approved 9/11/07jun 12, 2007 · kary serrano, secretary chair davis moved to lead the pledge of...

Approved 9/11/07

Minutes of the Western Weber County Township Planning Commission, Tuesday, June 12, 2007, held in

the Weber County Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd., commencing at 4:30 p.m.

Members Present:

Jeffrey Davis, Chair

Becky Messerly

Douglas Hansen

Carl Saunders

Wayne Andreotti

Bruce Nilson

Member Excused:

Bruce Ferre

Staff Present:

Chris Allred, Legal Counsel

Scott Mendoza, Planner

Sean Wilkinson, Planner

Justin Morris, Planner

Iris Hennon, Code Enforcement

Kary Serrano, Secretary

Chair Davis moved to lead the Pledge of Allegiance at this time.

Consent Agenda Items

A. Approval of Landscape Amendment to Commercial Site Plan CSP #03-06 for Weber Fire District

Station #66 located at approximately 3641 W. 2200 S

B. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #04-07 Approval of 2700 N. Billboard by Young Electric Sign

Company

C. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #05-07 Approval of Hinkley Dr. Billboards by Young Electric Sign

Company

D. Final Approval of Warren Downs Estates Subdivision Located at Approximately 2702 E 6425 S

E. Final Approval of Cedar Cove Estates Subdivision 1st Amendment Located at Approximately

2850 Bybee Drive

F. Final Approval of Moses Mountain Subdivision 1 Amendment Located at Approximatelyst

2527 E Bonneville Terrace Drive

G. Final Approval of Harms Subdivision at approximately 3940 South 3175 West Plain City Ut

Regular Agenda Items

1. Conditional Use Application CUP # 14-07 by Cindy Barns for a Nail Salon, at approximately

1972 East 6075 South Ogden Utah.

2. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #01-07 by Brad Russell located at approximately

9281 West 900 South for the development of a dog kennel for breeding all breeds of dogs

3. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #06-07 Approval of a Night Watchman’s Dwelling and a Machine

Shop by John Francis Located at 1505 W 3300 S

4. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #07-07 Approval for Pallet Assembly Shop, and Additional Lease

Space Located at Approximately 3284 South 1700 West

5. Final Approval of Meibos Estates Subdivision Located at Approximately 491 S 6700 W

6. Discussion “Concept Presentation” Wilde Meadows Cluster Subdivision

7. Adjourn

Consent Agenda Items

MOTION: Commissioner Hansen made a motion to move Consent Items C & D to the

Regular Agenda. Commissioner Nilson seconded the motion. A vote was taken

and Chair Davis said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.

Chair Davis noted that they need to move Consent Item B to the Regular Agenda because of a

concerned citizen, Ray Ward, who had a problem with this item.

Western Weber County Township June 12, 2007

Approved 9/11/07

MOTION: Commissioner Nilson made a motion to move Consent Item B to the Regular

Agenda. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and

Chair Davis said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.

Chair Davis noted that Consent Item F should be moved to the Regular Agenda because of a

concerned citizen, Danielle Croyle, who had a problem with this item because they had not seen

the final infrastructure with sidewalks or the impact it would have due to increased traffic. Also,

the impact that leads up to the Bonneville Terrace on Karen Drive since there are no sidewalks.

MOTION: Commissioner Hansen made a motion to move Consent Item F to the Regular

Agenda. Commissioner Andreotti seconded the motion. A vote was taken and


A. Approval of Landscape Amendment to Commercial Site Plan CSP #03-06 for Weber Fire

District Station #66 located at approximately 3641 W. 2200 S

Staff presented the following report:

Findings of Fact:

The W eber Fire District is requesting approval of an amended landscape plan for Station #66 located at approximately

3641 W est 2200 South. The original landscape plan was approved on June 13, 2006. The amended landscape plan

reduces the number of trees from 22 to 21 and replaces the shrubs located along the east and south property lines with

grass, but the plan still meets the requirements of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 36 “Design Review”. The

plan was changed to save the Fire District some expense and the landscaping has already been installed according to the

new plan.

Conformance to General Plan:

This amended landscape plan conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements for Chapter 36 “Design Review”

of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance.

Staff Recommendations:

Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments, requirements, and recommendations.

E. Final Approval of Cedar Cove Estates Subdivision 1st Amendment Located at

Approximately 2850 Bybee Drive


The applicant is requesting final approval of Cedar Cove Estates Subdivision 1 Amendment. This subdivision lies withins t

the RE-20 zone which requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet.

The intent of the amendment is to reduce the right of way from 60’ to 50’ along Bybee Dr, 6500 South and 2850 East.

Nine homes are built over the 30’ front yard setback and/or the 20’ side yard setback. This amendment will resolve this

problem for 8 of the homes by narrowing the road width which will expand the lot area and bring the lots back into

conformance.

As currently shown on the proposed plat the utility easements shrink with the right of way. Staff recommends the existing

10’ utility easements along Bybee Dr, 6500 S and 2850 E remain in place but be expanded to create a 15’ easement.


This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements of the RE-20 Zone.

Conditionals for Approval:

1. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber County Engineers Office

2. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber County Fire District

3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber-Morgan Health Department

4. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber County Surveyors Office

5. Requirements and recommendations of the Uintah Highlands Improvement District

6. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber County School District


Staff recommends final approval subject to staff and other agency comments, recommendations and requirements.


Approved 9/11/07

G. Final Approval of Harms Subdivision at approximately 3940 S 3175 W Plain City Ut


Findings of Fact:

The applicant requests approval of the Harms Subdivision located at approximately 3940 South 3175 W est Plain City,

Land Serial number # 19-010-0068, in the area known as Bay View Ranchettes. The proposed subdivision will occupy 2

acres. The Subdivision falls within a Agricultural A-1 zone which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre and a minimum lot

width of 150 feet.

Culinary W ater will be provided by Bona Vista with secondary being supplied by the same company.

W aste W ater Treatment will be provided by septic system.


This lot conforms to the current General Plan which requires the lot to have a minimum of one acre and a minimum lot

width of 150 feet.

Conditions for Approval:

1. Requirements and recommendations of the County Engineers Office.

2. Requirements and recommendations of the County Fire District.

3. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber-Morgan Health Department.


Staff recommends final approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.

MOTION: Commissioner Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of Consent Items

A, E, and G. Commissioner Nilson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and


Regular Agenda Items

B. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #04-07 Approval of 2700 N. Billboard by Young Electric Sign

Company


Findings of Fact:

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a freestanding billboard located at approximately 1543 West and 2700

North. The proposed site is an existing .75 lot (lot 2) in the GL Subdivision that has been previously approved and

developed as a car wash. The lot lies within a Manufacturing-1 (M-1) Zone which lists billboards as a permitted sign,

provided that the following conditions are met:

a. Size - the maximum size of a billboard at any one location shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) sq. ft.

b. Spacing - the m inimum distance between any two billboards adjacent to and facing a freeway or highway shall be five

hundred (500) feet.

c. Freeway Access - the minimum distance between any advertising sign or billboard and the beginning of the pavement

widening for an entrance or exit ramp on a freeway shall be not less than five hundred (500) feet. In addition, billboards

adjacent to freeways shall comply with State of Utah Outdoor Advertising Regulations.

In addition to the above requirements no billboard may be placed on public property or extend over public property. Also,

the billboard shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to any property line or be less than ten (10) feet above the

ground or have a height in excess of fifty (50) feet.

The proposed billboard has two faces each that are 300 sq. ft. (10'x30') in area and have been represented as meeting

the minimum and maximum height requirements. Each face will be illuminated with one (1) 400 watt “Ad View” lamp that

will be shielded and mounted six (6) feet out and three (3) feet below the bottom of each face. These lamps will not

constitute a nuisance on adjoining parcels.

The Weber County Engineer’s Office, W eber-Morgan Health Department, W eber County Building Inspections and the

W eber Fire District have reviewed the proposal and have responded with no concerns.


Conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements for the zone in which it is located as well as the W eber County

Sign Ordinance.


