Erda Estates PUD Concept Summary and Recommendation Public Body: Tooele County Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 Parcel ID: 05-049-0-0038 Current Zone: RR-5 Property Address: Unaddressed Parcel Request: Conditional Use Approval for the proposed Erda Estates PUD Concept Unincorporated: Erda Planners: Jeff Miller Planning Commission Recommendation: Tabled on November 6 th , not yet received for November 20 th Planning Staff Recommendation: Conditions of Approval Applicant Name: Matt Donaldson PROJECT DESCRIPTION Matt Donaldson is requesting conditional use approval for the proposed Erda Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept on a parcel in Erda which contains a total of approximately 156.47 acres. The main portion of the property is envisioned to be comprised of 227 residential lots of varying sizes. At the west end of the property, the developer has planned 100 residential units for senior citizens. These residential units would be built as multi-unit structures (similar to a typical townhouse style). Along the south end of the property are lots of approximately 1 acre in size, which have been placed in this area to act as a buffer between these residential uses and the residential uses on 5 acre lots to the south. At the west end of the property, there are three large open space areas which have been envisioned to be “agricultural preservation parcels” on approximately 14 acres. Each of these “agricultural preservation parcels” includes an adjoining “farm lot”, which is intended to have the appearance of being the main residence for the agricultural areas. Each of the homes on these “farm lots” will be restricted to farm/ranch house designs. Along SR-36, there are 12.98 acres reserved for commercial uses with a frontage road that will provide a stub street which could be extended further south in the future. The Tooele County Transportation Plan supports the incorporation of a frontage road along both sides of SR-36, as development moves forward within the County. PUD-CUP 2019-03 Planning and Zoning 47 S. Main Street ∙ Room 208 ∙ Tooele, UT 84074 Phone: (435) 843-3160 ∙ Fax: (435) 843-3252 http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/Building/planning.htm
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Erda Estates PUD Concept Summary and Recommendation
Public Body: Tooele County Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 Parcel ID: 05-049-0-0038 Current Zone: RR-5 Property Address: Unaddressed Parcel Request: Conditional Use Approval for the proposed Erda Estates PUD Concept Unincorporated: Erda Planners: Jeff Miller Planning Commission Recommendation: Tabled on November 6th, not yet received for November 20th Planning Staff Recommendation: Conditions of Approval Applicant Name: Matt Donaldson
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Matt Donaldson is requesting conditional use approval for the proposed Erda Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept on a parcel in Erda which contains a total of approximately 156.47 acres. The main portion of the property is envisioned to be comprised of 227 residential lots of varying sizes. At the west end of the property, the developer has planned 100 residential units for senior citizens. These residential units would be built as multi-unit structures (similar to a typical townhouse style). Along the south end of the property are lots of
approximately 1 acre in size, which have been placed in this area to act as a buffer between these residential uses and the residential uses on 5 acre lots to the south. At the west end of the property, there are three large open space areas which have been envisioned to be “agricultural preservation parcels” on approximately 14 acres. Each of these “agricultural preservation parcels” includes an adjoining “farm lot”, which is intended to have the appearance of being the main residence for the agricultural areas. Each of the homes on these “farm lots” will be restricted to farm/ranch house designs. Along SR-36, there are 12.98 acres reserved for commercial uses with a frontage road that will provide a stub street which could be extended further south in the future. The Tooele County Transportation Plan supports the incorporation of a frontage road along both sides of SR-36, as development moves forward within the County.
PUD-CUP 2019-03
Planning and Zoning 47 S. Main Street ∙ Room 208 ∙ Tooele, UT 84074 Phone: (435) 843-3160 ∙ Fax: (435) 843-3252 http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/Building/planning.htm
Request: Conditional Use Approval for the proposed Erda Estates PUD Concept File #: PUD-CUP 2019-03
Planned Unit Development Summary Page 2 of 3
SITE & VICINITY DESCRIPTION (see attached map)
The subject property (currently undeveloped) is located near the intersection of Erda Way and SR-36 and is immediately south of the subject property being proposed as a planned unit development (PUD-CUP 2019-02). There are large areas of undeveloped parcels in the RR-5 immediately north. There is a narrow strip of commercial land in the C-H (Commercial Highway) zone at the southwest corner of Erda Way and SR-36. There is also a narrow strip of commercial land directly east across SR-36 in the C-G (Commercial General) zone. There are rural residential uses in the RR-5 zone to the south and the RR-1 zone to the immediate west.
GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
According to the Future Land Use Map of the Tooele County General Plan Update 2016, the subject property is located within an anticipated “center”. This “center” is anticipated to consist of mixed uses (commercial uses and residential densities between 10-15 units per acres) near the intersection of Erda Way and SR-36, and an area of “Density Residential”, which allows for approximately two to eight single-family residential units per acre. The proposed density of 2.10 units per acre is appropriate for envisioned growth in this area according to the general plan.
ISSUES OF CONCERN/PROPOSED MITIGATION
As development moves forward within the unincorporated areas of Tooele County, an issue of concern that has been identified is that the Tooele County Health Department has made it known that standard septic systems will not be allowed going forward on parcels smaller than 5 acres in size, due to increased nitrate groundwater contamination. Typically, this would be a significant issue of concern with a large-scale development, however the applicant has informed planning staff that they are proposing to mitigate this concern with the installation of water and sewer infrastructure on the subject property during the subsequent subdivision and development stages.
NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE
A public hearing was held with the Tooele County Planning Commission on November 6, 2019. When the hearing was held, there were a large number of people in attendance. Most of the comments were in opposition to the proposed PUD with concerns about water, traffic, density, whether or not the current PUD ordinance should be applicable, impacts on traffic, concerns about zoning, etc. *Please see the attached e-mail correspondence that has been received regarding this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE
When this item was heard by the Tooele County Planning Commission on November 6th, 2019 they made a motion to table the item, so that the planning commission would have additional time to review the materials that were presented and the public comments that were received.
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the requested PUD and has found that the subject property Is located in an area envisioned to be a “center” within the community, which could accommodate an alternative housing type for senior citizens within the community. These senior housing residences would not be in immediate proximity to any existing single-family residences in the community.
Request: Conditional Use Approval for the proposed Erda Estates PUD Concept File #: PUD-CUP 2019-03
Planned Unit Development Summary Page 3 of 3
The requested PUD is cohesive with the surrounding uses in the immediate vicinity, the Tooele County General Plan Update 2016, and the current PUD ordinance in the Tooele County Land Use Ordinance. The envisioned PUD will also be compatible with the Tooele County Active Transportation Implementation Plan. Although not a required element of the concept plan stage for the PUD, the applicant has provided planning staff with a traffic study for the area. This traffic study had analyzed both the property contained within this PUD application, and PUD-CUP 2019-02, which is located immediately to the north. The overall residential density for both PUD applications is below the estimated 500 residential units, which were analyzed with the traffic study. As development moves forward in the community, it is important to find a delicate balance between changes within the built environment and the surrounding agricultural/rural uses. The proposed “agricultural preservation parcels” seeks to preserve a portion of the existing rural character in the area. All open space areas and trails within the development must be owned and managed by an HOA or similar entity. The agricultural parcels must be actively used for agricultural purposes. Staff is proposing that this requirement is made as a condition of approval. More details are needed during the preliminary and final plan submittals regarding the overall design of the proposed trail system, including surface materials, etc.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends that the Tooele County Planning Commission analyzes the information found in this report before reaching a decision on the proposed Planned Unit Development. If a motion is made to approve the proposed concept for the PUD, Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
• When the applicant submits an application for the preliminary and final plan stages for the PUD, additional information is provided regarding the planned water and sewer utilities, as well as additional details regarding any landscaping and trail elements within the PUD.
