Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, we call this meeting of the Utah County Planning Commission uh to order on this uh December 16th at 5:34 p.m. And we will start with a pledge of allegiance led by uh Commissioner Chris Herod. Thank you. Please repeat after me. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Okay, our first um order of business is to approve the meeting minutes from uh from our november 18th meeting. Has everyone uh received a copy of that in their packet? Are there any? Any edits, amendments, changes, any concerns, any motions? If there's no questions or concerns about it, I'll move that we approve the minutes for the uh November 18th, 2025 meeting. I second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed say nay.

There's none opposed. So the minutes are approved. We now have uh item D on our agenda. It is a uh Utah. Let's see. It's a proposed land use ordinance text amendment. And do we have a report? Yeah. Greg, Greg Robinson from our staff will uh give you a summary. Okay.

Good evening. Uh this ordinance amendment is um intended to deal with kind of our parcel review process. Currently, um we do parcel reviews to determine whether a parcel is has met all the um legal division requirements per our ordinance and per state code. And we do that research back to 1942 to determine that. So, all divisions from 1942 to current um would have to have met those um subdivision requirements in order for them to be able to obtain a permit for any um structure or use on the property. Um so, we are proposing to um change that to uh to update the process to review parcels back to 1992. 1992 is important because that's when uh the first the last change to the state subdivision um code was put into place. Um that allows us and be and that change kind of required all parcels and and lots to go through the subdivision process in order to divide property. So it makes it clear and easy for us to do that research and and to apply the ordinance um evenly and and without too many um different interpretations of of that um those divisions. The the changes um include adding a vested parcel which is a which is a a record or parcel that has an existing house that's on at least one acre that has been in that same configuration and has a permitted house on that um since 1992. If um it goes if that research determines that that parcel was legal and they had received a building permit

um with in that configuration, then that parcel would be vested in that same uh without having to add property or area to that parcel to be able to meet legal configuration requirements. Um any parcel that was able to meet the division requirements going back to 1992 would be deter determined a legal parcel. some of those um parcels may have to uh be required to add area to if they needed to meet any of those requirements uh to be able to be a buildable parcel at that time. The amendment also kind of establishes kind of clear and enforceable standards that we have in pre in the previously. Some interpretations have been um have have changed based on kind of our understanding of of our legal responsibility to determine whether a parcel was compliant with those requirements or not. Um this clears up some of those and makes it a little easier for us to interpret those. Um, it also kind of streamlines the process for us to review um, parcels and and lots. Um, kind of helps us reduce those um, that time that it takes us to get an answer back to applicants. It allows property owners to be able to more utilize or better utilize their property without having to go all the way back to 1942 to be able to determine whether that parcel is legal or not. lots are really not going to be affected greatly because um if they're recorded in a subdivision, we recognize it recognize those as legal before and so we'll continue to recognize those as legal if they were recorded in a in an approved plat. So those there's not a lot of effect that those will have on lots. Um the other changes also kind of that were made were to non-compliance structures and non-conforming uses and rideway dedications for lots and parcels

and then um also kind of just to update any state code requirements that um needed to be made to meet the updates that have have happened in between the time that we last updated those sections of code. So, we kind of made minor changes to certain areas, but majority of the changes are to lots and parcels, and um in essence, it's kind of allowing us to do the review process back to 1992 rather than 1942, which hopefully helps most property owners because a lot of those parcels, they may have not had created the illegal division, but they may have bought a parcel that had had that problem, but this might help clear up some of those issues for them um going forward without having to deal with the consequences of somebody else's um misunderstanding or not understanding the review or the right process to go through to subdivide property. So that I know that there's a lot of changes um that that are being shown here. But in essence, that's kind of what is happening. Um, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those for you and um, kind of trying to explain what what we are what changes we're making. So, Mr. Chair, just to add to that, Greg touched on this, but this is a this is a property owner friendly amendment. Um, but it still aligns with a clear defined um, line in the sand uh, so to speak by set by state code. So

yeah, I was going to what's not clear in the reading of it is whether this makes you know more you know headache or less I guess and it sounds like from your perspective it should be less and and I so I yeah I was wondering if going back to 42 gave them more rights and then and that's what they were you know would be giving up now or if if coming forward to 92 make you know does that does that put a higher burden on them or or a lower burden? Um.