Approved 9/11/07



2. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber Fire District


4. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Building Inspection

5. Requirements of the State of Utah Outdoor Advertising Regulations


Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments

Commissioner Nilson referenced the engineer’s comments, “that it would encroach on the side

and the front setbacks.” He asked if the location of the signs had been modified since this letter

had been issued? Staff replied yes, they faxed the engineers information to the applicant. The

applicant took the information and staked the actual location on the lot. The County engineers

have gone and verified that location.

Commissioner Saunders asked if there were no other billboards in the area? Staff replied there

were no billboards within 500 feet. Our engineers went out today and verified that there were no

other billboards on the south side of 2700 N. Street.

Chair Davis said that it appeared the billboard portion was slightly angled and was double-sided

with advertisement copy on either side. Staff replied that was correct, they had a discussion

regarding how many faces should be allowed on a billboard. They are comfortable with what had

been proposed.

Jerod Johnson, Yellow Electric Sign Co., 2767 Industrial Dr. Ogden, stated he would be able to

answer any questions structurally about the usage of the sign, about the location, and other

billboards in the area. In fact, this sign has far less than the allowable area. There is no high

speed traffic on the surrounding roads like there is on the interstate. With slower speeds, they just

need smaller readable signs. As far as billboards on 2700 N., they have reviewed that stretch of

road from Highway 89 all the way to the interstate. This would be the only legal location allowed

as per state regulations that you would see in the future.

Chair Davis asked if this billboard for advertising would change over time? Mr. Johnson replied

that this was not an on-premise sign, it’s a third-party advertising off-premise sign.

Ray Ward stated that he owned property there and didn’t see any real reason to have an

advertising billboard on that street. It would induce other people to advertise on that billboard.

You could not see the sign from the freeway only on 2700 North, so he doesn’t understand why it

was needed and therefore, he objects to the proposal.

Chair Davis stated in reply to Mr. Ward’s comments, providing that the billboard met the County

ordinances, it was an allowed use there. The way to change that was to have the ordinance

changed. Since the petitioner submitted the application at this time, they are bound legally by the

existing ordinances.

Commissioner Saunders clarified with Mr. Johnson that it was the only legal site between the

freeway and Hwy 89 on that side of the road. Mr. Johnson replied that it was on either side of the

road. The process to obtain billboard permits is regulated by the Federal Government, State

Government, and local municipalities and counties. They would take that application to the state,

with the evidence of the county permit, and apply for a permit from the State of Utah because this

is a state-controlled highway. The state has spacing requirements of 500 feet, they require that

the signs be placed on commercial or industrial properties and not residential, public, or any other

types of zoned properties. The north side of 2700 N. is part of the city of Pleasant View which

prohibits billboards. Once this billboard is in place, there would be no other properties available

that would be outside the 500 ft. spacing.


Approved 9/11/07

In reply to a question by Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Johnson stated that 10 x 30 was the

common smaller size of a billboard that you could see as you travel. Those are typically on

surface streets, not along the interstate.

MOTION: Commissioner Hansen moved to recommend approval of Manufacturing Site Plan

MSP #04-07 for the construction of a billboard located at approximately 1543 W.

2700 N. based on their findings that the proposal meets all agency requirements

and ordinances. The petitioner ‘s application conforms with everything the

petitioner was required to provide to the County. Any other recommendations or

conditions by staff or other agencies would have to be complied with during the

construction of the sign. Commissioner Messerly seconded the motion. A vote

was taken and Chair Davis said the motion carried with all members present

voting aye.

C. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #05-07 Approval of Hinkley Dr. Billboards by Young Electric

Sign Company


Findings of Fact:

The applicant is requesting approval to construct 2 freestanding billboards located at approximately 1650 West and 3100

South, otherwise known as Hinkley Drive. The proposed site is a 7.05 acre undeveloped parcel that lies within a

Manufacturing-1 (M-1) Zone which lists billboards as a permitted sign, provided that the following conditions are met:

a. Size - the maximum size of a billboard at any one location shall not be larger than one thousand (1,000) sq. ft.

b. Spacing - the m inimum distance between any two billboards adjacent to and facing a freeway or highway shall be five

hundred (500) feet.

c. Freeway Access - the minimum distance between any advertising sign or billboard and the beginning of the pavement

widening for an entrance or exit ramp on a freeway shall be not less than five hundred (500) feet. In addition,

billboards adjacent to freeways shall comply with State of Utah Outdoor Advertising Regulations.

In addition to the above requirements no billboard may be placed on public property or extend over public property. Also,

the billboard shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to any property line or be less than ten (10) feet above the

ground or have a height in excess of fifty (50) feet.

Each proposed billboard has two faces each that are 672 sq. ft. (14'x48') in area and have been represented as meeting

the minimum and maximum height requirements. Each face will be illuminated with two (2) 400 watt “Ad View” lamps that

will be shielded and mounted six (6) feet out and three (3) feet below the bottom of each face. These lamps will not

constitute a nuisance on adjoining parcels.

The Weber County Engineer’s Office, W eber-Morgan Health Department, W eber County Building Inspections and the

W eber Fire District have reviewed the proposal and have responded with no concerns.

The Ogden-Hinkley Airport is working with the applicant to ensure no negative impacts to airport operations.


Conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements for the zone in which it is located as well as the W eber County

Sign Ordinance.


1. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber County Engineer’s Office

2. Requirements and recommendations of the W eber Fire District



5. Requirements and recommendations of the Ogden-Hinkley Airport / FAA

6. Requirements of the State of Utah Outdoor Advertising Regulations.


Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Nilson asked that engineering had stronger comments concerning this proposed

billboard as it related to the topography and the base location of the pillar that’s holding it up. Is

staff comfortable that it can be positioned that way? Staff replied that the applicant had staked

these locations and staff has reviewed the site and can say they are comfortable in asking the

applicant to comment on how they would meet the regulations. Having represented that they

could meet those minimum/maximum height requirements, the next phase would be contacting

the building inspection office. If there was a question then, the applicant would have to show how

it could be positioned.

Commissioner Hansen said as he understood it, the soil is sandy in that location. Staff replied

that it appeared from the road to be very sandy. Commissioner Hansen asked if that was stable

enough to hold the size and weight of the sign? Staff replied that in a conversation with the

applicant, he said the buttress or the foundation that they were building had taken that into

account.

Commissioner Hansen stated in looking at the diagram, it looked as if one of those or both of

those signs were where the roadway came up. In this case, on the left, the roadway elevation

was about the same level as the airport itself. He was concerned that the 26 feet sticking up from

that might create a hazard to low flying aircraft that could be a safety concern. He asked if both

signs are on the upper grade of that road or just the west one? Staff replied the eastern most

sign, the land north of the highway itself did not fault nearly as quickly and it falls somewhat in

elevation when you compare the surface of the road. The eastern most sign might be a little bit

higher then that western sign. The western sign had to deal with the height on the downhill side,

working with the maximum height, so that kept it down.

Commissioner Hansen stated that on that eastern one, it looked like the road changed elevation

so the sign on the east might be higher on the road than the one on west, but the elevation in

relationship to the runway and the airport itself may be lower overall than the runway, whereas the

west one would be higher. The concern was that it was two stories sticking up at the edge of the

runway. Staff replied that they were aware of the airport and the potential concerns, which was

they allowed the airport authorities to review this project. In the meeting packets it states that this

approval was subject to the Ogden Airport and FAA approval. The applicant had provided latitude

and longitude coordinates to the airport and they were currently working together.

Jerod Johnson, Yellow Electric Sign Co., 2767 Industrial Dr., Ogden, stated he would address any

concerns that you have specifically about the airport, but to their understanding they have met all

the requirements in the zoning, their heights and areas of the signs. He explained that this was

another site where they have high demand for signage with third party advertising. Because of

Highway Department’s Regulations, you would not see more than two signs on Hinckley Drive

once installed unless an additional commercial business went in to the far west end where it

intersected with 1900 W. The airport couldn’t be used as a commercial business in relationship to

that property. As far as concerns about the airport, he had met with Mr. Rich at the airport. There

are no concerns about the elevation of the signs at this point. There are number of buildings that

are far closer to the runways that are in excess of 30 and 40 feet tall. They are actually on the

airport. The airport created a funnel of restricted airspace, where they didn’t want to have

anything in there without a beacon. At this point that was what they were waiting for the FAA’s

comments as to whether these signs would require a beacon, which would be a small hazard light

to remind pilots and other aircrafts that there would be a new structure there. Mr. Rich had no

concerns about the height of the sign, but he wanted to see their proximity to the glide path to see

and whether they will require a beacon.

