land planner and landscape architect in attendance and many technical experts that can respond to questions.
Commissioner Rounkles asked if there was a lake there now. Mr. Swartz replied no. Commissioner Rounkles asked how do they go about making a lake, do you have to have water rights, do they just dig a hole and make a lake? If there was a development that was going to go in here, a feature would be nice, as it brings birds, etc., and he was wondering how you go about doing something like that? Mr. Swartz stated that to his understanding they could grade that area in such a way that it would collect ground water and provide an impoundment for the discharge from the waste water facility. That could be done with the Corps. of Engineer’s requirements for working in wetland areas because no fill will occur. Commissioner Rounkles stated if you were going to have a facility like that, make a pond, and you’re digging and the water is just going to seep into it, but you’re going to use the effluent from the waste water, wouldn’t that have to be lined so that wouldn’t go into our ground water system? Mr. Swartz said he asked Justin Logan to answer that question.
Justin Logan, representing Aqua Engineering, stated that they have been working on the waste water treatment portion of this project. What would have to happen, is obviously there has to be some permitting done through the State, with both Water Quality and Water Resources. Personally, he has not been working on it, he is representing Brad Rasmussen from his office who could not attend, but he understands that permitting is on the way. The water from this type of MDR facility would meet any drinking water standard. The facility at Oakleaf actually discharges to the Weber River, which is a drinking water source for everybody downstream from that facility. Commissioner Rounkles stated that it is also considered a
Page 33 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
dumping river, from what they have been told. Where there are so many wells, it would seem to him that it would have to be lined, of course he knows this is a water issue again which is out of their expertise. However, he was wondering how you go about getting a lake and if it wasn’t lined, would it affect all of their drinking water? Mr. Logan stated that is something that they could come back with more detail information on the process that would be required.
Page 34 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Leon Fielding, 8095 E. 100 S., Huntsville, stated to Commissioner Rounkles that they share the same concerns on the water issues. They have seen a lot of proposals, a lot of paperwork, a lot of diagrams, and everything they have seen looks good on paper. Several years ago when the pioneers settled that area, they named it Slough Alley not Bison Creek Ranch. The area all through there is called Slough Alley for a reason. When this project first started, they were told it was going to be a quality project. With that quality, they thought they would see an exceptional development. First of all, the field dirt came in with the weeds and garbage and covered live springs of which two are still partially covered today so you know there is no drainage system. He is concerned about where the water will go in a heavy year when they have a lot of rain, and snow gets 5 and 6 feet deep. It’s going to go somewhere. They did a traffic survey study a year ago in November which is the slowest month of the year. He believes they should do it in July so they can get a good concept of the traffic that is up there. The sewer system, they have been briefed on. They know that’s coming, and it seems like a good product, but again that water is going to go in this pond along with the water from the springs that is already there. That is a lot of water. They want to be good neighbors, but they in turn expect the same neighborly quality product up there that they’re building
Ron Gleason, 9175 Kelley Drive, Huntsville, stated that he would like to make a statement. He and a couple of individuals were told by staff that they would be able to use a computer to make a presentation to illustrate their points and display pictures, however, when he came today and put that request forward, he was told that he would not be able to do that because they only had three minutes to speak. He does not thing that is right. Everybody should have same opportunity to use the available mediums that anyone else has. His recommendation is, if people who are contesting a development cannot use the medium, that statement should be made on the meeting agendas or it should go onto the website. He stated that he has six points and he has submitted a seven page detailed memo on this. He is not against development, he believes that this could be a quality development, but he believes that we cannot rush into this. There is a lot of very detailed technical issues that have to be looked at. He requests that this item is tabled until everyone of these issues are addressed and they know it is going to work.