Sure. Yeah. So generally um it it lessens the uh the restrictions on parcels because um a lot of times 80 years of history for parcels and people that divide property um without really thinking of going through the audience that affects current property owners without them really knowing that that's that that issue is in place before they purchase the property. This will help kind of alleviate some of those issues, give them the ability to not have to correct some of those illegal divisions um that happened prior to 1992 and it will help them kind of utilize their property without having to do extra um steps to be able to do that. So,

so I I read in in in one of the pages that the practice to to this point was to declare some property kind of, you know, that that it didn't meet the requirements. And so, and they basically just um had a you know, can't get out of jail card basically with their property. And yeah, and are the with this change, would we update those notices? Would we send something out? Would I mean like h how would they become aware that maybe So um at this point it would just be through the their requests for

requests that come in. So new requests would be applied against this. But those been given a bad, you know, that their property wouldn't meet the requirements that may now meet the requirements. they wouldn't be nullified or there wouldn't be any effort to to right where where possible. We'll try and inform property owners of of changes that have been made um to our ordinance. If if they have a current request or if they they might be affected by this ordinance change, we'll definitely um update them on on kind of those changes that will be made generally. Um, is there is there a list kept of properties that have kind of fallen into this kind of like zone that it can't

not not a not a not a list that we would necessarily be able to kind of identify property owners because divisions happen. I mean, in the county quite often and there are way too many parcels for us to be able to keep track of and the only times that we really find out about most of those illegal divisions is when they come and make a request from our office to do something with our property. And so generally we um do our best to try and update people and anybody that may have this may have affected we've we knew that this was possibly coming and we've let people know in in those times that this change might affect them and that they may want to come back um towards the beginning of this year to kind of see if those requirements have changed and if they they benefit from that too. So they they would have bumped up against this with a denied permit basically and so they they they would have applied for a permit and received a a a decline on it or whatever. Uh

yeah, would have rejected it. Is that something that goes all the way here or is it done in your office before it even gets to this?

Yeah, it's just in our office. our office, we we withhold permits in in those situations where they've deter we've determined that their parcel was um illegally divided and um in those cases um we we've told them the process that they can fix those if they do want to try and remedy those. If there's a possible way um for them to remedy them, especially if there's a clear and easy way for them to remedy those um illegal divisions, we try and help them through that process already. But this um the people that may have been affected by this, I think that it'd be difficult for us to find a way to contact all of those people, but it's not something that we haven't thought about through the um we've been contemplating this for several months and we've been letting people know if they may be affected by this that to come back and check with us.

Mr. Chair, if I may just add one thing, this is a this is a un a situation that's kind of unique to the county. Um, cities, you know, we're all subject to state law as it relates to division of land. The cities really are are developed and built through the subdivision process, which um is much cleaner and easier to identify. It's rare that that a person, you know, it can happen, but not as frequently as it does in the county where a person just has their their property that they they've owned and grandpa divided a couple times or divided it once. So, we have to track to see if that followed state law, which it, you know, in the past you could do that, but since 1992, you had to go through the subdivision plat. So, it's it's something we see a lot more in the county and and it really um can be complex, especially if you're not trained in in title searches and and so we thought this was kind of a good solution to to benefit both the property owner, but also the county's efficiency, as Greg stated, in processing his requests.

So, I guess I had a couple of questions. So like up at Sundance, I understand there's properties up there, lots and stuff that were created kind of nonconforming and out of compliance and stuff like that. This benefits them. Is that what I'm understanding?

So, um, yes, it does. Um, for most of those people that have had properties that have been built on that have a house, it it it definitely benefits them. It allows them to be recognized as, um, non-conforming but legally existing. Um in some cases this does um put some uh some requirements on them to be more conforming with our ordinance. Um in in in situations where they haven't built a house, they are required to meet today's um area and frontage requirements what or width requirements whatever those might be. So there there are some situations where um previously they may have been identified as a non-conforming um parcel, but um this in this and so the changes that we're proposing would allow us to be able to kind of meet what we currently require so that we become more conforming in situations where the county commission and planning commission have reviewed our ordinance requirements and have found that the area requirements are kind of consistent with what we want to see. And so in those situations where they haven't built, they will be required to meet today's ordinance. However, there is also kind of a sunset clause in here that allows them um three years to be able to take advantage of of this this the review process and still be non-conforming and still build a house on those situations. But it gives them three years to be able to take advantage of that. After that, they would have to meet today's ordinance requirements. That way, if somebody was in the process of wanting to do something with their property, it's that we're giving them the opportunity to take advantage of that so that they have ample time to get a permit for those situations and move forward without being affected by the change. Um, most of our zoning