Commissioner Saunders asked how far would these proposed signs be from the interstate?

Mr. Johnson replied the proposed location would be from the interstate from the entrances, they’re

in the middle of changing all that now. Give or take a tenth of a mile, they are about a mile from

the interstate.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Saunders asked if the billboards were designed to be seen from the freeway and

was the intent that the exposure would be to Hinckley Drive? Mr. Johnson replied no, they would

not be visible from the interstate. The exposure would be to Hinckley Drive because of the width

of the right of way. They have used a standardized billboard sign, 14 x 48 which is a standard

size billboard that you would see in most divided highway locations. As far as the engineering of

the footing and soil conditions, these particular signs would have site-specific engineering that

would be submitted with their building permit application.

Chair Davis asked Mr. Johnson if they had done a soil test? Mr. Johnson replied that they hadn’t

but the owner had. They are aware of the soil conditions, and that would be provided to the

engineer. It would be either a deep column footing, or it would be a spread footing, spread

meaning, “take up a lot of space so we don’t have any movement or column that reaches down

toward more firm soil.” Sand is actually an excellent substance to put a sign up in, it’s just the

slope that causes the concern.

Commissioner Hansen stated that his concern was making sure that their stability study would be

sufficient to maintain that sign. Mr. Johnson stated that they would be happy to agree to a site

specific for the sandy soils and recommendations from their engineers being drawn out when they

submit the engineering plan.

Gary Kapp, Kapp Construction, 1895 W. 3300 S., Ogden, asked to put back the location for the

two signs. You can see where sign number one, it’s a little triangle shape, that’s right south of the

Kapp Industrial Park. Right along that fence line there’s an 18" pipe irrigation line. The Hansen’s

use the Davis/Weber canal water, and they had a few problems when they developed. It was an

open ditch then, and it broke out several times because of the sandy soil, so they piped it. His

concerns were to make sure that the base of that sign would be considerably far away from that

irrigation pipe. He doesn’t know what the farmers required, but it’s right along that fence line.

The other thing is it’s kind of a no-man’s land, that little triangle, so what kind of landscaping would

be maintained there?

Jerod Johnson, stated that he had not looked at that canal pipe. The footing for this structure

would be in excess of 50 feet from that fence line. If the irrigation line is on the fence line, they

would be aware of that. They weren’t aware of the waterline, but that would be something to take

into consideration. As for the landscaping, there are no requirements currently for landscaping.

They would prefer not to disturb the property, it’s industrial property and is being used already.

Landscaping is not anything that’s been required by the county. What they would prefer to do,

would be to leave it in its natural state. They will have a footing in the ground and access to the

sign, and there won’t be anything noticeably different as far as requirements for improvements on

the property and they have no plans to do that.

MOTION: Commissioner Nilson made a motion to approve Manufacturing Site Plan

MSP #05-07 with conditions of approval listed on the report from staff, Items 1

thru 6, especially with the FAA Approvals. Commissioner Andreotti seconded the

motion.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hansen stated that he trusted the FAA and the Airport to some

degree. Also, Ogden City has not used the airport like it could have been.

There’s opportunity in the future, maybe not with the current administration, but

they might want to expand that. There are potentials in expanding that airport

and if they add additional runway, it would be parallel to the current north/south

end runway it would have to be on the left side. They have already encroached

the potential on the east side. Any expansion in Ogden City with the opportunity if

they’re going to grow, and the airport would be part of that. They would like to

allow the airport opportunity. Their viability has been because they haven’t had

encroachment around the edge of their runways and flight paths. Right now it has

no barriers and keeping it that way would allow a better opportunity for future

expansion and to make it safer for the future for amateur pilots who fly single

engine planes.


Approved 9/11/07

The previous motion was withdrawn at this time.

MOTION:

Commissioner Messerly made a motion to approve Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #05-07 with

conditions of approval listed on the staff, Items 1 thru 6, and to include the placement of the canal

line. Commissioner Andreotti seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the amended motion

and Chair Davis said the motion carried with a voting of 5 to 1.

D. Final Approval of Warren Downs Estates Subdivision Located at Approximately

2702 E 6425 S


The applicant is requesting final approval of W arren Downs Estates Subdivision. This 1 lot subdivision lies within the RE-

20 Zone requiring a minimum lot area of 20,000 sq ft. This subdivision will have access along 6425 S and consist of 5.53

acres.

Curb and gutter are installed but a deferral for sidewalk is being requested. The surrounding area does not have

sidewalk.


This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements of the RE-20 Zone.










Chair Davis asked what was the lot width requirement? Staff replied 100 feet.

Commissioner Nilson asked if for some reason it were not approved, would that change the use of the property and what does this really do? Staff replied it obviously changes the propertydescription, it cleans up the record, and as far as the use based on our research that we’vecompleted, we would still issue a rebuild letter that basically states it is a buildable parcel and inthe event the home would be destroyed for some reason or another. It didn’t really change theuse.

Commissioner Saunders asked what changes have been made to boundaries of the property andwhat the intention to do about the small parcel of land that sticks out to the left? Staff replied wewould not know the difference between the parcel as it stands in section land until a survey andthe plat is completed. Until the applicant’s surveyor and the County Surveyor actually takes a lookat the record deeds, staff won’t know the answer to that question.

Commissioner Saunders asked if the property owners are required to get this survey? Staffreplied that as part of the dedication plat, the subdivision requires a licensed surveyor to prepareit.

Commissioner Hansen said that going through that subdivision process, is that how theboundaries are going to be defined? Are those owners going to come to decision or definition ofthose boundary lines, so until then they are not sure until it’s finalized? Staff replied there may besome very minor adjustments to that. There may be deeds that may be found that will be the finalpiece to the puzzle that would clarify everything.

Chair Davis said that the boundaries to this point have been unclear and this process would clearthem up? Staff replied yes and it’s unclear. This is just a piece of section land, a parent parcel. This is part of a larger parcel and it’s been developed all around it leaving this remnant. Taxationrecords would be fair and accurate based on area and things like that.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Nilson asked if the county asked the property owner to do this or did the propertyowner initiate this one lot subdivision? Staff replied during their research, they could see theirregularities and told the builder of the home, after giving him the information that they had found,and that they thought it was very strange. They could see how they could interpret this to be alegal building up at this point.

Commissioner Nilson asked if there were multiple tax id parcels? Staff replied no, they thought ithad just been one.

Commissioner Saunders asked if there had been proper public notice given regarding thissubdivision and have they received any objections from the adjacent property owners? Staffreplied yes, they had received phone calls.

Commissioner Hansen asked if there were slope concerns on this lot and would it be conducive tomaybe splitting later on for an additional home? Staff replied no, the home is being built in thisarea on a very flat spot. They would have to take a close look at a slope analysis. The petitioner would need to submit a concept plan. To further subdivide they would have to provide morefrontage.

Commissioner Saunders asked Warren Downs, petitioner, what was the projection to the left andwould it be an access to the property? Mr. Downs stated he didn’t know what the function wasthere. It is actually on a steep hillside and there was a lot of poison ivy up there, and he had notgone there to check it out. It is part of a steep hillside that was not used by anyone. There wasnever an easement there and the 2004 survey did not document an easement and at this point itdoesn’t access to anything useful.

Commissioner Saunders asked the petitioner if he had approached the neighbor to the east andthe south regarding the possibility of exchange of the property there that would give him morefrontage? Mr. Downs replied that he had discussed that exchange for about a year. They do nothave a signed document about an exchange and until he gets that, he did not want to say he hadit.

Commissioner Saunders asked if the present survey could be amended to include that so that hewouldn’t have to redo it again later? Mr. Downs replied that he would hope so, unless it wasnecessary for this subdivision, but he would prefer not to make it a part of this because he hadbeen working on this process for approximately eight months.

Commissioner Saunders asked staff if there was some way that could be amended in the future without having to go through the subdivision process? Staff replied that if the subdivision was tochange, that they would need go through the subdivision process to amend those two lots. Theywould be amending Mr. Dunion’s and Mr. Down’s lot.

