Rezone Summary and Recommendation - Utah.gov
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Planning and Zoning
47 S. Main Street ∙ Room 208 ∙ Tooele, UT 84074
Phone: (435) 843-3160 ∙ Fax: (435) 843-3252
tooeleco.org/tooele-county-government/county-
departments/community-development/
REZ 2021-003
Rezone Summary
and Recommendation
Public Body: Tooele County Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 3, 2021
Parcel IDs: 03-014-0-0020 Current Zone: RR-5 (Rural Residential, 5 Acre Min.)
Proposed Zone: C-G (Commercial General)
Request: Proposed rezone from RR-5 to C-G
Unincorporated: Tooele County
Planners: Jeff Miller
Planning Commission Recommendation: Not yet received
Planning Staff Recommendation: Conditions of Approval
Applicant Name: Samuel Howard
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Samuel Howard is requesting a rezone from RR-5 (Rural Residential, 5 Acre Minimum) to C-G (Commercial
General) for a parcel approximately 8.28 acres in size. Associated with this rezone request, is a requested general
plan amendment (GPA 2021-002), to allow for commercial uses in an area currently envisioned to have residential
development between 1-20 acres in size at build out according to the Tooele County General Plan Update 2016.
If the property is successfully rezoned from RR-5 to C-G, the applicant intends to pursue permitted use approval
for RV Storage on the subject property.
SITE & VICINITY DESCRIPTION (see attached map)
The subject property is located at the western end
of Pine Canyon Road, immediately east of the
railroad tracks and immediately north and east of
Tooele City. Across the railroad tracks to the
northwest is a relatively large area of properties
within Tooele County that are currently being used
for a mixture of commercial and industrial uses.
Immediately south are some residential uses in
Tooele City. To the east is a large area of
undeveloped land in the RR-5 zone. Further to the
east are residential uses in the Pine Canyon area,
with most of the properties zoned RR-5.
Request: Proposed rezone from RR-5 to C-G File #: REZ 2021-003
ZONE CONSIDERATIONS
Requirement Existing Zone (RR-5) Proposed Zone (C-G)
Height 35 Feet 75 Feet
Established in site plan approval (no
closer than 50 feet to street line which
Front Yard Setback 30 Feet continues as frontage into a residential
district)
Established in site plan approval (no
20 Feet (both Main and Accessory closer than 50 feet to residential district
Side Yard Setback
Buildings) boundary lines)
Established in site plan approval (no
50 Feet (both Main and Accessory closer than 50 feet to residential district
Rear Yard Setback
Buildings) boundary lines)
Lot Width 220 Feet N/A
Buildings cannot exceed 50% of lot area.
Lot Area 5 Acre Minimum
Street Grading, Street Base, Curb and
Street Grading, Street Base, On-Site Gutter, Sidewalk, On-site Surface
Surface Drainage Facilities, Culinary Drainage Facilities, Culinary Water
Required Improvements
Water Facilities, Wastewater Disposal Facilities, Wastewater Disposal and Street
and Street Monuments Monuments, any other infrastructure
deemed necessary.
Compatibility with existing buildings in terms of size, scale and height. Yes
Compliance with the General Plan. Yes
GENERAL PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
According to the Tooele County General Plan Update 2016, the subject property is currently located within an
area that is anticipated to have residential development between 1-20 acres in size at build out. If the general
plan amendment (GPA 2021-002) is approved, the subject property would be allowed to have commercial uses.
ISSUES OF CONCERN/PROPOSED MITIGATION
Planning Staff had a discussion with the Tooele City Planner, Andrew Aagard regarding the proposed rezone
request. Andrew indicated that right of way dedication for a future bridge over the railroad tracks wouldn’t be
necessary because there are differing grades at 2000 north and SR-36, so a bridge over the railroad tracks isn’t
envisioned at this location. A bridge over the railroad tracks at 2400 North may be a viable connection in the
future. Andrew also indicated that a large residential development by D.R. Horton is planned directly south from
the subject property, with some potential roadway widening along Pine Canyon Road. During the site plan
review, we will review any required roadway dedications and improvements.
The County Engineer also indicated that traffic counts for the anticipated use would most likely be relatively low.
However, the Planning Commission may want to look at restricting certain commercial uses identified in the C-G
Rezone Summary Page 2 of 3
Request: Proposed rezone from RR-5 to C-G File #: REZ 2021-003
zone as a zoning condition (as allowed by Section 3-15 of the Tooele County Land Use Ordinance), which could
present a negative impact on traffic flow in the area, and wouldn’t be compatible due to the unique location of
the subject property. *Please see the attached Chapter 17, which lists the allowable uses in the C-G zone
starting on page 4.
NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE
Any comments that are received from the surrounding neighbors or the general public will be forwarded to the
Tooele County Planning Commission for review and will be summarized on January 20, 2021.
During the public hearing on January 20, 2021, there was no public comment provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE
The Tooele County Planning Commission heard this item on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. They tabled this item,
so that staff could discuss the proposed rezone request with Tooele City, and potential zoning restrictions
regarding proposed uses could be further analyzed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will
hear this item on February 3, 2020. Their recommendation and any proposed conditions of approval will be
presented to the Tooele County Council at a future meeting.
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS
Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed rezone request and has found that the anticipated use of the property
could be cohesive with the surrounding uses and zones (if the planning commission analyzes potential
commercial uses that should be restricted on the subject property).