• All open space areas and trails within the development must be owned and managed by an HOA or similar entity. The agricultural parcels must be actively used for agricultural purposes. \
• The homes located on the “farm lots” must be designed as farm/ranch house style homes in an effort to contribute to the rural feel of the “agricultural preservation parcels.”
P
UD-C
UP
2019
-03:
Pro
pose
d Er
da E
stat
es P
lann
ed U
nit D
evel
opm
ent (
PUD
)
Una
ddre
ssed
Par
cel:
(Par
cel I
D: 0
5-04
9-0-
0038
)
RR-1
Subj
ect
Prop
erty
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR-5
RR
-5
RR-1
RR-1
RR-1
RR-1
RR-1
Tooe
le C
ity
Tooe
le C
ity
C-G
C-H
COCHRANE LANE
STATE ROAD 36
CIMM
ARRO
N W
AY
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
C
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
B
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
A
LOT
28LO
T 4LO
T 5LO
T 6LO
T 7LO
T 8LO
T 9LO
T10
LOT
11LO
T12
LOT
13LO
T14
LOT
15LO
T16
LOT
17LO
T18
LOT
19LO
T20
LOT 21
LOT
22LO
T23
LOT
24LO
T25
LOT
26LO
T27
LOT
132
LOT
133
LOT
134
LOT
135
LOT
29
LOT
35LO
T34
LOT
33LO
T32 LO
T31 LO
T30
LOT
80LO
T88
LOT
97
LOT
83 LOT
82 LOT 81
LOT 91 LOT
90 LOT
89
LOT
99 LOT
98LOT
100
LOT
84LO
T92
LOT
101
LOT
78 LOT
79
LOT
86 LOT
87
LOT
95 LOT
96
PARK
LOT
85LO
T93
LOT
94LO
T10
2
LOT
67 LOT
68LO
T69LO
T66
LOT
65 LOT
70
LOT
64 LOT
71
LOT
63 LOT
72LO
T73LO
T62
LOT 61 LOT
74
LOT
60 LOT
75
LOT
59 LOT
76LO
T77LO
T58
LOT
36LO
T37
LOT
38
LOT
129
LOT
142
LOT
145
LOT
138
LOT
136
LOT
137
LOT
140
LOT
139
LOT
141
LOT
131
LOT
130
LOT
127
LOT
146
LOT
128
LOT
143
LOT
144
LOT
119
LOT
124
LOT
122
LOT
121
LOT
123
LOT
120
LOT
126
LOT
117
LOT
125
LOT
118
LOT
104
LOT
115
LOT
108
LOT
113
LOT
106
LOT
114
LOT
105
LOT
116
LOT
103
FARM
LOT
2
FARM
LOT
3
FARM
LOT
1
LOT
157
LOT
158
LOT
167
LOT
166
LOT
165
LOT
164
LOT
163
LOT
162
LOT
161
LOT
160
LOT
159
LOT
147
LOT
148
LOT
149
LOT
150
LOT
151
LOT
152
LOT
153
LOT
154
LOT
155
LOT
156
LOT
180
LOT
169
LOT
175
LOT
172
LOT
168
LOT
181
LOT
179
LOT
178
LOT
174
LOT
173
LOT
177
LOT
170
LOT
176
LOT
171
LOT
193
LOT
183
LOT
188
LOT
195
LOT
182
LOT
184
LOT
196
LOT
185
LOT
194
LOT
189
LOT
191
LOT
186
LOT
192
LOT
187
LOT
197
LOT
190
LOT
40
LOT
39
LOT
57LO
T 41LO
T42
LOT
43LO
T44
LOT
45LO
T46
LOT
47LO
T48
LOT
49LO
T50
LOT
51LO
T52
LOT
53LO
T54
LOT
55LO
T56
LOT
198
LOT
199
LOT
200
LOT
201
LOT
202
LOT
203
LOT
211
LOT
210
LOT
209
LOT
208
LOT
207
LOT
206
LOT
205
LOT
204
LOT
212
LOT
226
LOT
225
LOT
227
LOT
224
LOT
223
LOT
222
LOT
221
LOT
220
LOT
219
LOT
218
LOT
217
LOT
216
LOT
215
LOT
214
LOT
213
PARK
RETI
REME
NTRE
TIRE
MENT
RETI
REME
NT
LOT
111
LOT
107
LOT
112
LOT
109
LOT
110
CHEC
KED
BYDR
AWN
BY
PROJ
ECT
NUMB
ER
FOR:
PROJ
ECT
MANA
GER
PRIN
T DA
TE
PHON
E:
CONTACT:
TO
OE
LE
169 N
. Main
Stre
et, U
nit 1
Tooe
le, U
T. 84
074
Phon
e: 43
5.843
.3590
SA
LT
L
AK
E C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 80
1.255
.0529
LA
YT
ON
Phon
e: 80
1.547
.1100
CE
DA
R C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 43
5.865
.1453
RIC
HF
IE
LD
Phon
e: 43
5.896
.2983
WW
W.E
NS
IG
NE
NG
.C
OM
E N
S
I G
N
THE
STAN
DARD
IN E
NGIN
EERI
NG
T189
5A
1 of 4
ERDA ESTATES P.U.D.
ERDA WAYERDA, UTAH
CONC
EPT
IRON
WOO
D RE
AL E
STAT
E LL
C.13
92 P
ASS
CANY
ON R
OAD
ERDA
, UTA
H 84
074
JOE
WHI
TE43
5-83
0-36
42
J.CLE
GG
J. CL
EGG
R. F
ISH
HORI
ZONT
AL G
RAPH
IC SC
ALE
0
( IN
FEET
)HO
RZ: 1
inch
=
ft.
200
200
100
200
400
APPR
OVED
THI
S
D
AY O
F
, 20
,
BY T
HE
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PLA
NNIN
G CO
MMISS
ION
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PL
ANNI
NG C
OMMI
SSIO
N.
CHAI
R, TO
OELE
COU
NTY
PLAN
NING
COM
MISS
ION
AREA
CAL
CULA
TION
S TA
BLE
DESC
RIPT
ION
AREA
PRO
POSE
DAR
EA P
ROPO
SED
PERC
ENTA
GE P
ROPO
SED
(227
) 12,0
00 S
Q. F
T.RE
SIDE
NTIA
L LOT
S3,5
01,14
9 sq f
t.80
.375 a
cres
51.41
%
(3) 1
4,520
SQ.
FT.
FARM
LOTS
43,56
0 sq.
ft.1.0
00 ac
res
0.64%
(2) 2
82,89
0 SQ.
FT.