Commissioner Saunders stated that he knew a law allowing for those modifications to propertylines where it’s not significant. He asked staff to check the code on that because he was thesponsor for the legislation that allowed for minor adjustments in property boundaries. Staff statedthat they would look into the state law and Mr. Allred may be able to help them with that, but as faras he was aware a subdivision would need to be done.

Chris Allred, Legal Counsel, stated that we would be happy to look into that should he come backwith that issue. Mr. Down doesn’t want to be held up any further and he would be willing to goforward now. The county staff is trying to help in the easiest possible way.

Chair Davis stated that at this time we consider the subdivision that’s at hand, and if they want toamend it in the future, they would need to go through the process, and at that time it would bedecided whether it needs to go back through the subdivision process or not.

Commissioner Messerly stated that they asked for deferral of sidewalk so are they going todiscuss that? Commissioner Saunders said that the parcel only had about 60' of frontage, sodoes the sidewalk extend along the other frontage on that road?


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen stated that they needed to ask staff to see if the adjoining properties havesidewalk along their frontage. Staff replied that to their understanding, there’s curb and gutter, butno sidewalk.

MOTION: Commissioner Nilson made a motion for final approval of the Warren DownsEstates Subdivision located at approximately 2702 E 6425 S with the conditionsof approval recommended in the staff report as listed above and to include thedeferral of the sidewalk being installed now. Commissioner Hansen secondedthe motion. A vote was taken and Chair Davis said the motion carried with allmembers present voting aye.

F. Final Approval of Moses Mountain Subdivision 1 Amendment Located at Approximately st

2527 E Bonneville Terrace Drive


Findings of Fact:

The applicant is requesting final approval of Moses Mountain Subdivision 1 Amendment. This 2 lot subdivision lies withins t

the RE-15 Zone requiring a minimum lot area of 15,000 sq ft. The intent of this amendment is to adjust the interior lot line

between the two lots and to remove the “R” designation from lot 1.

This adjustment will reduce the area of lot 1 and increase the area of lot 2. The applicant owns both lots with his home

being on lot 2. Lot 1 was previously an “R” lot but has been redesigned to include a buildable area of 75’ x 100’ with an

average slope of 24.5% which is 0.5% less than the maximum allowed as required by the Hillside Review Ordinance

(36b).


This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements of there RE-15 Zone.










Commissioner Hansen clarified that this was a two-lot subdivision to begin with and they are notdividing the lot? Staff replied that they are just rearranging the lot line and shuffling theboundaries and turning a R-lot into a visible area lot.

Commissioner Messerly said the engineer’s letter indicates that there is a steep driveway and that the driveway grade cannot exceed 15%, the current grade has a portion that is 18%. Has thatbeen addressed? Staff replied that they were not sure it had been completely addressed, but thisapproval would be contingent upon the applicant meeting the engineer’s requirement.

Chair Davis said if they subdivided the buildable areas more on the middle of the site, thedriveway issue without a proposed building on the site or proposed driveway, is there anyconcern? If that driveway was not feasible, then would it become an unbuildable lot? Staff repliedthat he was sure if something could be worked out with grades to make it 15%.

Elliott Moses, petitioner, addressed some of the questions that were mentioned. The reason thatthey are moving the internal lot line was that the lot was difficult to sell the way it currently existsas a restricted lot. The current Lot 1 was about 1.575 acres, and they are trimming it down to 1.10acres, this was added to the second lot as buffer land. The trimmed portion was generally of avery steep nature, it would not affect the existing dwelling and it would trim away the buffer zoneof the Lot 1. About the driveway issue, a driveway does not exist, there is an access path thatexisted prior to when he purchased the property. The only thing changed was he put someconstruction grade on it, so it wouldn’t lose trucks off the edge of it. He added some rock in thatarea to stabilize certain areas because the area where the existing lot line is, had a very steepembankment. He had areas that were engineered and they had rocks locked in with concrete onLot 2 to address the problem. There were a few feet where it hit an 18% slope based on the


Approved 9/11/07

topography. So when the planners objected to the shape that they had because it was anirregular shape of more than 7,500 sq. ft., they went back and readdressed the designatedbuildable area to a specific 75 x 100 area. To make sure that it remained 30 feet from the internalsubdivision boundary, it shifted to the north a little bit and took care of the 18% slope. This is avery marginal R-Lot and by continually moving around the buildable area, they keep coming upwith something that’s under the requirement of 25% to make it an R Lot.

Chair Davis stated that it appeared that it was feasible even though there maybe an existing 18%slope on part of that pathway, there are various solutions to solve that.

Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Moses where the access is to Lot 1. In looking at Lot 2 on thelower left it looks like from Karen Drive, there is a roadway splitting Lot 2 and going up toward Lot 1. Would that be where the access will be or would it come off of Bonneville Drive? Mr. Mosesreplied the access has 300 feet on Bonneville Terrace which is 300% of the code. The accesscould be anywhere along there. The current cut that’s there, the way it’s always been, comesfrom the northeast corner, heads almost due south into the northeast corner of the buildable lot. Commissioner Hansen asked if that was a concern as far as slope on that access to it? Staffreplied that if that was a proposed driveway, it couldn’t exceed 15% and it looked like a portiondid, so the engineers stated that a feasibility study would have to be shown.

Chair Davis stated that as we open it up to public comment, there was a lady who spoke earlierthat resulted in removal of this item from the consent agenda, however, she has left. Mr. Mosesstated that was a neighbor across the street from Lot 2, she’s an Ogden City Police Officer,Danielle Pierce, and he had a discussion with her outside the chambers, and most of herquestions were regarding the 7-lot subdivision to the north. A particular concern was the speedand added traffic coming down the street. Since he was on Lot 2, their driveways face each other,and he shared her concerns because he has two small children, where she has four.

Commissioner Messerly stated there was no letter from the Fire District and there was concernfrom the Engineer that the Fire District may have additional requirements because of thesteepness of the driveway. So when they make their motion, one of their requirements should bethat they are required to have a letter from the Weber County Fire District.

MOTION: Commissioner Andreotti moved to recommend to the County Commission that final approval is given to Moses Mountain Subdivision 1 Amendment, located atst

approximately 2527 E Bonneville Terrace Drive, subject to staff and other agencyrecommendations and requirements. Commissioner Hansen seconded themotion. A vote was taken and Chair Davis said the motion carried with allmembers present voting aye.

1. Conditional Use Application CUP # 14-07 by Cindy Barns for a Nail Salon at Approximately

1972 E 6075 S Ogden Utah


Findings of Fact:

The applicant requests approval of a nail Salon, located at approximately 1972 East 6075 South, Land Serial number #

07-142-0006. The proposed nail salon will be operating on Monday through Saturday from 10:00 am to 7:00pm 12:00pm.

This location falls within a Residential Estates RE-15 zone. This is a this is a Home Occupation with visiting Clientele.

Home Occupations with visiting Clientele shall be permitted only when authorized by a Conditional Use as provided in

Chapter 22C of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance. All requirements regarding access and parking have been met




3. Requirements and recommendations of the Health Department.

4. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Attorneys Office.

5. A business License must be obtained and maintained.


Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.

Staff indicated that there had been concerns and that they have received three written notices and

a couple of phone calls. Staff addressed some of those concerns with the board.


Approved 9/11/07

A. Homeowner’s Association the CC&R’s:

The Weber County does not conform to the Homeowner’s Association. If you have a

subdivision, if you have a group of citizens that get together and form a Homeowner’s

Association and have CCNR’s that are tied to the properties, and if they all agree to

placing that on the deed, this would be something that the association would enforce, and

not something Weber County would pursue. That had been a concern for some of the

residents in the area.

B. Owner of the Property:

Mrs. Mary Bannington, the actual property owner was renting rooms. She does rent out

to relatives, whether they are distant relatives or close relatives, staff doesn’t know. When

they talked to the homeowners about this when they received complaints, and the owner

tells them that it is relative living there, that’s when staff’s objection stops. They are not

the bedroom police, if they are being told that they’re relatives living there, staff is not

concerned.

C. Landscaping:

Staff had a conversation with Mrs. Barnes about some of the trees in the backyard that

are dying, they are poplar trees that last for about 10-15 years and they start dying off.

The homeowner has received two bids and is waiting for the third bid to come in to take

care of that issue.