requirements for area and width have been in place for many years. Like, it's not something we have changed recently. So, Most of these parcels have been or most of these requirements for area and width have been in place for more than 20 years. So it's not like this is a surprise for most people that want to use utilize their property. So um that's kind of what what we would want to go more towards the the requirements we have today so that most parcels would have to be would have to meet today's ordinance requirements for area and width. But the benefit to them is that they don't have to necessarily go through the subdivision process to be able to to make those modifications. And if they were deemed illegal because of a division that happened prior to 1992, then that would not affect them at this point. They would be able to just do boundary adjustments to be able to add property or add width to be able to be legal without having to do a subdivision. So, it still gives them the benefit without having to go through a plat or a subdivision process to be able to do that. Um, so it still gives them a lot of flexibility and it gives them a lot of ability to kind of go through processes that would have triggered a a subdivision requirement in the past, but this still gives them a lot of ability to kind of um utilize the benefits of moving property lines without having to do a subdivision and go through all the processes that are involved in that. So there there could be some that that benefit really others if they don't come into come up to speed within the three years and they may have to go through a few more hoops and stuff like that.

Correct. U next thing uh like up Hobble Creek and stuff like that where lots have been established and stuff like that there they still have to meet all the requirements for water and stuff like that. This doesn't change any of that. Right. Exactly. This doesn't affect anything but area and width requirements in those situations where they'd be not conforming. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Is there someone that would like to make a motion? We We do need to hold a public hearing. This is This does require a public hearing.

Oh, it does require public hearing. Well, let's do that then. Sorry, I missed that. Um, is there would we like to make a motion to open a public hearing? Move we go into a public hearing. It's been moved and seconded to open public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. The public hearing is open. Is there anyone that would like to address the commission on the on the topic of this uh ordinance text amendment? I bet my wife is not going to address that issue. All right. All right. Uh is there any further uh should we close the public hearing?

So moved. It's moved and seconded by Chris. To close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Uh back to uh the text amendment. Is there a motion? If there's no other concerns, I'll make the a motion that the Utah County Planning Commission recommend approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed amendments to the Utah County Land Use Ordinance section 1.24, 2.08, 08 and chapters 4, 12, and 14 to amend requirements for non-conforming lots or parcels and associated requirements along with any applicable renumbering and reformatting based on the findings listed in section five of the staff report.

I second. It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to the Utah County Commission. Uh, is there any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Thank you. That's been that's passed unanimously. I I see some resolution here. Do we need Is that another Is that the next item? Yes. Let's just schedule.

I got to move to page two. Sorry. Okay, there we go. Other business. approve a resolution adopting the annual meeting schedule of the Utah County Planning Commission for 2026. You want to speak to that? Yeah, we kept the same format um third Tuesday at 5:30 as always. You're always free to change that, but that's kind of been been the tradition for a while, so that's what we stuck with. So, is there two part? Well, there's just an exhibit A and yeah, one of it's the actual resolution, the dates and then Okay. Um any discussion? Is there a motion? I move that we adopt uh does this resolution have a number?

Um it will it'll be it'll be 2025-2 I I move that we adopt resolution uh number 2025-2 which is the resolution adopting the annual regular meeting schedule for the planning commission for Utah County for the year of 2026. I second that. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the uh the published schedule here on exhibit A for the Utah Planning Commission for the year 2026. It's resolution number 2025-2. All those in favor say I.

That resolution require roll. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I any opposed? Okay, that's that's completed. And that brings us to the end. Oh, we do have a public comment. Yeah. Before we get to that, I have I have one item. Okay.

I just want to recognize uh our planning commissioner, Chris Herod. He's served two terms and uh is going to be released from that, I guess, for lack of a better term for his service. I'm sure appreciate his his input and and his insight. He's provided a lot of valuable insight with his experience and in land use matters. And so we just want to to formally recognize and appreciate his his service and we have a real minor little um token of our appreciation. Awesome. Awesome. And we're gonna have a nice warm meal for Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Herod. It's been great serving with you.

Likewise. Okay. Is there uh I know there's a public comment actually we're supposed to hold every meeting, right? So, uh should we uh is there anyone that would like to address the the commission in our public comment section? Okay, seeing none and seeing that we are at the end of our agenda.