RESI
DENT
IAL L
OTS
565,7
80 sq
. ft.
12.98
9 acre
s8.3
1%
(100
) RES
IDEN
TIAL
RETI
REME
NT U
NITS
764,5
61 sq
. ft.
17.55
2 acre
s11
.23%
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CELS
609,8
40 sq
. ft.
14.00
0 acre
s8.9
6%
PARK
S48
,000 s
q. ft.
1.102
acre
s0.7
0%
ARTE
RIAL
ROA
DS1,2
76,81
6 sq.
ft.29
.312 a
cres
18.75
%
TOTA
L SIT
E6,8
09,70
6 sq.
ft.15
6.329
acre
s10
0.00%
STATE ROAD 36
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
LOT
3812
,392 s
q.ft.
0.284
acre
s
LOT
8012
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
8812
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9712
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
6712
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6812
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6912
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6612
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6512
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7012
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7112
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6312
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7212
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7312
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6212
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6112
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
6012
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7512
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5912
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7612
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
7712
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5812
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
8412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
9212
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
101
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
24,00
0 sq.f
t.0.5
51 ac
res
PARK
LOT
8512
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
9312
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
9412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
102
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
8312
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
8212
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
8112
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
7812
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
7912
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
2843
,501 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
132
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
133
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
134
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
2912
,725 s
q.ft.
0.292
acre
sLOT
3519
,452 s
q.ft.
0.447
acre
s
LOT
3415
,494 s
q.ft.
0.356
acre
s
LOT
3312
,725 s
q.ft.
0.292
acre
s
LOT
3212
,725 s
q.ft.
0.292
acre
s
LOT
3112
,725 s
q.ft.
0.292
acre
s
LOT
3012
,725 s
q.ft.
0.292
acre
s
LOT
9112
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9012
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
8912
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9912
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9812
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
100
12,00
4 sq.f
t.0.2
76 ac
res
LOT
8612
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
8712
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9512
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
9612
,004 s
q.ft.
0.276
acre
s
LOT
3612
,438 s
q.ft.
0.286
acre
s
LOT
3712
,436 s
q.ft.
0.285
acre
s
LOT
1632
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
1743
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1843
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1943
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
2032
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
2132
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
2243
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
2343
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
2443
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
2532
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
2632
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
2743
,501 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
LOT
129
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
131
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
130
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
127
18,00
0 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
LOT
146
17,97
2 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
LOT
128
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
143
20,59
1 sq.f
t.0.4
73 ac
res
LOT
145
14,94
3 sq.f
t.0.3
43 ac
res
LOT
144
20,59
1 sq.f
t.0.4
73 ac
res
LOT
119
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
124
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
122
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
121
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
123
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
120
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
126
18,00
0 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
LOT
117
18,00
0 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
LOT
125
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
118
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
104
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
115
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
108
12,68
8 sq.f
t.0.2
91 ac
res
LOT
113
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
106
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
114
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
105
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
116
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
LOT
103
14,63
7 sq.f
t.0.3
36 ac
res
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
4 of 4
1
4 of 4
1
4 of 4
1
4 of 4
2
4 o
f 4
2
LOT
5716
,436 s
q.ft.
0.377
acre
s
LOT
111
13,63
0 sq.f
t.0.3
13 ac
res
LOT
107
12,68
8 sq.f
t.0.2
91 ac
res
LOT
112
12,69
2 sq.f
t.0.2
91 ac
res
LOT
109
12,68
8 sq.f
t.0.2
91 ac
res
LOT
110
15,68
7 sq.f
t.0.3
60 ac
res
LOT
157
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
158
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
165
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
164
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
163
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
162
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
161
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
160
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
159
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
150
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
151
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
152
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
153
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
154
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
155
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
156
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
198
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
199
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
200
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
201
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
202
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
203
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
205
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
204
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
4028
2,890
sq.ft.
6.494
acre
s
LOT
3928
2,890
sq.ft.
6.494
acre
s
LOT
5716
,436 s
q.ft.
0.377
acre
s
LOT
4112
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4212
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4312
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4512
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4612
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4712
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4812
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
4912
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5012
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5112
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5212
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5312
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5412
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5512
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
LOT
5612
,000 s
q.ft.
0.275
acre
s
CHEC
KED
BYDR
AWN
BY
PROJ
ECT
NUMB
ER
FOR:
PROJ
ECT
MANA
GER
PRIN
T DA
TE
PHON
E:
CONTACT:
TO
OE
LE
169 N
. Main
Stre
et, U
nit 1
Tooe
le, U
T. 84
074
Phon
e: 43
5.843
.3590
SA
LT
L
AK
E C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 80
1.255
.0529
LA
YT
ON
Phon
e: 80
1.547
.1100
CE
DA
R C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 43
5.865
.1453
RIC
HF
IE
LD
Phon
e: 43
5.896
.2983
WW
W.E
NS
IG
NE
NG
.C
OM
E N
S
I G
N
THE
STAN
DARD
IN E
NGIN
EERI
NG
T189
5A
2 of 4
ERDA ESTATES P.U.D.
ERDA WAYERDA, UTAH
CONC
EPT
IRON
WOO
D RE
AL E
STAT
E LL
C.13
92 P
ASS
CANY
ON R
OAD
ERDA
, UTA
H 84
074
JOE
WHI
TE43
5-83
0-36
42
J.CLE
GG
J. CL
EGG
R. F
ISH
HORI
ZONT
AL G
RAPH
IC SC
ALE
0
( IN
FEET
)HO
RZ: 1
inch
=
ft.
100
100
5010
020
0
APPR
OVED
THI
S
D
AY O
F
, 20
,
BY T
HE
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PLA
NNIN
G CO
MMISS
ION
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PL
ANNI
NG C
OMMI
SSIO
N.
CHAI
R, TO
OELE
COU
NTY
PLAN
NING
COM
MISS
ION
SEE DRAWING 3 of 3SEE DRAWING 3 of 3
AREA
CAL
CULA
TION
S TA
BLE
DESC
RIPT
ION
AREA
PRO
POSE
DAR
EA P
ROPO
SED
PERC
ENTA
GE P
ROPO
SED
(227
) 12,0
00 S
Q. F
T.RE
SIDE
NTIA
L LOT
S3,5
01,14
9 sq f
t.80
.375 a
cres
51.41
%
(3) 1
4,520
SQ.
FT.
FARM
LOTS
43,56
0 sq.
ft.1.0
00 ac
res
0.64%
(2) 2
82,89
0 SQ.
FT.
RESI
DENT
IAL L
OTS
565,7
80 sq
. ft.
12.98
9 acre
s8.3
1%
(100
) RES
IDEN
TIAL
RETI
REME
NT U
NITS
764,5
61 sq
. ft.
17.55
2 acre
s11
.23%
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CELS
609,8
40 sq
. ft.
14.00
0 acre
s8.9
6%
PARK
S48
,000 s
q. ft.