D. Lawn (Front and Back Yard)

The lawn is fairly non-existent, it’s mostly dead or it’s weedy. In looking at a picture taken

today, it shows some of the dead poplar trees. They have been working on the sprinkler

system. One thing that they would like to see in the conditional use requirements is that

the yard would be maintained.

E. Parking:

There was a suggestion that there was a lot of parking all over the place. Because they

had received communications from some of the concerned residents in the area, staff had

gone over to take some pictures of what they could find. They found that the parking is on

the side of the house, there’s an area that’s cleared for the clients to come and park.

There were two vehicles there, and a truck that was on the side. Staff presented some

aerial photographs that were taken on different days at different times where you can see,

there is nothing in front and nothing on the side.

Chair Davis asked what is the parking requirement? Staff replied that they are required to have

parking available for the client.

Chair Davis asked staff to clarify the requirements regarding the covenants with the Homeowner’s

Association. The CC&R’s are not regulated by the county. They are reviewing this under the

premise of the County Ordinances and not under the premise of the covenants that may be in

place. Staff added that would be an issue for the Homeowner’s Association to take other

remedies if they so desired. They wouldn’t go through the county.

Commissioner Saunders said that staff mentioned earlier that the applicant is not the owner of the

home? Staff replied that she is not, she is a distant relative. Because this is a single family

dwelling, that would be allowable under our zoning and codes. Commissioner Saunders asked if

she would be renting this space? Staff replied that she is renting and pays Mrs. Banning every

month for residency and that would be allowed.

Commissioner Hansen stated that it looks like there is going to be only one client at a time and

that was why you have only one parking place, so a schedule would never include a double up so

there wouldn’t be a requirement for additional parking. Staff replied if she did have two clients,

then they would require that she also be allowed to park in the parking area.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen stated as part of conditional use there would be one client, one parking lot

and if that were ever to change, then she would have to apply for a change. Staff replied

absolutely and in the area there were other home occupations with visiting clientele. There were

three day care facilities that have parents picking up and dropping off kids, and also there are

other home occupations in the area with visiting clientele.

Commissioner Nilson asked if they have covenants recorded that would go against it? Staff

replied that they do.

Commissioner Nilson stated that he had to go to a meeting. For the record, anytime that they as a

commission go against a recorded document, it seems to be contrary. They should have some

type of where they are placed on notice, that was going directly against any kind of covenants and

conditions recorded against that subdivision, we should deny that.

Commissioner Nilson was excused at this time.

Commissioner Hansen asked the petitioner if she only would have one client at a time, and if so

would she only accommodate the one parking space or would she allow them to double up? Also

is Ms. Barnes aware that if that number increased, then she would have to come in for additional

approvals? Ms. Barnes replied yes, that was correct.

Kerry Tovan, 2064 E. 6075 S., stated that he would be against the proposal and he also had

pictures of the house and agreed with staff. He stated that the yard has been in extreme

disrepair, the landscape has been nonexistent, the watering, mowing, and weeding doesn’t take

place, and it tends to bring the other property values of the neighborhood down. He was also

concerned with the poplar trees in the back. There are several other neighbors that felt the same

way that he did, that if it were granted, that a condition should be that the yard is cleaned up.

Al George, 1915 E. 5075 S., stated that he agreed with Mr. Tovan and he definitely agreed with

what Commissioner Nilson said.

Kathy Stewart, 1918 E. 6075 S., stated that she agreed with the neighbors that have spoken and

she concurred and was concerned that there was a homeowner and she was renting to other

people. She didn’t know that they are relatives and if there was more than one person in the

home that would be doing nails.

Linda Carter, 1952 E. 6075 S., stated that she was within reach of the poplar trees. Her concern

was that there seemed to be a mobile going on at that household and there always seemed to be

differences in people. When they moved into that area, they were some of the first people on that

street. They had to do the things required to stay within the covenants of that land. That’s why

they moved there and why they have stayed there. Suddenly, they have three homes in a row

where the owners could care less about covenants or could care less about upkeep and care.

They are drawing down the property value. Why have covenants, what would be the reason for

covenants because of how these people are treating their homes now. It makes it difficult for the

rest of them who are keeping up their property value which they have worked for many years to

solidify.

Commissioner Saunders asked if there are others renting in the house besides Cindy Barnes?

Staff replied there are other people that are in the home besides Mrs. Banning who actually owns

the home and Cindy does reside at that house too. She would be the only person that would be

doing the nails, she’s the only person that is certified, it’s her business. They are making efforts to

take care of those poplar trees, which they themselves consider a hazard, and they are working

on the sprinkler system because the yard had not been maintained and we could ask that the yard

be maintained. In order for Ms. Barnes to have her client come to her house, she would have to

have a presentable place.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Saunders asked if it would it be intended that the salon is inside her own living

quarters? Staff replied that they don’t have their own living quarters, it’s a house and they have

their bedroom but they share the other common areas. They are going to set this up in a room

that is less than 400 sq. ft. which is allowable under the code.

Chair Davis clarified that there would be one dedicated room that’s only used for the nail salon

and it all falls within the county ordinances? Staff replied they will be using it just for the nails and

it falls within the county ordinances.

Commissioner Hansen stated there are several concerns obviously addressed by the public. A lot

of it was dealing with the landscape or the condition of the yard and so forth and the covenants.

The county should not be dictating or dealing with covenants of the homeowner’s association. The

Planning Commission’s business is dealing with the issue at hand, and that’s approval or

disapproval of the Conditional Use Permit. The petitioner has complied with everything that the

county has asked to do for a business like this in a own home.

Chair Davis asked Legal Counsel for clarification, as a county if they approve something that goes

against another covenants would they have repercussions. Chris Allred replied no, but that there

is no guarantee to the applicant either that the homeowner’s association or homeowners within

that subdivision may not proceed to enforce their rights under those covenants. The applicant

should be aware that the County wouldn’t be in the middle of that. That could certainly happen

independent of what happens here and that may ultimately prevent them from operating within the

restrictions of their covenants.

Commissioner Saunders stated that it has been stated that there are already many other

homeowner occupied businesses within that area. How many are there and what type are they?

Commissioner Hansen stated that he didn’t know, once the violations in, how can they exclude

this one now, since the homeowner’s association had not dealt with the others and this was just

one of many. If this had been the first one or the only one, he could see the situation, but that’s

the homeowner’s association problem to deal with.

Chair Davis stated that he remembered in the staff report that there was a day care. Staff replied

yes, there is a day care in the immediate vicinity. Actually there are three day cares that are in

that area. There are two women that do other peoples hair in their basement. There are other

similar type home occupations with visiting clientele. There are two or three internet businesses.

There is a gentleman who has a bookkeeping business and he has his clients come during tax

time.

Commissioner Saunders asked if these individuals are in violations of the covenants?

Chris Allred stated that they need to be careful not to make that statement. They are not going to

offer that opinion whether they are in violation of their covenants. They don’t read them and those

are agreements between, those are agreements between private parties. We’re not going to offer

opinions as to whether they’re in violation. It’s been alleged that they are, they may well be, but

we don’t read them and we don’t make that determination.

Staff stated that they have gotten conditional uses for their businesses and they have been

approved.

Chair Davis stated that we just need to look at this as the county ordinances and we can approve

that, if there are concerns with the covenants, that’s up to the homeowner’s to pursue that with

those homeowner’s businesses. It seems that it is appropriate as staff has indicated to request

that the trees and the yard come into compliance with maintenance issues.

Commissioner Hansen stated that it had been stated that anybody that is running a business

ought to have something that looks good that clientele would come to. Would assume that this

lady would make sure that the surrounding area would look presentable that people would like to

come there.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Andreotti stated that our job sitting here to look at this without a lot of emotion and

to make sure that the request meets with county codes and regulations. From our aspect, that’s

all that we’re looking at. The covenants are over at this end and we’re operating from this end and

we’re not the police for your covenants. Homeowner’s Association are the body that takes care of

those. Our decision is basically does this request meet the zoning and regulations for Weber

County.

Commissioner Saunders do we have the right to impose restrictions regarding the appearance of

the place and so forth. Chris Allred replied to some degree you do. This is a conditional use

permit, so you do have some ability if you’re going to grant some additional use there, to consider

what impact that additional use might have on neighbors.