Regarding the Corps. of Engineers, Mr. Gleason said he met with Jason a couple of days ago, who informed him that he needs to review some of the areas because maybe they missed something in the native wetlands. On the sewer system, the issue he has is not with the system itself. He believes they need to address sewer in the valley, but as a taxpayer, he has a very difficult time with the County Commissioners saying they’re going to take over sewer system when they don’t know how to run the system. They don’t know what department it’s going into, and they have no criteria for running it. He has heard this from Commissioner Cain and the County Engineer. How can they turn over the running of a sewer system when they have no jurisdiction or authority over it, and don’t know how to do it? Who do they turn to when they have problems? How do you compensate wetland when there is a problem? When we look at numbers here on the sewer system, they’re going to use the lake, they are going to produce 1.8 million gallons of waste water which will go into that lake per month. That’s 400 gallons per household per day. That’s the figure the State uses. Where’s that water going to go in the winter time when it doesn’t perk, doesn’t freeze, and can’t be used for irrigation? He is concerned there is no storm water drainage plan and believes staff should require this before the petitioner seeks approval because this is what is going to go into the wetlands and ruin the wetlands more. It will create higher phosphoreus levels in Pineview. It’s got to be pulled forward and it’s got to be asked for immediately. Water recharge areas need to be dealt with. He believes the traffic study is wrong. It’s not the 40% utilization and it also doesn’t meet the Ogden Valley General Plan.
Ralph Ballham, 7800 E. 1300 N., Huntsville, President of the Mountain Canal Irrigation Company, stated that his concern is not necessarily for or against the project. His concern is where are they going to use the water from Mountain Canal because their requirements are that the water cannot leave their area. He does not know how they’re going to do that. He wants to go on record that they have to get permission from Mountain Canal Irrigation before they can put in the irrigation lines. He is also concerned about the ground water and what’s it is going to do with a lot of the neighbors around the area that have shallow wells. Is this going to hurt their wells
Joe Klem, 8665 E. 300 N., Huntsville, stated that he lives on the other access in Huntsville Meadows, the other access to the subdivision. It is his belief and the developer’s Ron Hansen, that the road was never intended to support 150 humps of division. That’s his concern, and he implores them to have the Bison Creek folks to have due diligence on the real traffic impact coming through Huntsville Meadows. That road is a farmer’s access road and there is a stub for the future, and he is concerned that some intended use of that road will be used to get to that stub, unless it’s mitigated. It should either be gated or fenced off.
Page 35 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Dave & Dawn Goode, 8369 E. 100 S., stated that they are across from this proposed development. They came there two years ago, by invitation from the Mayor of Ogden and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. They instantly fell in love with the Ogden Valley, moved there, read the general plans, and believed in it. One year ago, a dump truck pulled across Highway 39, and 55 man hours were spent dumping dirt into the ditch, the next thing that shows up were more dump trucks, loads of dirt, and big pipes in an attempt to drain the wetlands. Today they have mounds of dirt sitting there. Over one half of the time that they have lived in the valley, they have looked at this every day on their way home. Bison Creek says that they want to do a good job. I can tell you this, she came from the state of Michigan where they have 20% of the worlds fresh water. They protect wetlands like gold. Leon Fielding, a neighbor of theirs and a farmer who has lived on his property his whole life, calls it Slough Alley. They have personally walked the property, and the wetland delineation was done by Jack Johnson Company. Hollis Jenks did it in the in the Fall one time and he is now working for the Army Corps. of Engineers.
The Goode’s stated that the Army Corps. has an interim Colonel and their offices are in a disarray. They have personally walked this property. They went to the Army Corps. Of Engineer’s office on Saturday and with GPS coordinates, they had a whole three dimensional plan to show where things are going to go. The petitioners, very conveniently show all the wetlands in yellow on their plans, they are blue on the wetland delineation. It’s 136 acres, which they can call. What are the chances that there is seventy million dollars at stake on this, that the developer and their hired engineer would call something as wetlands when it is not. He can say there is a zero chance. The wetland delineation is done improperly, the land speaks for itself, it does not lie. If there is water within 12 inches of the surface within 6 days of the year, it is considered a wetland. They went out when cows had grazed, and they couldn’t even tell what grasses were there. The Army Corps., if you think does everything right, think about New Orleans, think about the letter they have proofed, and yes there is a typo. Instead of 136.45 acres it’s only 16.45 acres. They are not against all development, but the proposed plan is totally not proper. You have to go see this property for yourself, they have 20 points listed, in four hours of walking, that are clearly outside of delineated wetlands. They question looking at the Ogden Valley Ordinances, but the open space that they are getting credit for its jurisdiction on wetlands. It cannot be developed, and they know that staff has a different opinion. They can get an opinion from the legal department. They delivered a petition, and would like it to be a permanent part of the record. We did one with the Corps., and one to the Planning Commission, 148 people have signed requesting that they please get a proper wetland delineation.