1.102
acre
s0.7
0%
ARTE
RIAL
ROA
DS1,2
76,81
6 sq.
ft.29
.312 a
cres
18.75
%
TOTA
L SIT
E6,8
09,70
6 sq.
ft.15
6.329
acre
s10
0.00%
COCHRANE LANE
LOT
135
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
443
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
543
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
643
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
732
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
832
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
943
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1043
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1132
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
LOT
1243
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1343
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1443
,497 s
q.ft.
0.999
acre
s
LOT
1532
,670 s
q.ft.
0.750
acre
s
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
20.0'
TRA
ILEA
SEME
NT
117,9
41 sq
.ft.2.7
08 ac
res
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
C
394,6
46 sq
.ft.9.0
60 ac
res
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
B
97,25
4 sq.f
t.2.2
33 ac
res
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CEL
A
LOT
138
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
142
14,94
3 sq.f
t.0.3
43 ac
res
LOT
136
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
137
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
140
18,00
0 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
LOT
139
13,50
0 sq.f
t.0.3
10 ac
res
LOT
141
17,97
2 sq.f
t.0.4
13 ac
res
4 of 4
1
4 of 4
2
4 of 4
2
(TO
BE O
WNE
D AN
D MA
INTA
INED
BY
THE
HOA
OR O
THER
CON
SERV
ATIO
N EN
TITY
)
(TO
BE O
WNE
D AN
D MA
INTA
INED
BY
THE
HOA
OR O
THER
CON
SERV
ATIO
N EN
TITY
)
(TO
BE O
WNE
D AN
D MA
INTA
INED
BY
THE
HOA
OR O
THER
CON
SERV
ATIO
N EN
TITY
)
FARM
LOT
214
,520 s
q.ft.
0.333
acre
s
FARM
LOT
314
,520 s
q.ft.
0.333
acre
s
FARM
LOT
114
,520 s
q.ft.
0.333
acre
s
LOT
167
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
166
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
147
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
148
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
149
12,06
5 sq.f
t.0.2
77 ac
res
LOT
226
14,13
3 sq.f
t.0.3
24 ac
res
LOT
225
12,33
9 sq.f
t.0.2
83 ac
res
LOT
227
15,68
0 sq.f
t.0.3
60 ac
res
LOT
180
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
169
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
175
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
172
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
168
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
181
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
24,00
0 sq.f
t.0.5
51 ac
res
PARK
LOT
179
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
178
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
174
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
173
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
177
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
170
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
176
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
171
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
193
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
183
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
188
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
195
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
182
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
184
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
196
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
185
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
194
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
189
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
191
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
186
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
192
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
187
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
212
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
190
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
197
12,00
0 sq.f
t.0.2
75 ac
res
LOT
224
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
223
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
222
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
221
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
220
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
219
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
218
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
217
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
216
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
215
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
214
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
213
12,35
7 sq.f
t.0.2
84 ac
res
LOT
211
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
210
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
209
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
208
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
207
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
LOT
206
12,27
6 sq.f
t.0.2
82 ac
res
146,2
45 sq
.ft.3.3
57 ac
res
RETI
REME
NT
308,6
93 sq
.ft.7.0
87 ac
res
RETI
REME
NT30
9,623
sq.ft.
7.108
acre
s
RETI
REME
NT
CHEC
KED
BYDR
AWN
BY
PROJ
ECT
NUMB
ER
FOR:
PROJ
ECT
MANA
GER
PRIN
T DA
TE
PHON
E:
CONTACT:
TO
OE
LE
169 N
. Main
Stre
et, U
nit 1
Tooe
le, U
T. 84
074
Phon
e: 43
5.843
.3590
SA
LT
L
AK
E C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 80
1.255
.0529
LA
YT
ON
Phon
e: 80
1.547
.1100
CE
DA
R C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 43
5.865
.1453
RIC
HF
IE
LD
Phon
e: 43
5.896
.2983
WW
W.E
NS
IG
NE
NG
.C
OM
E N
S
I G
N
THE
STAN
DARD
IN E
NGIN
EERI
NG
T189
5A
3 of 4
ERDA ESTATES P.U.D.
ERDA WAYERDA, UTAH
CONC
EPT
IRON
WOO
D RE
AL E
STAT
E LL
C.13
92 P
ASS
CANY
ON R
OAD
ERDA
, UTA
H 84
074
JOE
WHI
TE43
5-83
0-36
42
J.CLE
GG
J. CL
EGG
R. F
ISH
HORI
ZONT
AL G
RAPH
IC SC
ALE
0
( IN
FEET
)HO
RZ: 1
inch
=
ft.
100
100
5010
020
0
APPR
OVED
THI
S
D
AY O
F
, 20
,
BY T
HE
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PLA
NNIN
G CO
MMISS
ION
TOOE
LE C
OUNT
Y PL
ANNI
NG C
OMMI
SSIO
N.
CHAI
R, TO
OELE
COU
NTY
PLAN
NING
COM
MISS
ION
SEE DRAWING 2 of 3SEE DRAWING 2 of 3
AREA
CAL
CULA
TION
S TA
BLE
DESC
RIPT
ION
AREA
PRO
POSE
DAR
EA P
ROPO
SED
PERC
ENTA
GE P
ROPO
SED
(227
) 12,0
00 S
Q. F
T.RE
SIDE
NTIA
L LOT
S3,5
01,14
9 sq f
t.80
.375 a
cres
51.41
%
(3) 1
4,520
SQ.
FT.
FARM
LOTS
43,56
0 sq.
ft.1.0
00 ac
res
0.64%
(2) 2
82,89
0 SQ.
FT.
RESI
DENT
IAL L
OTS
565,7
80 sq
. ft.
12.98
9 acre
s8.3
1%
(100
) RES
IDEN
TIAL
RETI
REME
NT U
NITS
764,5
61 sq
. ft.
17.55
2 acre
s11
.23%
AGRI
CULT
URAL
PAR
CELS
609,8
40 sq
. ft.
14.00
0 acre
s8.9
6%
PARK
S48
,000 s
q. ft.
1.102
acre
s0.7
0%
ARTE
RIAL
ROA
DS1,2
76,81
6 sq.
ft.29
.312 a
cres
18.75
%
TOTA
L SIT
E6,8
09,70
6 sq.