Chair Davis stated that when we entertain conditional uses on other or even new projects, we’re

very much regulating and looking at landscaping and their appearance. Chris Allred stated that if

they don’t comply with those additional restrictions, they could be brought back and the conditional

use could be revoked.

MOTION: Commissioner Hansen moved to approve Conditional Use Application CUP #

14-07 by Cindy Barns for a Nail Salon at approximately 1972 E 6075 S Ogden

Utah with the conditions that there be one operator, one clientele at a time, and

that the appearance of the area where the clientele would be safe and well

maintained. That any hazards would be eliminated subject to any staff and other

agencies recommendations or concerns. Commissioner Andreotti seconded the

motion. A vote was taken and Chair Davis said the motion carried with a voting of

5 to 1.

2. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #01-07 by Brad Russell Located at Approximately

9281 West 900 South for the Development of a Dog Kennel for Breeding All Breeds of Dog


Findings of Fact:

The petitioner, Mr. Brad Russell, is requesting Site Plan Approval to develop a Dog Kennel for the keeping and breeding

of all breeds of dogs. The property falls within a Manufacturing M-3 zone which list Dog kennels as a permitted use. Mr.

Russell is requesting to maintain up to forty dogs above the age of four months and the amount of dogs under the age of

four months is to vary depending on how many females are bred at any one time.

Kennel and Dog Area Specifications:

There are three sizes of dog houses, (7) 8'x6', (12) 4'x6', and (1) 5'x16'. Each dog run includes a 16' concrete slab with a

16' gravel area for the dog run. Each dog run is fenced. There is also a dog run outside of main Kennel to be used by

guard dogs.

Landscaping:

The site plan shows 11 (5) Gallon bushes, which will grow to 7' in height and 7' wide. They will be spaced at 12 ft. intervals

on the northwest side of the property. Cobble rock on all four sides of the kennel and the driveway.

Parking: The petitioner’s site plan shows two parking spaces, which is adequate.

Storm W ater Pollution Plan:

The Weber County Engineer has approved a Storm W ater Pollution Prevention plan for the entire site requiring the

applicant to build dikes whereas necessary to contain the storm water run off. The dog run areas have many low spots

and are not level which will trap water and waste run off, for proper drainage, these areas need to be leveled and have

pea gravel disbursed and be maintained before dogs may use 90' run.

W eber County Animal Control’s Com ments:

Animal control’s requirements regarding this site plan have been met and they are recommencing no more than thirty (30)

dogs for a period of not less than six (6) months to be reviewed at the end of the six (6) month probation period to be

reved by animal Control. Dog comfort and breading methods, kennel cleanliness and adequate medical record keeping.

They are also requesting frequent site inspection visits for at least a one-year period.

W eber Fire District Concerns:

30' strip of mowed grasses around the perimeter, is required to meet Fire Code.


Approved 9/11/07


1. Site Plan requirements as listed in this staff report

2. Limiting the number of dogs to 30 for first 6 months to be reviewed after the probation period.

3. The entire dog run from the concrete area is to have a pea-gravel surface due to sanitary and drainage

concerns which at this time is the 16' run.

4. The Weber County Engineer’s Storm W ater Pollution Prevention Plan in place.

5. W eber Fire District requirements which includes a detailed weed prevention plan, and removal of all weeds in

and around the Kennel.

6. W eber County Building Inspection requirements.

7. W eber County Health Department requirements which outlines the conditions for waste removal.

8. W eber County Animal Control requirements.

9. A business license must be obtained and maintained before final occupancy

10. Financial guarantee for deferral of curb and gutter.

Staff Recommendations:Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.

Commissioner Hansen asked staff that previously, going to April, we did have a list of 13 things

that he was suppose to accomplish and have been completed. One of those was a plan, and from

what’s gathered that you submitted to us, that this is the plan. Staff replied that this diagram is the

basic plan. There are also a couple of written sentences to comply with the written plans that you

had requested and we do have those on file. That addresses the storm area, the rodent and

control, and one other issue. Another issue that was addressed of Mr. Russell, this area will be

used for storage and this area will house the generator and will also act as storage. He has tried

very hard to meet with what has been asked of him and he’s there.

Commissioner Hansen asked that on the plan he was to limit the breed of dogs and the number of

dogs. Staff replied no, we were asking the question should he limit the type of dogs and the

number of dogs because of the houses and the dog area outside for his guard dogs. Animal

Control has written and commended 30 dogs. They are also requesting that he be put on a

probationary period for not less than six months where they can keep an eye and make sure that

Mr. Russell has set in motion in his plan is being taken of. When Mr. Russell is ready, and his

funds allow him, he has to to come back to request either more dogs or when his plan is totally

complete. Outside of his kennel, he has a dumpster that would remove the waste once a week

and in the summer if the smell becomes a nuisance, he maybe required to have it removed more

often.

Commissioner Hansen asked it Mr. Russell had a written plan and was it available? Staff replied

that on here was his Rodent Plan, and that his plans are on different pieces of paper. He did give

us a complete folder with his business plan and his idea set forth and Mr. Gentry has that, but we

have copies and other pieces and that’s all here and so he does have a written plan.

Commissioner Hansen stated the building inspector had requirements and have they approved

what those things are? Staff replied that right now the building is not required because he’s not

putting the electricity because he doesn’t have to heat the kennels.

Commissioner Hansen asked how about the plumbing part and is it in writing? Staff replied that

the plumbing requirements have been met and it’s up to code and the Plans Checker has

reviewed and okayed that and we have the notice that it’s been approved.

Commissioner Hansen asked the Weber County Animal Control had some big issues and is there

something from their office that states that he is in compliance. Staff replied they did and we do

have that. Mr. Wells and myself went out there today and we went through everything and we do

have that in writing.

Commissioner Hansen asked does he have a business license yet? Staff replied that he can’t get

that until you give him approval. He has paid his money, the application is in, and he is waiting to

get his approval or not.

Commissioner Hansen asked another condition was the financial guarantee, has that been

accomplished? Staff replied that he does have that on file for the deferral.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen asked that he noticed the trailer had been removed and most of the junk,

has all that been completed? Staff replied that it had.

Commissioner Messerly asked does this give the dogs enough room to exercise? Staff replied

yes they do because this is quite a long run and is sufficient for the dogs to get out and stretch

and to run around. Mr. Russell does have this additional area that he is required to keep mowed

down with the weeds.

Commissioner Messerly asked are we going to have restrictions on what types of dogs he could

have? Staff replied that was a question that we posed to the Commission and we have not had

an answer from you.

Chris Allred asked wouldn’t that be better left for Animal Control in the first place. Staff replied

that Animal Control are okay with it as long as the Commission is okay with it.

Commissioner Messerly stated that you had some concerns with some big more aggressive dogs

and some tiny dogs at one time. Staff replied that was her and Mr. Wells’ concern that the smaller

dogs aren’t put with the larger dogs and that they were kept separated. In the plan it does show

that they are kept separated. Another concern was if he’s breeding more “aggressive type” dogs

like rottweiler’s, would there be sufficient people to buy these types of dogs. Those issues have

been addressed with Mr. Russell and that is up to Animal Control.

Commissioner Hansen stated that last time we had a definite discussion on what needed to be

required and we didn’t want him to come back nearly completed, or nearly through, he had to be

completed. That was our request and that was the condition that we’re striving for. As long as we

have the paperwork and the approvals that we’ve requested from these other agencies, he must

be in compliant. Staff replied that one thing that we do want to strive and one thing that we do

want to reiterate and make sure and this does come from Animal Control was that we do frequent

visits on a regular basis to the kennel. That they will not be regulated by Mr. Russell, that they be

regulated Animal Control and that they will just show up at their leisure and do on-site visits.

Commissioner Hansen stated so what we’re going to do is have a very high intensive monitoring

of this to make sure that compliance occurs. These things could get out of compliance if they’re

not watched, such as waste water, the waste, drainage, and all those other things that can occur.

Are you going to put them on a probationary period so you can monitor it anytime, have random

visits to make sure that compliance does occur. Do you have a time frame on that? Staff replied

with discussions with Animal Control they thought at least the first six months and then if

Mr. Russell slides, then we come back to you to ask to permanently revoke his site plan.