John Brantz, Huntsville, read the Weber County Ordinance, Chapter 22B-5, which addresses the net developable area calculation for a cluster subdivision, “net developable area is land that is not excluded from use and density calculations, or deemed undevelopable by this or any other county, state, or federal law ordinance or regulation.” Bison Creek Development is presently allowed a credit for wetlands in the aggregate calculations for their net developable area. Bison Creek is allowed a home count, 150 homes, on this basis. They believe this is not permissible under the cited ordinance nor is it in accord with current efforts to protect the wetlands at the state and federal levels. In fact, the pending Weber County Sensitive Land Ordinance seeks to establish 100 foot setbacks of any construction from a jurisdictional wetland. If the existing ordinance is applied to exclude wetlands from the aggregate, which they believe it should, the number of homes allowed in the clusters would be 102 not 150. He would like to point out that Huntsville Town Council defines nondevelopable areas as an area where due to sensitive lands, for example, defined wetlands, “the land is not considered to be suitable for construction of residential, commercial, or manufacturing buildings or structures .” A Hill Air Force Base Study also sites that jurisdictional wetlands, thus definable wetlands, are defined as those seasonally or permanently wet areas that come under the domain of authority of the US Army Corps. of Engineers for purposes of regulatory permitting under Section 404, of the Cleaning Water Act. They were advised by the Army Corps. of Engineers that Bison Creek does not have this permit. A developer must first obtain a permit from the Corps. for activities in wetlands for which Section 404 Permits may be required to include, but not limited to, placement of filled and/or dredge material, ditching activities where the excavated material is side cast, levy and dike construction, mechanized land clearing, land leveling, most road construction and dam construction. As Mr. Goode pointed out, this activity is already taken place, at least some of it has. He therefore, would like to put forth a formal request to this commission, that the Weber County Attorney provide a written opinion to them on whether or not jurisdictional wetlands are deemed by the County to be developable lands. He requests that the Planning Commission please table this discussion for another time when they can get the details fully delineated and check the process in advising the public as to when this meeting will occur, as a number of them have experienced problems in receiving notification.
Page 36 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Beth Corbin, 9079 Kelley Drive, Greenhills, stated that she had been a professional botanist for 20 some years. She reviewed the wetland delineation plan, walked the property and looked at the areas they state are wetlands, and she found many areas that they had missed. There is a number of species out there, in the areas that they had simply not identified as wetlands, but clearly are based on their own criteria. She urges the Planning Commission not to accept the report as it is and to have it redone and looked at more carefully. When she walked out there, as an indication, if you dig a hole for a perk test, and just a little soil pit, and it fills up with water, isn’t that a clue that the ground water is right there?
Vice Chair Cooper asked Ms. Corbin if she had a list of those she worked with and possibly a list the plants she found and show them where they are on the map? Mr. Corbin stated she has the GS points.
Art Rosko, 9292 Kelley Drive, Huntsville, stated that he is not a wetlands expert, but does have a degree in Environmental Science. He stated that he was very interested and very concerned about wetlands nationwide. He went to a 3-day conference last month in California that focused on wetlands. To summarize, the experts talked about wetlands as being the kidneys of the planet. They filter our water, and give us clean water. It doesn’t take much to compromise and destroy a wetland, and 150 homes immediately adjacent to a wetland, with all the phosphates and nitrates coming off from those lawns, plus five miles of roads, with salt coming off during the winter, it’s a safe bet, that those wetlands will be destroyed in a matter of 10 to 12 years, unless there is serious mitigation performed. The Corps. could address that, he can’t. For six months out of the year, there’s almost no flow in the Southfork, it is all diverted for irrigation purposes. Virtually, the only flow going to the south end of the lake is from those springs, then they channel down along Highway 39 and runs right into the south end of the lake. Again, it’s a safe bet, based on what he has heard from the conference, that within15 years there will be a massive dead zone on the south end of the lake that will be spreading and no plants will grow down there or animals will not thrive. He asks that they give real serious consideration to the mitigation plan that this development is proposing.