ft.15
6.329
acre
s10
0.00%
30'-0
"
2'-6"
3'-6"
PARK
STR
IP18
'-0"
NATU
RAL
GRAD
E
C L
P L
5'-0"
CON
CRET
ESI
DEW
ALK
2% S
LOPE
SCAL
E:1
NONE
ROAD
CRO
SS S
ECTI
ON W
/ CON
CRET
E TR
AIL
2% S
LOPE
1'-0"
18'-0
"2'-
6"9'-
6" P
ARK
STRI
PW
/ TRE
ES8'-
0" C
ONCR
ETE
TRAI
L12
'-0"
30'-0
"20
'-0" T
RAIL
EASE
MENT
30'-0
"
2'-6"
3'-6"
PARK
STR
IP18
'-0"
NATU
RAL
GRAD
E
C LP L
5'-0"
CON
CRET
ESI
DEW
ALK
2% S
LOPE
SCAL
E:2
NONE
ROAD
CRO
SS S
ECTI
ON W
/ ASP
HALT
TRA
IL
2% S
LOPE
1'-0"
18'-0
"
P L
2% S
LOPE
2% S
LOPE
2% S
LOPE
2% S
LOPE
2'-0"
4'-6"
1'-0"
4'-6"
2'-0"
8'-0"
ASP
HALT
TRA
IL10
'-0" L
ANDS
CAPE
DAR
EA W
/ TRE
ES
60'-0
"
1'-6"
30'-0
"20
'-0" T
RAIL
EASE
MENT
CHEC
KED
BYDR
AWN
BY
PROJ
ECT
NUMB
ER
FOR:
PROJ
ECT
MANA
GER
PRIN
T DA
TE
PHON
E:
CONTACT:
TO
OE
LE
169 N
. Main
Stre
et, U
nit 1
Tooe
le, U
T. 84
074
Phon
e: 43
5.843
.3590
SA
LT
L
AK
E C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 80
1.255
.0529
LA
YT
ON
Phon
e: 80
1.547
.1100
CE
DA
R C
IT
Y
Phon
e: 43
5.865
.1453
RIC
HF
IE
LD
Phon
e: 43
5.896
.2983
WW
W.E
NS
IG
NE
NG
.C
OM
E N
S
I G
N
THE
STAN
DARD
IN E
NGIN
EERI
NG
T189
5A
4 of 4
ERDA ESTATES P.U.D.
ERDA WAYERDA, UTAH
CONC
EPTU
ALCR
OSS
SECT
IONS
IRON
WOO
D RE
AL E
STAT
E LL
C.13
92 P
ASS
CANY
ON R
OAD
ERDA
, UTA
H 84
074
JOE
WHI
TE43
5-83
0-36
42
J.CLE
GG
J. CL
EGG
R. F
ISH
P.O. Box 521651 Salt Lake City, UT 84152 (801) 949-0348 fax (801) 582-6252
1
October 32018
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING RE: Tealby Village – Erda, UT Tealby Village is a proposed 500 single family home development with 5 acres or 50,000 sf of commercial office space located on the southwest corner of Erda Way and SR 36 in Erda, UT. The site extends to Cochrane Lane and is proposing four access points for the residential development and one business access for the proposed professional office. Figure One shows the proposed area and Figure Two shows an initial site plan.
Figure One: Site Locations
P.O. Box 521651 Salt Lake City, UT 84152 (801) 949-0348 fax (801) 582-6252
2
Figure Two: Site Plan
Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, the projected traffic for the site is based on land use and square footages. Applying these values generates 466 AM peak trips, 618 PM peak trips and 5,530 daily trips. Land Use Trip Generation Projections
According to Traffic on Utah Highways, Erda Way carries approximately 3,500 trips a day. The proposed development represents a substantial increase in traffic relative to the current level however, the capacity of the roadway is approximately 15,000 ADT. Therefore, once this development is built, Erda Way is projected to carry an estimated 9,000 ADT. This would be operating at 60% of the roadway capacity which still represents a Level of Service A. The surrounding roadway infrastructure has available capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the site. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, A-Trans Engineering
Joseph Perrin, PhD, PE, PTOE Principal
November 5, 2019 To: Tooele County Planning Commissioners Subject: Statement against of PUD-CUP 2019-02 & PUD-CUP 2019-03 Dear: Tooele County Planning Commission I would like to voice my concerns regarding the upcoming Commissions review of PUD-CUP 2019-02 & PUD-CUP 2019-03 agenda items for NOV 6th 2019Tooele County Planning Commission Meeting. First I would like to address the initial request for rezones which were granted by the Planning Commission in 2018. After the Commission’s approval the public then began a referendum, and submitted the required signatures. During the counting process the Developer (Joe White) withdrew his applications. The Planning Commission had already granted the rezone for these parcels. The Tooele County Commissioners then announced that they were allowing the withdrawal and returning the zoning to the original zoning. This was clearly not in compliance with Chapter 3-11. 3 - 11. Restriction on applications after decision of rezone application. A final determination regarding an application to amend the zoning map shall preclude the filing of another application to amend the zoning map to reclassify the same parcel of property, or any portion thereof to the same zone classification within one year of the date of the final decision unless the county planning commission finds that there has been a substantial change in the circumstances or sufficient new evidence to merit consideration of a second application within the one-year time period. (Ord 2005-22, 9/13/05) The last decision on the these parcel properties was December of last year. There has not been a substantial change in the circumstances or sufficient new evidence to merit consideration of a second application within the one-year time period. These next applications from Mr. White are for a PUD under Chapter 9 which are the subject of this statement. The request for the PUD’s with the County Planning Department was rushed since at this time there was going to be a quote “Time Out” on PUD applications while chapter 9 was rewritten to correct errors. Mr. White hurried to make the application under the old Chapter 9 since the determination of the Planning Commission would be an administrative decision. The problem with this hurried effort to avoid the new chapter 9 was that the procedures that are spelled out were not followed (9.4) Pre-Application Conference. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on Sept 4, 2019 for PUD-CUP 2019-01 and spoke regarding this lack of compliance to Chapter 9 for that request and also mentioned these applications at that time. I stated to the Board that the defined listed requirements of Chapter 9-4 had not been completed. I would have thought at that time that the Board would have asked the Planning Staff if that was true, but they did not.
Page 2 Statement against PUD-CUP 2019-02 & PUD-CUP 2019-03 The discussion moved on and the County Attorney Mr. Broadhead suggested to the Board that if PUD-CUP 2019-01 was granted it should be subject to a request for rezone to make it more in line with the upcoming rewrite of Chapter 9. I thought this was a strange positon for the County Legal Department to take. When Mr. Jeff Miller was taking about the PUD—CUP 2019-01 Development he addressed my concern with since he had work so much with Mr. White and Mr. Butterfield on the previous requests he decided it was not necessary to have the 9-4 Pre-Application Conference requirement satisfied. I would assume that the same reasoning has been placed on these two applications. I see nowhere in Chapter 9 that allows Mr. Miller to skip steps in the application process, thus the Planning recommendations are flawed and not complete. I also notice that the Notice of the Planning Commission addenda published in the Transport Bulletin Oct 31st makes references as “Joe White: is the applicant on both PUD’s, however the name on the application for PUD-CUP-2019-03 for the meeting on Nov 6th has been changed to a Matt Donaldson. All the Drawings submitted to the County by Ensign are all under Joe Whites name, the traffic study is also co-mingled, between the two applications with different applicants. If Mr. Matt Donaldson is going to be the applicant then he should apply under the New Chapter 9 ordinance. The traffic study is a vain attempt to gloss over the real problem. Erda Way will not be able to accommodate the volume of traffic entering and exiting these developments so close to the Highway 36 intersection. The study makes no mention of the future traffic that will be coming from the New Temple, or if Skywalk was to be completed or the new Medical center on the Northeast counter of Highway 36 and Erda Way. The most important thing left out of this study is the drop off and pick up of students from the Excelsior Academy, where presently the parents have to park on the shoulder of the road and wait before make a left into the school’s pick up area. There are no crosswalks or school zone signage how many students do we sacrifice. I feel that Mr. White and Mr. Donaldson are complicit in their attempt to circumvent the rewrite of Chapter 9. They too should have had knowledge of the existing requirements of the Chapter 9. Planning Commission is not enforcing or questioning the accuracy of the application when information is presented to them, why have a Board? Staff have errored in completing the application in compliance with Chapter 9.4. We the people need to know that the Tooele County Ordinance’s as written are being followed completely and inaccurate and incomplete workmanship will not be tolerated or approved. Thank You, Douglas Buss
1
Jeffrey C. Miller
From:Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 10:47 AMTo: Jeffrey C. MillerSubject: Planning Commission processes
Mr. Miller,
After attending the November 6th Planning and Zoning meeting I would like to ask a few questions and make a few suggestions.