Commissioner Hansen asked staff would you for our benefit, let us know about the business

license, when he begins operation just a notation, and then six months later we would like to have

a report back from you on the compliance one way or another. Staff replied that also with Animal

Control and myself, that we would go out on a period basis and do inspections and write up a

report to make it available to the Commission.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the feed back would be good because we’ll realize if

compliance is happening or not and Animal Control out to come with you and we could get the

reports from both of you.

Brad Russell, 2514 S. 3850 W. Taylor UT, Petitioner, had no questions.

Commissioner Andreotti asked Mr. Russell on the number of dogs, 30 for the first six months,

would you be ok with that number. Mr. Russell replied yes, and he didn’t think it would get that

high because of financial reasons, and 30 would be just fine.

Commissioner Hansen stated what our decision is going to be on the site plan is on the limited

area, outlined in color there, and not the rest of it. If he’s going to use the rest of it, other then

what we’ve discussed, that requires an amendment to the site plan. Just so Mr. Russell know,


Approved 9/11/07

you could develop the rest of that, just not use it, so if you want to add pea gravel on that area

down, then you get into preparation for, when the amendment comes in, you’re ready instead of

getting the amendment and then doing. You can make your improvements ahead of time, and

then come in with the amendment.

Commissioner Messerly asked could she request that we go longer then the six-month probation,

because she wanted to go through cold wet months, make it at least eight months at least. Chair

Davis stated that maybe six months of regular inspections. If everything is in compliance, in a

year they could get a report.

MOTION: Commissioner Messerly moved to recommend approval for Manufacturing Site

Plan MSP #01-07 by Brad Russell located at Approximately 9281 West 900

South for the Development of a Dog Kennel for Breeding All Breeds of Dog

meeting the conditions as outlined before and a Probation Period of 8 months

with a report and a report at the end of a year to see where we’re at.

Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Chair Davis

said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.

3. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #06-07 Approval of a Night Watchman’s Dwelling and a

Machine Shop by John Francis Located at 1505 W 3300 S


Findings of Fact:

The applicant is requesting site plan approval for MSP #06-07. The applicant wishes to use the existing home as a

dwelling unit for night watchman or guard and family and use the attached garage as a machine shop. Both the night

watchman and machine shop uses are permitted uses in the M-1 zone.

The previous use for this parcel was a non-conforming residential lot. A rebuild letter from the Weber County Planning

Office, during the sale of the home, determ ined that the current residential use was in violation to the Zoning Ordinance.

The home was built in 1969 on about 20 acres and was subsequently subdivide to which left the home on its current size

of 0.41 acres in 1971. The m inimum acreage required for a home in the M-1 zone is 5 acres.

The proposed site plan complies with Chapter 21 (M-1) and 36 (Design Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 24

(Parking) does not address the number of required parking spaces for the proposed use. The proposed use is sim ilar and

compatible to those uses that are in the vicinity of this property.


This proposal conforms to the General Plan’s Goals & Objectives by meeting the requirements of applicable chapters in

the Zoning Ordinance:

1. Meets the requirements of Chapter 21 - Manufacturing Zone M-1

2. Meets the requirements of Chapter 36 - Design Review


Chapter 24 (Parking) does not address the required number of parking stalls required. Are two stalls enough for the

proposed use?




3. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Fire Department

4. Requirements and recommendations of the Weber County Health Department


Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments and recommendations.

Commissioner Hansen asked staff now we’re looking on this resident on a half an acre and it use

to be 20 acres and slowly been partial down to this size? Staff replied that at one time it was 20

acres and then someone deeded off to the current half acre which was below what the zoning

required.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen asked so this is not in compliant to the zoning requirement as a residential

use, but now we’re going to have a night watchman residing there so it is still a resident? Staff

replied that it is a resident but it’s a night watchman’s dwelling for the machine shop. Both are

permitted uses.

Chair Davis asked if the machinist and night watchman one and the same? Staff replied yes.

Chair Davis asked they’re not able to sell the home as a residence because it’s nonconforming, is

that correct? Staff replied from what he understood, the lender could not rebuild as a resident.

Commissioner Saunders asked if the machine shop going to expanded from the garage to a

regular larger building? Staff replied that the petitioner is going to use it like for now until he is

financially able to and then at one time he will come back for a site plan review and put a garage

somewhere there for his machine shop.

Commissioner Hansen stated at that time when he changes the use, then he will come back with

another site plan and we’ll have to approve that. Staff replied the use would be the same but he

would be just amending his site plan.

John Francis, 5711 S. 2700 W., Roy stated that there’s a little bit of a problem here with financing

because of the fact that this letter of “No Rebuild Notice.” The people that actually owned the

house, had come across this numerous times because of the fact that there is not a lending

institution across the country that’s going to lend any money towards that home because of this

notice. So what he was here for initially, was to find some clarity in this so he could take this to a

mortgage company and have them recognize it, that yes this house could be rebuild.

Chris Allred stated that he didn’t think Mr. Francis would be able to have a “Rebuild Letter” for a

residence, from what he understood of this property, until such time that you’ve complied with the

minimum zoning in that area for residence. Didn’t know what your opportunities were to purchase

additional property or how far removed you were from that, or if you were close enough to get a

variance, but those are the type of things, that he could see from his initial brief look at the

circumstances surrounding your property.

Staff stated that as long as there is a manufacturing use on this property, and it looks as that this

is approved, a letter could be written that as long the manufacturing use is maintained on there,

the home could be rebuilt because it’s not on a single family residence.

Chair Davis stated that it could be rebuilt as the conforming uses that would already be on the

site.

Commissioner Andreotti stated that it could be like the office or something.

Chris Allred stated as far as he knew, he would have to look exactly what the application is, but if

you’re asking for a permitted use and there are no other violations, don’t know why such a letter

wouldn’t be issued, but it wouldn’t be for a single family residence because that would not be

permitted on the acreage he currently has.

Commissioner Hansen stated so he could only improve just what they’re asking for now, is a night

watchman residence and machine shop. Would it be possible to do that. Chris Allred replied

possibly but then again, that itself is not before, so you would need to talk to staff about that.

Commissioner Messerly asked if we had any restrictions on parking for this type of manufacturing,

would he need so many spaces? Staff replied that there isn’t, he had looked through the Parking

Chapter and it doesn’t address a machine shop.


Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen asked you have a machine shop, what is the purpose and would you have

clientele visiting there? Mr. Francis replied yes there would be some clientele at one time or

another. It’s a double car garage, and the side on the north side of the driveway would be for the

resident and access to the garage on the right hand side and there’s quite a bit of parking there in

a sense of concrete, it’s about as long as 60 feet, and across the end is about 25-30 feet.

Commissioner Hansen asked what type of work would you be doing in the machine shop?

Mr. Francis replied that it’s going to be hydraulics home repair for various types of machinery, not

any thing specific.

Kevin Holmes, 803 S. 1900 W., stated that it was actually his grandmother’s house and he takes

care of the property now. The driveway is really long, it tapers but it’s an extensive driveway. At

times there have been boats and other vehicles parked on the side. There is additional parking

that could be had if he needed. Without being able to sell it as a residence, this is a good use for

it.

MOTION: Commissioner Saunders moved to approve Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #06-07

Approval of a Night Watchman’s Dwelling and a Machine Shop by John Francis

located at 1505 W 3300 S subject to staff and other agencies recommendations

and approvals. Commissioner Andreotti seconded the motion. A vote was taken

and Chair Davis said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.

4. Manufacturing Site Plan MSP #07-07 Approval for Pallet Assembly Shop, and Additional

Lease Space Located at Approximately 3284 S 1700 W


Findings of Fact:

The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a Pallet Assembly shop and additional lease

space, located at approximately 3284 South 1700 West, # 15-301-0001. This project lies in a

manufacturing (M-1) Zone and meets the set back and frontage requirements for the M-1 Zone.

The footprint of the Pallet Assembly Shop is approximately 5,000 square feet and will be located

on the east side of the property facing 3300 South. The site design will meet the requirements in

Chapter 36 (Design Review) of the Weber County Zoning Ordinance. There will be additional

requirements for this project as this area is in the Ogden City Annexation belt. The sewer line is an

Ogden City line and annexation will be required prior to hook up; therefore, Ogden City will require

the street front areas to be landscaped with plant material.