Al Sheridan, 825 N. Kelley Drive, the President of the Homeowners Association of Greenhills, said there is a lot of concern on the part of the people in Greenhills, and it’s interesting because this development won’t impact them directly. Two concerns that people have is 1) there are too many lots proposed for development there. It is largely a wet area, when you think about going out there in the middle of August, and you would be up to your shins in water, it’s a strange credibility. The second concern is effluent. How do you get rid of it? If you have 150 houses, you’re going to have effluent. Mr. Sheridan related a situation he noticed two weeks ago in eastern North Carolina regarding a similar situation. What they did, they used to have a sewage treatment plant not far from the bay. They would strain out the solids, and treat the liquids, and put it back into the ground water. It gradually filtered down to the bay, and it killed out the bay. There was nothing in the entire bay, no plant life, no marine life, nothing. They are now spending millions of dollars trying to reclaim this bay. Which is incidentally the size of Pineview, it’s quite large. All of these houses are pumping oxygen down into the base of the bay. They have brought in a million oysters because they are good at filtering water, but they can’t put them on the bottom of the bay because they won’t live, so they are suspended in baskets to help filter out the water. The sewage treatment plant is gone and they are spending millions of dollars trying to get back where they were 15 or 20 years ago. He is just afraid that we’re going to create that kind of situation here.
Ian Hueton, 1804 Ross Drive, Ogden, stated that he wanted to reiterate a couple of issues. Pineview is obviously is a big resource for the valley. The term that people are referring to is eutrophication, so you get too much algae growth and so the inappropriate amount in the nutrients in the lake, and it basically dies at some level. He grew up in Ontario, and this happened at Lake Ontario during the 70's. Basically, the lake would turn over at some point when the stuff hit the bottom level, it would rot to a certain point, then it would just throw up yards of algae on the shore, in the next big windstorm. It can devastate property levels on the local economy, which is what occurred in parts of southern Ontario. He believes it’s important to make sure these studies get completed and wetlands are protected and treated in a way that they can be. They should consider what’s happened locally in Morgan County, they had some restrictions on land use in Mountain Green which was consistent right up to the 70's or 80's, and then those people that had made those intelligent decisions that were building on steep and compromised land, stepped aside and lost the institutional history, and people recently built homes on land that was questionable, and now there are many lawsuits and they are trying to find whose fault it is that the houses were allowed to be built. They may be in the same situation with houses being built in Bison Creek in the sense that the County is setting themselves up for liability from a sewer system that they may end up taking over as referred to earlier with some other systems in the valley. With 1.8 million gallons of sewage going into the system every month, that’s a significant liability from the County’s prospective, so that needs to be proven, and it’s not the same as Wolf Creek being elevated versus a submerged system being in a swamp.
Page 37 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
The road system is going to be a big potential liability for them as taxpayers because it’s also built in a difficult environment where there is frost and other challenges. There is a lot of work that has to happen for this development to proceed, and they have heard from a lot of people who aren’t necessarily looking to kill it, as much as change it and make it follow the rules that everyone else is having to follow, which is meet the environmental requirements, the County requirements in terms of open space set aside, and to make sure that it doesn’t compromise the beautiful place that Ogden Valley is today.
Rex Argyle, representing his parents Dale and Sheila Argyle, 7948 E. 100 S., stated that they are the dumping ground for where all the water is going to come. They are right below where this Bison Creek development will be located. They have the Trapper’s Trout Fish Farm that he is guessing that they’re going to be forcing the water into. His dad currently has an artesian well that flows 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that he is guessing that is going to be affected by the well that they are drilling. They are really concerned about this subdivision. When his parents initially heard about it was 15 acre lots, and a really premier community, and now they are up to 150 lots. He does not understand how anything could be built there, for the last 25 years they’ve owned that property and he has seen cattle slogging through there, and the cattle can’t even walk through it. He does not understand how you can build a home on there. They have also had issues with the dumping of dirt. They have had culverts filled with sand bags, and then covered up with dirt, and it has caused flooding on their property already. They have some major issues and concerns about this proceeding.
Layne Sheridan, 825 North Kelley Drive, Huntsville, stated that she supports some of the things that have been said before. Most of them appreciate the work that went into the general plan and recreation element as far as trying to protect the rural pristine nature of the valley. They do have something very special. Art talked about the possibility with the likelihood of creating a dead zone in Pineview if the wetlands are destroyed. The implications of that go far beyond the Ogden Valley because that water in Pineview comes down to Ogden and ultimately the Great Salt Lake. What they really don’t want to do is damage the Ogden River and just make this thing go much further. Another issue is that the commission has justifiably put a lot of emphasis on sensitive lands, and the Sensitive Land Ordinance that is being proposed. Everybody is really concerned about protecting the area. She believes that it is really important to understand that they have a long way to go as far as Transferrable Development Rights, but it is really important that they don’t make any mistakes. They have heard extremely knowledgeable, highly educated people who have spoken from their own areas of expertise, and have raised serious concerns. None of the people that she has talked to about the issue wants to stop the development, but what they would like is for the commission to be very careful, that they don’t make a mistake, and that they make sure that if there is conflicting research, let’s try to resolve it before we go forward. The most common phrase that she hears in the Ogden Valley is “we don’t want to become another Park City.” She just drove back from Park City today, and was thinking how much more beautiful our valley is, than Park City, even if there weren’t all those houses. They have something very special and she believes it’s really important to protect it.