1. These documents attached to the agenda requests-what is the time frame to publish them? And do you update theinformation? The "Neighborhood Response" doesn't seem to reflect accurate information and I don't see them beingcorrected to show the emails and public comments your office has received. It looks like these particular requests (PUD-CUP 2019-02 and PUD-CUP 2019-03)were posted the same day as the meeting. So there is not ample time forconcerned citizens to get their responses into your office for publication before the meeting.
2. These notices that are required to be sent to surrounding property owners are not being received by said owners. Thisis evident from the Nov. 6th meeting. Which property owners are actually notified of rezone requests?
3. The time available for public concerns at these meetings should be increased to 5 minutes. I also feel that if it wereQuestions and Concerns, it would be more helpful. It is the "Questions" that we all have that we NEVER getanswered. That is what makes these meetings so frustrating. We attend hoping that our questions will be answered, andleave the meetings more frustrated and angry. Why can't this be added to the agenda?
4. My final suggestion is to PLEASE instruct the P&Z members on the use of the microphones. The mumbling is just notacceptable. If they can't speak at a level for the room to hear them, then they need to TURN ON their microphones.
Thank you, Donna Phillips Lake Point
1
Jeffrey C. Miller
From:Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 8:33 AMTo: Jeffrey C. MillerSubject: Good Morning Jeff
I am sorry you had to take so much abuse last night. I wanted to tell you some of the things people from West Erda told me.
Your notification letter looked more like a flyer. Most of the people don't know how to navigate the county website to get the information. When they actually could identify where the development was going, by us posting pictures on our Facebook Page, they were outraged. The letter seemed like the county is telling them they have to have "evidence" and that "opinions" don't matter. I had lengthy discussions all day yesterday with residents about that statement and the wording. What is evidence? You have to show the developers have criminal intent to push this through? It didn't translate to them and you make it sound like their concerns aren't valid concerns.
We pay a lot of taxes out here. All of us have received increases and we get little in return. I can't even get the county to clean up the polygamist's relatives next door on the corner. It's a trash dump with motorhomes, old boats, a tent sideways, a home and whatever else that has been in construction for 3 years. It is frustrating and then we have to be dissed by the county because we are standing up to bringing more trouble to our little Erda Township, regarding overcrowding, traffic and most likely crime. It's proven that people crammed together in developments have trouble with depression, neighbors etc.... We don't want that here.
We also want the ordinances existing to be enforced before we start creating more government over reach into our animals. It's like the county is punishing everyone for one incident, like when the teacher makes the whole class stay after because one kid won't fess up to stealing.
I agree the animal ordinances need to be re‐done, but you might do better if you called a working meeting including a committee of 5 residents who actually own cows, sheep etc... and include them in your working meetings. No one is going to write in their suggestions and it might show good will to the citizens that their contributions could be useful in making the final decision. Just a thought.
Here is my suggestion and you can take it or leave it. 1. When you send out those notices. Send a map and description of exactly where the development is
going in. Label the streets. I did this with the referendums and it was helpful for people to make an educated decision to sign or not sign.
2. Put a date on your notice, so people know how many days they have to reply.3. Personalize it. Include their name and address in the top left hand corner.
I worked in Business Management in Los Angeles, managing a bookkeeping staff. We managed actors, producers, writers and all their personal assets and bills, from mortgages to car insurance. I worked with all types of personalities and I could talk a stressed out actor off a ledge by being genuine and making them always feel I had their best interests at the top of my list. Making people feel like they matter would alleviate a lot of what you got last night. I don't think you deserved it, but the public doesn't understand when they get an inflamed notice with no date, no personalization and almost felt threatened to speak up last night.
2
We're all hoping for better days and to be able to work together, Diane Christensen
1
Jeffrey C. Miller
From:Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:06 AMTo: Jeffrey C. MillerCc:Subject: Planning Commission Request for State Codes from Allison Kipp's Comments at the Last Planning
Commission MeetingAttachments: Utah Code Section 17-27a-508 Reason for Refusal of Land Use Application.pdf; Code 17-27a-205
Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings on Adoption or Modification of Land Use Regulation.pdf; Chapter 9-4 Pre-Application Conference.pdf; Legal Definition of Spot Zoning.pdf; Chapter 2-2(240) Definition of Spot Zone.pdf; Chapter 3-11 Text.pdf; TC Final General Plan - Need to Adress Development and Growth - places constraints on limited resources - especially water.pdf; Kunz West Erda Rezone.pdf; Erda Estates Notification.jpg
Mr. Miller,
The Planning Commission requested the various codes that I quoted while speaking against both PUD-CUP 2019-02 and PUD-CUP 2019-03 last week. I attach the codes I quoted for their reference. Below the asterisked line is a summary of my arguments against each PUD-CUP that evening.
I also attach for the Planning Commission’s review the Planning Staff’s recommendations for the Kunz West Erda Rezone Request. The inconsistency with the surrounding RR-5 properties both in lot size and in use (agricultural) and spot zoning were brought up in the Planning Staff’s report. The Planning Staff clearly does not treat each application that it receives with uniformity and in accordance with the Land Use Ordinance. I suspect the approval of the two prior rezone applications and the PUD’s for these properties are a case of who you know and how well do you know them. I suggest that the Planning Commission should reconsider the recommendations of the Planning Staff and do their own research for these applications.
In closing, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission either (1) deny both PUD-CUP 2019-02 and PUD-CUP 2019-03, or (2) accept both PUD-CUP 2019-02 and PUD-CUP 2019-03 with the condition that the Applicants amend the PUD applications to include only 5-acre lots to be consistent with the Land Use Ordinance, the existing zoning, the surrounding zoning, and in accordance with the surrounding property owners’ requests to deny.
Please confirm receipt by return e-mail.
Best regards, Allison Kipp
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Notices to the Adjacent Property Owners
PUD-3 – Applicant name wrong on notice sent to property owners. The notices to the property owners were deficient – did not address letter to owner, did not identify where the property was located, the notice looked like a brochure.
2
Citizen Input and Background of Applications
Referendums were filed to allow the citizens to determine if the properties should be rezoned and had 3,400 signatures. Once Mr. White found out that there were enough valid signatures, the County Ordinances Rezoning these parcels were withdrawn at a Special County Commission Meeting on December 27, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. As the County was placing a moratorium on new PUD applications until the deficient Chapter 9 was amended, Mr. White submitted these PUD applications after the meeting and before the beginning of 2019.
