We have promoted a comment to the front page due to importance.
By Richard
Dana,
There are actually two meetings tomorrow.
The Weber County Commission Meeting @ 10 AM and the Ogden Valley Planning Commission work session at an undisclosed time.
The 10 am WC commission is not on the county website and it is 14 hours until the meeting begins, but an agenda was published in the Standard Examiner.
Here are two items of interest for the WC Commission meeting:
"Set 10 a.m. July 27 for public hearing on amendment to zoning ordinance"
Note the vagueness as there is no mention of details about the particular zoning ordinance, but it is possible that they are referring to FV-3 zone changes - who knows? The Ogden Valley Planning Commission agenda mentions Zoning ordinance chapter 28 and 45.
“Rescind previous appointment and make appointment to the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission.”
So does that mean out with Tryge Simpson and in with Laura Warburton? Or possibly Sharon Holmstrom?
The agenda for the Ogden Valley Planning Commission work session is as follows:
This Work Session will be held in Room 108 of the Weber Center, 2380 Washington Blvd., Ogden UT
1. Huntsville/South Fork Sewer Study
2. Residential Treatment Facilities Discussion
3. Amendment to Weber County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 28
4. Amendment to Weber County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 45
5. Legal Counsel – Testifying before County Commission
6. Adjourn
In summary, two meetings Tuesday - County Commission @ 10 am and the OV Planning Commission at an undisclosed time.
Richard Sorensen
Huntsville
UPDATE 7/6/10 @ 10:45 AM
The Ogden Valley Planning meeting will be held at 5:00 PM in the overflow room behind the normal Commission meeting room
8 comments:
Why is OV planning commission an appointed position by the Weber County Commissioners? These positions should be voted in by the Ogden Valley Residents!!
Why is OV planning commission an appointed position by the Weber County Commissioners?
These positions should be voted in by the Ogden Valley Residents!!
Attended the work session 7/6/2010. Work sessions are for staff and the OVPC to discuss and work out issues on specific issues. Public participation is not allowed.
The residential treatment facility discussion consumed most of the meeting and here is what I think is occurring.
Three of the four OVPC commissioners felt that the valley was an appropriate place for such a facility but they did not like the proposed changes being asked for by the applicant.
It appears that they are going to recomend changes to the existing zoning ordinances AV3, FV3, FV5, FV20, FV40 (but no facillities in commercial, FRx zones) to allow such facilities as conditional use is they provide have a minimum of 20 acres for up to 50 clients and 40 acre minimums for more than 50 clients.
Setbacks will be 300 feet at the front and 200 feet on the both sides and the back of the parcel. This would leave a building envelope of approximately 10 acres.
A TIA, traffic impact analysis, will be required by an outside firm.
Issues pertaining to fire control, water, sewer, other infrastructure and admission standards will be left up to the appropriate local, county, state or federal agencies to allow and enforce.
With this approach they are the body asking for significant changes to existing zoning.
It is my belief that they will then reject the existing proposal from the petitioner and ask them to comply with new changes. If this course of action is taken then the petitioner will be able to appeal the decision to the County Commissioners.
Sorry for the vagueness and uncertainty but I am not sure of the exact process being followed.
One last item; Rob Scott, head of the planning group, stated that they are going to start imposing a deadline for comments, so many days prior to the meeting so that commissioners have time to read the input from the public. I asked him after the meeting if he was also committing to having the detailed packets available on a consistent time before the meeting and would they please implement simple technology that would alert folks to when information was posted. I go the same response as before; we try our best with the limited resources we have but no commitments. Another case of the county imposing restrictions on the citizens/tax payers and not doing anything on their end to assist us.
Ron Gleason
Greetings Bishop Graves,
Nice work at the OVPC Work Meeting last night (July 6, 2010). Let’s see if I understand correctly. To make it easier for the planners, the reference point will be Chapter 23 in the Zoning Ordinances for unincorporated areas of Weber County. The Residential Treatment Academy will now be listed under Permitted Uses except in Zones Commercial, the Canyon and around Pineview Reservoir.
Permitted uses:
The lot shall be at least 20 acres for 50 students 40 acres for 100 students.
Academies are to be spaced at least 1 mile apart.
The lot shall have frontage on a public street at least two hundred (200) feet in width.
The academy shall be at least three hundred (300) feet from the nearest existing dwelling.
One parking space for each staff member plus 20 more
Accessory buildings customarily incidental for educational institutions can have under recreational use a gymnasium.
Reference was made to the new Valley School. Of course, Academies will have to conform to commercial standards. I would like to give credit to commissioner Banks for stating the academy should go in a place where there is the capability to hook up to a major water source. Mr. Banks also made it very clear that we (the 5 Ogden Valley County Commissioners in attendance) were not discussing any particular property.
Therefore, I’m very confident that when the time comes you will rescuse yourself from voting on the Tryge Simpson Property which currently has an offer from the Green Valley Academy.
I too can do the math. All of the commissioners in attendance said yes to an academy in the Ogden Valley. As was declared, there is one in Oakley and Syracuse. I believe you also stated in the last meeting something about not being selfish and sharing. Why not? When you recuse yourself for conflict of interest there will be 6 commissioners left. 5 of them have already gone on record supporting a Permitted Use Residential Treatment Academy to Chapter 23. It would be so inconsistent to vote against the Simpson property as it fits the criteria perfectly.
As I add this up in my mind… one recused, 2 nays (assuming they show up at the next meeting) and 4 yeas. I think you and Tryge should celebrate and pop that bottle of wine.
Thanks Danna. The only thing I recall differently was the fact that this type of use would be conditional in zones mentioned not permitted.
Ron, I sincerely hope you are right!!!
Sorry for all the comments but ....
I would encourage all people reading this information to contact the OVPC via email to Sherry Sillito and copy Rob Scott, head of Weber County Planning and insist that they allow public input and comment on these proposed changes. Chair person graves and at least one other commissioner were against allowing any more input!
To me this is ludicrous as they are recommending major changes to many zoning ordinances and these extent of the changes are not fully thought out or thought through. Staff had little input or guidance.
For example the want to have a minimum of a mile between these type of facilities and minimum set backs from the property line(s). All great but about ensuring that any one of the facilities is minimum of xx miles from a public school or a liquor store?
I am not a professional planner or land use person but common sense needs to kick in. I am sure by researching and understanding what other counties have done we citizens can shed light on some areas that has not been addressed.
I continue to be confused by the approach and process being utilized here, but then again for those who know me that would be no surprise.
Ron Gleason
Chairman Graves also proposed a pathway towards expansion for these types of facilities. He talked about starting with a requirement of 20 acres (for a certain number of residents) and then, as they decide to expand, increasing that to 40 acres.
The red flag for me was that these numbers didn't appear out of thin air. They seem to describe the Simpson property EXACTLY!
Post a Comment