Dennis Shaw, 8080 E. 1000 N., Huntsville, stated that he agreed with the wetland ideas that have been brought up and that it needs to be checked out a little bit more. He has some concerns about what the impact is with putting a well in to service 150 houses . He has a concern about access to the development. They live to the west of the development, and on the far north end, they have a private road that goes down there, and they want to make sure that is not included in this development. They have been approached with that. As a homeowner’s association member, as well as the other members, they have expressed concern about that becoming an access to that development. They need to think it through and make sure everything is right. He is not against development, but they need to do it right.
David Crim, 8916 Pineview Drive, Huntsville, stated that since living in Huntsville, adjacent to the proposed Bison Creek Development, he has noticed an abundance of migratory birds and wildlife living in the area. The abundance of migratory birds is definitely associated with the overall habitat of the natural wetlands within the proposed development area. It is critically important not to disturb and upset the balance of this habitat to ensure that the bird and wildlife populations, and associated ecosystems will survive and continue to thrive as they do naturally. Much has also been talked about the critical need for open space to preserve for the future. Once a natural open space area is developed, it has historically been gone forever. This development plan will eliminate one of Ogden Valley’s last great open spaces. The Eden side of the valley has been consumed with over development, with many more developments still planned. There’s a great difference between the Huntsville side of the Ogden Valley compared to the Eden area.
Page 38 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
The Bison Creek Development will forever eliminate the chance for Weber County to preserve its open space forever. He asked what is actively being done to acquire open space land in Ogden Valley to protect these areas? He would request that Preliminary Approval be denied and that the Weber County negotiate with the property owners to purchase the land and to deed it as protected open space forever.
David Berlick, 8588 E. 100 S., stated that his concern is the access up through Farm Lane. The back of his property would border 300 North basically so they’ll have a road going across the back. He doesn’t have a problem there, but what he believes everybody will want to take a right-hand turn, the shortcut up to his dirt road and it’s not built for the proposed traffic. It’s very narrow, the intersection at 8600 E. and Highway 39 is not a direct intersection, so it’s a dangerous corner for a lot of people who will be pulling onto it. There are irrigation ditches on each side. Last year someone was accessing property back there and ended up in the irrigation ditch. It’s just not a safe situation, if they have 150 homes back there and people decide to take a short cut, his concern is how do they stop it. If they do start developing, and construction traffic stays off of it, how do they keep residential traffic off of it? He believes it still needs to be kept open for farm use, there are people who actually use it for that reason, and a few will still remain after this development goes through. Most of the farm land will be developed and he hopes that this issue is addressed.
Brent Marchant, 8955 Pineview Drive, stated that he totally agrees with what has been said about the wetlands. Somebody will be impacted by the proposed water tank, and that will be them. They live right below it in the Greenhills Subdivision. They were concerned right off the bat when they first heard of this development. They called and asked, if the water tank will be completely buried, and they were told yes, that it was going to be completely buried, which they totally pre-approved of. They have a concern that it’s fairly steep hill back there and as they enclose it they need to reclaim that ground and not leave their dirt all the way around it otherwise it will be an eyesore and a detriment to the people who live up above.
Richard Holley, who owns the farm west of the property on 7800 East, stated that he just had a couple of personal concerns about this. He agreed with all the concerns about the wetlands. The first concern that they have is that they never needed to use secondary irrigation water. His concern is they began to drain because it sub-irrigates the well, it’s wet, and he has gotten stuck many times in the middle of August on his property. As they began to drain that, what will happen to their ground water that they have always used to irrigate their property and raise crops? The second thing that really concerns him is running down both sides, the north and south of his property he has two agricultural prescriptive easements that he pays taxes for. In fact, it was the surveyor that actually was out there surveying the property and contacted me and said he should put some gates up quick because they’re going to be using these roads down there. He has not heard that tonight, but it is a great concern to him. Those dirt roads are prescriptive easements, the usage of those are very narrow in scope. There are only a couple of landowners left, and he wanted some assurance that gates will be put up, and access will be limited going back to the property.