Applications Should Have Been Refused for Being Incomplete
Pre-application conferences were not held for these applications as required by Land Use Ordinance Chapter 9–4:
“Prior to submitting a planned unit development application, an applicant shall participate in a pre-application conference with the zoning administrator, county planner, county engineer, sheriff’s department, fire district, and the health department. A member of the planning commission and a member of the county commission shall be invited to attend the preapplication conference. Representatives of other county departments and decision making bodies may also be present, where appropriate.”
Spot Zoning
The Planning Staff’s recommendations in favor of these Applications is spot zoning as they are not consistent with the County’s zoning ordinances. See Land Use Ordinance Chapter 2-2(240) and https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spot+Zoning.
“(240) Spot zone “means a zoning amendment which singles out a relatively small parcel for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property, which is invalid because it is not in accordance with the general plan.”
“The granting to a particular parcel of land a classification concerning its use that differs from the classification of other land in the immediate area. Spot zoning is invalid because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable treatment of a limited area within a particular district and is, therefore, a deviation from the comprehensive plan.”
A conditional use recommendation by the Planning Staff does not negate other aspects of our County’s zoning ordinances. While a review of a conditional use should be an individualized consideration, it must also be consistent with the terms of our county’s overall zoning plan.
Applicants Prohibited from Filing These Applications
Additionally, even if the Applicants had attended pre-application conferences, they were prohibited from filing these applications for one year. A final determination was made by the Planning Commission when these properties were rezoned and ordinances were issued; therefore the Applicants are prohibited from submitting applications for a one-year period. The fact that the Applicants requested withdrawal of the approved County ordinances is irrelevant. See Land Use Ordinance Chapter 3-11.
“A final determination regarding an application to amend the zoning map shall preclude the filing of another application to amend the zoning map to reclassify the same parcel of property, or any portion thereof to the same zone classification within one year of the
3
date of the final decision unless the county planning commission finds that there has been a substantial change in the circumstances or sufficient new evidence to merit consideration of a second application within the one-year time period. (Ord 2005-22, 9/13/05)”
The PUD’s are not consistent with the surrounding uses in the vicinity as the Planning Staff stated in their recommendations.
Citizen’s Rights and Objections to the Applications
The citizens do not want the property rezoned. Utah State Code states that a land use application shall be approved unless “the land use authority, on the record, formally finds that a compelling, countervailing public interest would be jeopardized by approving the application and specifies the compelling, countervailing public interest in writing.” See Utah State Code 17-27a-508.
Additionally, the General Plan provides for citizen input for development in Erda. There is “little to no potential for change without agreement from property owners.” – See Tooele County General Plan - Constraints of Land Available for Development by Zone – Section 4, p. 2-13
Contrary to what was stated in the Planning Staff’s recommendations, there is no “delicate balance between changes within the built environment and the surrounding agricultural and rural uses.”
Lots can be sold as five acres – septic systems allowed for the existing zoning.
Lack of Water in Erda
Water is a scarce and a limited resource in Erda and the development will only cause more harm to the water table. According to the General Plan, there is a “lack of water in Erda” and the “need to address development and growth is imminent, as it places constraints on limited resources in Tooele Valley, especially water.” These are just two of the areas in the General Plan that discuss the limited water available in the Tooele Valley. See Tooele County General Plan, p. 1-1 and p. 2-4.
Lack of Infrastructure and Traffic
Erda does not have adequate infrastructure for these developments. Schools are already overcrowded (School Bond Referendum) and we do not have adequate police personnel. Additionally, there is already too much traffic on Highway 36 and Erda Way (a single lane, narrow road).
Finally, I advised the Planning Commissioners that any change to land use requires notices to be sent to everyone in an area:
Utah State Code 17-27a-205. Notice of public hearings and public meetings on adoption or modification of land use regulation. A County “shall send a courtesy notice to each owner of private real property whose property is located entirely or partially within the proposed zoning map enactment or amendment at least 10 days before the scheduled day of the public hearing.” There are other requirements for the notice as well that can be found within that section of the Utah State Code.
TOOELE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE – CHAPTER 9 Page 2
Multiple Residential District, RM-7 ....................................................... 5 Acre Multiple Residential District, RM-15 ...................................................... 5 Acres Multiple Residential District, RM-30 ...................................................... 5 Acres Neighborhood Commercial District, C-N ..................................................... 20,000 Square Feet Shopping Commercial District, C-S .................................................. 1 Acre Highway Commercial District, C-H ...................................................... 1 Acre General Commercial District, C-G .......................................................... 1 Acre Manufacturing and Distribution, M-G ...................................................... 1 Acre General Industrial District, M-G .............................................................. 1 Acre Hazardous Industrial district, MG-H ............................................................ 1 Acre
9-4 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE.(1) Prior to submitting a planned unit
development application, an applicant shall participate in a pre-application conference with the zoning administrator, county planner, county engineer, sheriff’s department, fire district, and the health department. A member of the planning commission and a member of the county commission shall be invited to attend the pre-application conference. Representatives of other county departments and decision making bodies may also be present, where appropriate.
(2) The purpose of the pre-applicationconference is to enable the applicant to present the concept of the proposed planned unit development and to discuss the procedures and standards for the planned unit development approval. The conference is intended to facilitate the filing and consideration of a complete application. No representation made by the zoning administrator, county planner, county engineer, sheriff’s department, fire district, the health department, the county commission, the planning commission or the representatives of any county departments or other decision making bodies during such conference shall be binding upon the county with respect to the application subsequently submitted.
(3) The zoning administrator shall schedulethe pre-application conference within 14 calendar days after receiving the request from the applicant. At the time of the request for the pre-application conference, the applicant shall include a narrative summary of the proposal and a description of adjacent land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
9-5 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALSTEPS. The development plan approval process requires three approval steps: a Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan approval and a Final Plan approval.
9-6 CONCEPT PLAN.(1) The concept plan is intended to provide
the applicant an opportunity to submit and obtain review of a plan showing the basic character and
scope of the proposed planned unit development without incurring undue cost. At the election of the applicant, the concept plan may be submitted to the planning commission for its review, and decision following a public hearing.
(2) An application for submittal of a conceptplan shall include schematic drawings at a scale of not smaller than 100 feet to the inch, of the proposed development concept, showing buildings located within 85 feet of the site exclusive of intervening streets and alleys, the general location of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking; public and private open space; and residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses, as applicable, and a tabulation of the following information:
(a) total number of dwelling unitsand rooming units proposed, by type of structure and number of bedrooms;
(b) total square feet of building floorarea proposed for commercial uses, recreation and accessory uses and industrial uses, by general type of use;
(c) proposed number of off-streetparking and loading spaces for each proposed type of land use;
(d) total land area, expressed insquare feet and as a percent of the total development area, proposed to be devoted to residential uses, by type of structure; commercial uses; industrial uses; other land uses; public and private open space; streets, sidewalks, trails and paths; and off-street parking and loading area; and
(e) total project density or intensityof use.