Questions to ask:

There are five parking stalls shown in the site plan, is this enough in view of the proposed future

development.




3. Requirements and recommendations of the Health Department.

4. Requirements and recommendations from Ogden City


Staff recommends final approval subject to staff and other agency comments and

recommendations.

Commissioner Hansen asked staff once they hook up to the Ogden City Sewer, they will be

annexed into Ogden? Staff replied that once the project is completed and they hook up to that

sewer, then they will have to meet all the requirements of the annexation and be annexed into

Ogden City.


Approved 9/11/07

Chair Davis asked if that was a requirement of Ogden City that anybody that hooks up to their

sewer has to be a part of their city? Staff replied it is their requirement and they do enforce it.

Commissioner Hansen asked is that the same with your businesses that we’ve talked about,

there’s storage and some other things that we’ve discussed, those two would be annexed in as

soon as they hook up. Staff replied they would be annexed in, so we’ll lose them.

Commissioner Saunders asked if they are going to assembling pallets, are there going to be a lot

of trucking in and out and is there sufficient turnaround space and so forth? Staff replied that

there will be trucking in and out and there will sufficient space for turnaround. The question about

the five parking stalls has been addressed. They are going to have the five parking spots to begin

with when they do the pallet assembly and when they do the additional for the lease base, then

they will have additional parking for employees and business visitors, so it will be there.

Commissioner Andreotti asked where is the loading area here to ship the pallets out? Staff

replied as she indicated on the map, they would come in through here and go out through there.

The applicant is here so he should be able to clarify it.

Grant Dorney, 2520 N. 2125 W., Farr West, stated that basically the loading area would be in this

area here. In the design review, that size there meets the requirements for a loading area which

is 10 x 25 and that area is larger than that. He works full time at Pepsi and Pepsi Bottling was his

only customer. He personally delivered those pallets which are on a small flat bed truck with a

trailer. Occasionally a Semi might deliver lumber, but other than that, that’s his only customer.

For right now, as far as the loading requirements, that’s what this area was designated for. As for

employee parking and things like that, there is one full time employee that kind of runs it, and

other part time helpers. As for the parking requirement for his space, it was two stalls for every

three employees. There are five stalls across here and we added an additional five more stalls if

required for renters. There is room to increase parking or whatever requirements would be

needed for them.

Commissioner Hansen asked so your facility is on the right, and then you’re going to lease out the

space on the left? Mr. Dorney replied no, technically what he’s proposing right now, this area

would be the current development and this area here for future development. His proposal at this

time to get approval for this development on this half.

Mr. Dorney stated that he had some questions since he didn’t know that on the Ogden City

Annexation. He knew that he would have to annex in, and what he was trying to do was to

proceed with this to get a building permit. He knew he had to meet Ogden City Requirements,

they said they were changing it to M-2 Zoning and that would have less restrictions, with less set-

backs. He didn’t know at this meeting, on how to proceed so he could develop.

Chair Davis stated how you would have to proceed to develop now, is that you have to the

ordinances for Weber County in order to get approval and naturally you would want to look at the

requirements for Ogden City and make sure those requirements. Mr. Dorney replied so as far as

when he annexed in, he would need to contact Ogden City and the landscaping is the only thing

that is not in compliance. Staff responded that their issue was the landscaping when she met with

Ogden City, when we sat down and looked at this, all they could see for this was that they needed

additional landscaping, but other then that, they met their requirements.

Chair Davis asked would that be the owner’s responsibility to meet with Ogden City or what you’ve

done would meet those requirements would be ok. Staff replied yes, what we’ve done would meet

those requirements and they could proceed to build and just add the additional landscaping and

that would be fine with Ogden City. When they were ready to hook up to the sewer, then Ogden

City would address those issues. If the extra landscaping that they’re requiring was already in

there, then it wouldn’t be an issue and they would just proceed and when she talked to the builder,

he said that he would make sure that Mr. Dorney and himself were there at that meeting.


Approved 9/11/07

Chair Davis stated that what you need to do is work with staff to understand those requirements

and know that you’ll have to meet those at the time of the annexation goes through.

Commissioner Hansen asked you have landscaping on the lower right part, is there a driveway

between the between the landscaping area and the building to go around the building?

Mr. Dorney stated that possibly that would not meet Ogden City requirements. What he had

originally hoped was to have access to the rear of the building for some type storage or a tailor.

This was just proposed gravel space.

Commissioner Hansen asked where would you store your materials. Mr. Dorney replied that most

of my materials are stored inside. We do have pallets that we’ve be prepared to ship from the

night before that we would load. Typically my arrangement with my customer was that we build

them and deliver them.

Commissioner Messerly asked does this site meet with the M-1 requirement for Weber County?

Staff replied yes it does.

MOTION: Commissioner Messerly made a motion for approval of Manufacturing Site Plan

MSP #07-07 for Pallet Assembly Shop, and Additional Lease Space Located at

Approximately 3284 S 1700 W, as it meets with the conditions of approval from

the County Engineer, Fire District, Health Department, and Ogden City.

Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Chair Davis

said the motion carried with all members present voting aye.

5. Final Approval of Meibos Estates Subdivision Located at Approximately 491 S 6700 W


Findings of Fact:The applicant is requesting final approval of Meibos Estates Subdivision which is located at approximately 491 S 6700 W .

This development is a 1 lot subdivision consisting of 1 acre with a remainder parcel of 10.66 acres. Culinary water will be

provided by W est W arren-W arren Water Improvement District and wastewater services provided by a Health Department

approved at-ground septic system.

Access to the lot is along 6700 W which is a substandard county road. The applicant is requesting a deferral for curb,

gutter and sidewalk. No new roads will be built as part of this subdivision.


This subdivision conforms to the General Plan by meeting the requirements of the A-2 Zone.






5. Requirements and recommendations of the W est W arren-W arren W ater Improvement District


Questions to Ask:

Should the road be brought up to county standards or will a substandard agreement be adequate.


Staff recommends approval subject to staff and other agency comments, recommendations and requirements.

Chair Davis asked on the plat, that shaded area at the front, is that the dedicated road to the Right

of Way? Staff replied that’s the dedicated side because the other side would have to be dedicated

too. That’s their portion that they’ve dedicated to the Right of Way and the rest is 1 acre beyond

that.

Commissioner Hansen asked there’s a house near that site or on that site, do you know where

that house is located? Staff showed on the map where it was located.

WESTERN WEBER COUNTY TOWNSHIP June 12, 2007

Approved 9/11/07

Commissioner Hansen asked Mrs. Flint, the petitioner if the lot which has the 150 foot frontage,

goes straight back? Ms. Flint replied that is correct.

Ms. Flint stated that the house sits in the center of the total 10 acres of the parent parcel number.

The lot that we subdivided sits on south of house and shed. Commissioner Hansen asked so out

of the 10 acre parcel, the red brick house is currently in the middle of it and this is on the south.

MOTION: Commissioner Saunders made the motion to approve final approval of Meibos

Estates Subdivision Located at Approximately 491 S 6700 W, subject to the

recommendations and approval of staff and other agencies comments.

AMENDMENT: Commissioner Andreotti amended the motion to include a Deferral for the Curb

and Gutter. Commissioner Hansen seconded the amended motion.

VOTE: A vote was taken and Chair Davis said the motion carried with all members

present voting aye.

6. Discussion “Concept Presentation” Wilde Meadows Cluster Subdivision

Matthew Meyers, Wentworth Development, 584 E. 3600 N., North Ogden, did a presentation of

“Wilde Meadow’s Cluster Subdivision” and he presented Mike Spacman, Jack Johnson Company,

1777 Sun Peak Drive, Park City, Landscape Architect and Planner.

The general consensus was that the Commission did not like this subdivision because it did not

promote the intent of the General Plan, to meet with the Rural Atmosphere, the Open Space was

not with the same parcel within that lot but a 1/4 mile away.

There was a discussion on putting in a work session for next month’s meeting on the agenda.

7. Adjourn

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted

Kary Serrano, Secretary, Weber County Planning

approved 9/11/07jun 12, 2007 · kary serrano, secretary chair davis moved to lead the pledge of...

Documents