Casey Gauchat, Huntsville, stated that he has been familiar with this property all of his life. This is the biggest wetlands that they have in the valley. He believes they should be concerned, even though he is not a wetlands person, he believes property should be created equal. There’s a lot of property that is different and he cannot understand how they can get credit for including unsuitable property to build on. He has 30 years experience on excavation and sewer and he can’t see how they can build houses on this area. He has had a backhoe stuck right in the middle of summer. He has had his cattle stuck on the property. He remembers one of the rancher friends in the valley when they had elk problems in 1994, state that “these are not our elk”, so he now states that “these are not our houses.”
Mr. Gauchat said that if you’re concerned with ridges, people are building on ridges. If you are concerned with how high roof tops are and how close people are building to rivers, the houses will be build in the water table that’s right underneath. He is concerned with the proposed number of homes. He has experience with the area and has been on every piece of this property since he was a little boy. He does not like cluster developments because it seems like people are using the bad lands for the good lands. They need some through roads and believes that should be addressed. The county needs to look at that, and he is not going through Huntsville Meadows, he is not opening a gate to go down a farm. They have a problem there. They have one good access, not two.
Page 39 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Susan Merchant, who resides behind the hill, stated that regarding the preservation of the view corridor, the land does not go down that far from where her house is. She has a little house, and then there will be many homes packed in one area and they will be right behind her back yard. She won’t see Pineview. She just moved in and is an artist that loves the view. She bought the house for the view, and now she will have the view of a giant blocked mansion. She supports the wetlands issue.
Brent Roberts, 8399 E. 500 S., stated that they own the piece of property that’s the island, and his concern is that they are a farm and are going to stay a farm, and they run cattle there. If they put a subdivision in the middle of them , they will be kind of stranded. They have access to water on both ends of their property and just don’t want it to be disturbed because that’s where they water their cattle.
Barry Swartz, stated that they are here tonight just seeking preliminary approval. Most, if not all, of the issues that have been raised tonight, they expect to address in each of the permitting and review processes, that would follow the preliminary approval stage. That is something that we really need some feedback from the county on, in order to take this proposal forward, with the Corps. of Engineers. They have done nothing, that he is aware of to deceive anyone with their wetland delineation. It was done in good faith, in the proper times of the year, and was reviewed by the Corps. If there were errors made, then they are fully willing to accept that, but in order to submit a permit application, they have to have a project that they can feel reasonably comfortable with, that this body is willing to continue to review in detail.
Mr. Swartz said they have other permit applications that have to be submitted to the State, for example, if a well is drilled on the property, it has to be approved by the Division of Water Rights, who has capable individuals employed. They’ll be able to help answer some of the questions that have been raised. Restricting access along the farm lane on the eastside of the project will be done with fences and gates. The stub accesses will be fenced and gated. The access that the gentleman who spoke a moment ago on the north mentioned, it was considered, there is a large block of land up there which has been placed in a conservation easement, which would restrict access to that particular stub. That’s why they chose to propose one there. The issues associated with the waste water treatment process they have proposed, are also going to be addressed not only with the County Engineer’s office but with the State. The State has to provide them with the final construction permit, they have approved their proposal in concept, not in detail. That is what stimulated the County Commission to approve acting as the body politic for the waste water treatment facility. All of those specific issues associated with discharge and the quality of the water and it’s impact, or lack there of on Huntsville, have been and will continue to be addressed. They feel that they have a solid high quality project, with some specific details that have yet to be developed through their final engineering, and through the remainder of their permitting process. He would encourage this body to consider those remaining steps that have to be taken and recognize that without preliminary approval, it’s difficult for them to carry any of those actions forward.
Vice Chair Cooper stated that he would like to make some comments for the audience’s benefit, when you bring up issues about the Corps. of Engineers, you have to realize that when the Planning Commission makes their motions, they will say, “subject to other agency comments,” that’s the County Engineer, Corps. of Engineers, State Drinking Water, etc. They are the experts and so they rely on their feedback and professional expertise and it’s hard for the Planning Commission to oppose their recommendations, their hands are tied. They don’t have any control over the Corps. of Engineers, if they feel, as commented, that the Corps.’ data was inaccurate, they are going to have to get in touch with their congressmen, because that’s who they work for, they don’t work for the Planning Commission. If you feel that’s in error, that’s the route you need to take.