(3) The applicant shall submit an applicationfor planning commission consideration, 14 calendar days prior to the next planning commission meeting. Upon receipt of an application, the zoning administrator shall forward the concept plan application accompanied by staff recommendations to the planning commission seven days prior to the next scheduled planning commission meeting.
(4) Upon review, the planning commissionshall approve the concept plan, approve the concept plan subject to modifications or conditions, or disapprove the concept plan.
From Allision Kipp
alli
Highlight
Utah Code
Page 1
Effective 5/9/201717-27a-205 Notice of public hearings and public meetings on adoption or modification ofland use regulation.(1) Each county shall give:
(a) notice of the date, time, and place of the first public hearing to consider the adoption ormodification of a land use regulation; and
(b) notice of each public meeting on the subject.(2) Each notice of a public hearing under Subsection (1)(a) shall be:
(a) mailed to each affected entity at least 10 calendar days before the public hearing;(b) posted:
(i) in at least three public locations within the county; or(ii) on the county's official website; and
(c)(i) published:
(A) in a newspaper of general circulation in the area at least 10 calendar days before thepublic hearing; and
(B) on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Section 63F-1-701, at least 10 calendardays before the public hearing; or
(ii) mailed at least 10 days before the public hearing to:(A) each property owner whose land is directly affected by the land use ordinance change;
and(B) each adjacent property owner within the parameters specified by county ordinance.
(3) Each notice of a public meeting under Subsection (1)(b) shall be at least 24 hours before thehearing and shall be posted:
(a) in at least three public locations within the county; or(b) on the county's official website.
(4)(a) A county shall send a courtesy notice to each owner of private real property whose property is
located entirely or partially within the proposed zoning map enactment or amendment at least10 days before the scheduled day of the public hearing.
(b) The notice shall:(i) identify with specificity each owner of record of real property that will be affected by the
proposed zoning map or map amendments;(ii) state the current zone in which the real property is located;(iii) state the proposed new zone for the real property;(iv) provide information regarding or a reference to the proposed regulations, prohibitions, and
permitted uses that the property will be subject to if the zoning map or map amendment isadopted;
(v) state that the owner of real property may no later than 10 days after the day of the firstpublic hearing file a written objection to the inclusion of the owner's property in the proposedzoning map or map amendment;
(vi) state the address where the property owner should file the protest;(vii) notify the property owner that each written objection filed with the county will be provided to
the county legislative body; and(viii) state the location, date, and time of the public hearing described in Section 17-27a-502.
(c) If a county mails notice to a property owner in accordance with Subsection (2)(c)(ii) for apublic hearing on a zoning map or map amendment, the notice required in this Subsection
From Allison Kipp
alli
Highlight
alli
Highlight
alli
Highlight
Utah Code
Page 2
(4) may be included in or part of the notice described in Subsection (2)(c)(ii) rather than sentseparately.
Amended by Chapter 84, 2017 General Session
Utah Code
Page 1
Effective 5/14/201917-27a-508 Applicant's entitlement to land use application approval -- Application relatingto land in a high priority transportation corridor -- County's requirements and limitations --Vesting upon submission of development plan and schedule.(1)
(a)(i) An applicant who has submitted a complete land use application, including the payment of
all application fees, is entitled to substantive review of the application under the land useregulations:
(A) in effect on the date that the application is complete; and(B) applicable to the application or to the information shown on the submitted application.
(ii) An applicant is entitled to approval of a land use application if the application conformsto the requirements of the applicable land use regulations, land use decisions, anddevelopment standards in effect when the applicant submits a complete application andpays all application fees, unless:
(A) the land use authority, on the record, formally finds that a compelling, countervailing publicinterest would be jeopardized by approving the application and specifies the compelling,countervailing public interest in writing; or
(B) in the manner provided by local ordinance and before the applicant submits theapplication, the county formally initiates proceedings to amend the county's land useregulations in a manner that would prohibit approval of the application as submitted.
(b) The county shall process an application without regard to proceedings the county initiated toamend the county's ordinances as described in Subsection (1)(a)(ii)(B) if:
(i) 180 days have passed since the county initiated the proceedings; and(ii) the proceedings have not resulted in an enactment that prohibits approval of the application
as submitted.(c) A land use application is considered submitted and complete when the applicant provides the
application in a form that complies with the requirements of applicable ordinances and paysall applicable fees.
(d) The continuing validity of an approval of a land use application is conditioned upon theapplicant proceeding after approval to implement the approval with reasonable diligence.
(e) A county may not impose on an applicant who has submitted a complete application arequirement that is not expressed:
(i) in this chapter;(ii) in a county ordinance; or(iii) in a county specification for public improvements applicable to a subdivision or development
that is in effect on the date that the applicant submits an application.(f) A county may not impose on a holder of an issued land use permit or a final, unexpired
subdivision plat a requirement that is not expressed:(i) in a land use permit;(ii) on the subdivision plat;(iii) in a document on which the land use permit or subdivision plat is based;(iv) in the written record evidencing approval of the land use permit or subdivision plat;(v) in this chapter; or(vi) in a county ordinance.
(g) Except as provided in Subsection (1)(h), a county may not withhold issuance of a certificateof occupancy or acceptance of subdivision improvements because of an applicant's failure tocomply with a requirement that is not expressed:
From Allison Kipp
alli
Highlight
alli
Highlight
Utah Code
Page 2
(i) in the building permit or subdivision plat, documents on which the building permit orsubdivision plat is based, or the written record evidencing approval of the building permit orsubdivision plat; or
(ii) in this chapter or the county's ordinances.(h) A county may not unreasonably withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy where an
applicant has met all requirements essential for the public health, public safety, and generalwelfare of the occupants, in accordance with this chapter, unless:
(i) the applicant and the county have agreed in a written document to the withholding of acertificate of occupancy; or
(ii) the applicant has not provided a financial assurance for required and uncompletedlandscaping or infrastructure improvements in accordance with an applicable ordinance thatthe legislative body adopts under this chapter.
(2) A county is bound by the terms and standards of applicable land use regulations and shallcomply with mandatory provisions of those regulations.
(3) A county may not, as a condition of land use application approval, require a person filing a landuse application to obtain documentation regarding a school district's willingness, capacity, orability to serve the development proposed in the land use application.
(4) Upon a specified public agency's submission of a development plan and schedule as requiredin Subsection 17-27a-305(8) that complies with the requirements of that subsection, thespecified public agency vests in the county's applicable land use maps, zoning map, hookupfees, impact fees, other applicable development fees, and land use regulations in effect on thedate of submission.
(5)(a) If sponsors of a referendum timely challenge a project in accordance with Subsection
20A-7-601(5)(a), the project's affected owner may rescind the project's land use approval bydelivering a written notice:
(i) to the local clerk as defined in Section 20A-7-101; and(ii) no later than seven days after the day on which a petition for a referendum is determined
sufficient under Section 20A-7-607(5).(b) Upon delivery of a written notice described in Subsection (5)(a) the following are rescinded
and are of no further force or effect:(i) the relevant land use approval; and(ii) any land use regulation enacted specifically in relation to the land use approval.
Amended by Chapter 384, 2019 General SessionAmended by Chapter 384, 2019 General Session, (Coordination Clause)
Related Documents