Vice Chair Cooper said it is the same with the Division of Water Rights. He has had a little experience with their agency and they think there’s enough water in Utah for the earth, they won’t deny a well. You can protest it, and then they have to prove that it will impact the wells, and that’s tough. Because they’ll come out, take a look, they’ll do a pump test, and if it shows fine they may deny, but that’s an avenue you’ll have to take.
Page 40 Approved 2/27/07 Ogden Valley Township November 28, 2006
Vice Chair Cooper said at this time, one of his concerns is that before this body takes this under advisement, is that this is not an issue about this subdivision per say, but it does impact their decision tonight, that the waste water system that is proposed for this development is also proposed for a development they have already given preliminary approval to. He recently read a document today in the Small Flows, a national publication, that talks about waste water that is not centralized. Meaning, it’s not waste water treatment plants, like you have with Central Weber, but it indicates that you have two types of criteria, you can either live on septic tanks (individual ones), or you have to live on centralized sewer systems, or you can go with a treatment system that these gentlemen are talking about across the nation. What they have done is relied on the State of Utah, and the local Health Department, to say that they will or will not work. I would like this document to be copied by staff and distributed to the rest of this body because the Planning people have taken these issues and decided what type of development they want. They are trying to do what the Master Plan says, they are trying to have open space, to keep the rural atmosphere, and so the only way they are really going to do that is with a packaged treatment system. Individual septic tanks will let you sprawl everywhere. A centralized sewer system will allow infrastructure that tears up the valley, and lets you put homes everywhere.
These packaged systems are probably what they want. There is one in Oakley, and we have one proposed at Wolf Creek. He believes they need to see some data on these things because he has seen multi-million dollar drinking water plants that are state of the art, but have problems after they put on line. There’s probably data in the nation, in his opinion, they need to take a close look at these items. When the County decided to become the body politic for these, they didn’t realize they were going to run into these package plants. They thought they might have some large systems like they have at Greenhills. That was before these package plants technology became sound enough to be used in his opinion. Reactively, the County Commission apparently in their June meeting decided to be the body politic, they reserved the right to create an agency to handle these things. Possibly another third party should be the body politic, for example Central Weber Sewer District, they do this day in and day out and they know what they are doing, they are waste water facility. Curtis Christensen has a lot of stuff to do in his office and doesn’t know if he really wants to be in the waste water business. He can’t speak for Curtis or the County Commission. It is just his opinion that an agency like Central Weber should be running it, they have people in trucks, they can monitor these things day in and day out. Having said that it would be his recommendation that they table this item, there are enough issues brought up tonight that this could be tabled for the staff to reply and review the issues that were raised. They are getting larger and larger developments, and they don’t have enough staff to review these in the detail. That aside, until they can evaluate these waste water systems and know how the body politics can manage them, and they can get some data, the item should be tabled and then they can move forward with these package plants.
There was a brief discussion at this time and based on all of the information received, the following motion was made:
MOTION: Commissioner Rounkles made the motion to table the Preliminary Approval of Bison Creek Cluster Subdivision at 8150 E. Hwy 39, 150 Lots, due to the road stubs, the roads into Huntsville Mountain Meadows wasn’t large enough to hold the capacity of that, the problems of using the land that shouldn’t be in the calculations for the cluster development, the wetland delineations, the storm water drainage plan to answer questions of where the water is going to go if they have to start draining the site, does it push off into another neighbor’s yard? If drained, what happens to the water that the neighbors use for farming? The motion was also tabled to have the following issues addressed: 1) the bird and wildlife habitat, any problems with migratory birds that will be affected by all of this, 2) the traffic study, 3) the jurisdiction of whose in charge of this if they take over the sewer part of Weber County, what happens with problems with cost, who pays for it, and to receive more data from the Oakley facility, and 4) to receive more data from the Army Corps. of Engineers, something more than a letter given to them. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Vice Chair Cooper said the motion carried with members present voting aye.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Angela Martin, Secretary Weber County Planning Commission
Page 41 Approved 2/27/07