*Please see the attached e-mails from Planning Commissioner John Wright.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends that the Tooele County Planning Commission analyzes the proposed rezone request
prior to making a recommendation to the County Council to rezone the subject property from RR-5 (Rural
Residential, 5 Acre Minimum) to C-G (Commercial General).
If the subject property is recommended to be rezoned from RR-5 to C-G, planning staff is requesting the
following conditions of approval:
• The Planning Commission will analyze the allowable uses in the C-G zone, to potentially request a zoning
condition to restrict the allowable uses on the subject property, due to potential negative impacts that
some commercial uses may cause with increased traffic.
Rezone Summary Page 3 of 3
REZ 2021-003: Rezone from RR-5 (Rural Residential, 5 Acre Minimum) to C-G (Commercial General).
Parcel: (03-014-0-0020)
Tooele City RR-5
Tooele City
RR-5
Tooele City RR-5
Subject
Property
RR-5
Tooele City
RR-5
Tooele City
RR-5
Tooele City
W
John H. Wright
623 Country Club Drive
Stansbury Park, Utah 84074-9655
435-882-6854
January 20, 2021
Jeff Miller
Tooele County Planning
and Zoning Administrator
47 South Main Street
Room 208
Tooele, Utah 84074
Re: Proposed exclusions from proposed REZ 2021-003, specifically from the Tooele County
Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 17 in compliance to Chapter 3-15.
Dear Jeff,
The items listed herein are activities that I would propose to have removed as acceptable uses
in the specific proposed CG zone from the proposed rezone from RR-5 to CG on property owned
by Samuel Howard on parcels 03-014-0-0020, should the request to rezone be approved. I have
listed each item referring to the table in Chapter 17 and the reasoning that I feel that the use
should be excluded.
I would appreciate it if you would review these items and provide me some advice regarding
my request. Thank you.
Tooele County Planning
and Zoning Commission
John H. Wright
Commission Member
Cc: Wade (Scott) Jacobs, Commission ChairmanProposed actions to be deleted as being an approved use on this particular location:
Table location Questionable activity Reason to remove activity
Table 17-5-3.2 d. Automobile Service Station Poor access, too close to
Pgs. 4 & 5 existing residences and
anticipated noise levels.
e. Auto or recreational vehicles see above.
sales and repairs
f. Auto body and fender shop, tire
recapping, etc. see above.
j. Recreational vehicles rentals
leases, service and repairs see above.
k. Truck & heavy equipment
service and repair see above.
Table 17-5-3.3 m. Beer outlet Class A & B Should be restricted to
Highway Commercial and
Retail zone. Proximity to
existing residences and
playground and school.
p. Building materials sales yard
outside Poor access, too close to
existing residences and
anticipated noise levels
y. Coal and fuel office see above.
z. Convenience store Traffic congestion, location
to existing housing.
15. Liquor and beer sales, bars Too close to existing
residences, schools, play-
grounds. Should be in a
more commercial zone
18. Lumber yard Congestion, access issues
Noise issues to existing
residences.
57. State liquor store Too close to existingTable location Questionable activity Reason to remove activity
57. State liquor store Too close to existing
residences, schools,
playground. Should be in
a more commercial zone.
Table 17-5-3.4 f. Recreation vehicle park Road congestion, If allowed,
would recommend a stay to
be 30 days or less. Should
not be allowed to become a
permanent residence.
Table 17-5-3.5 k. Construction of buildings,
prefabrication of buildings. Poor access, noise levels to
existing residences, too close
to residences.
l. Dairy Potential smell nuisances,
too close to existing
residences, poor access for
trucking operations.
m. Egg processing See above.
r. Welding shop – exterior Could only be allowed to be
operated inside closed
building. Potential noise
levels, welding arcs
sightings.
w. Machine shop See above.
17-5-3-7 g. Dam / reservoir Too close to residences,
traffic congestion, general
safety concerns in that area/
17.5.3.8 j. Dance hall Traffic congestion, noise
to residences, Should be in a
more commercial zone.
m. Night Club Too close to schools, existing
residences, playgrounds, poor
access, should be in a more
commercial zone.Table location Questionable activity Reason to remove activity
n. Private Club See above.
p. Recreation Coach Park Road congestion, If allowed,
would recommend a stay to
be 30 days or less. Should
not be allowed to become a
permanent residence.
s. Outdoor theater Inappropriate for the location
too close to residences,
highways. Access is poor.
Table 17.5.3.9 c. Public transit hub Traffic congestion, parking
would need to be developed.
Would affect current traffic
patterns and quantity.
e. Contractor equipment storage yard Potential excessive noise.
Poor access
f. Distribution warehouse center Poor access, traffic
congestion, noise to
residences.
j. Truck freight terminal Heavy traffic congestion
noise levels to existing
residences. Safety issues.
i. Hazardous waste collection / storage Too close to residences,
Safety concerns, congestion
n. Impound lot Potential issues with
residences, noise, sight issues
potential recycling of auto
parts – junk yard.
s. Terminal, parking and maintenance
facility Congestion, traffic flow
increased, potential noise
issues.
t. Transfer company Potential increased traffic
flow. Should be considered
like a truck freight terminalTable location Questionable activity Reason to remove activity
u. Warehouse Likely noise levels, access
problems, increased traffic
Table 17.5.3.11 A. PUD Inappropriate in 8 acres
ENDW
John H. Wright
623 Country Club Drive
Stansbury Park, Utah 84074-9655
435-882-6854
January 26, 2021
Jeff Miller
Tooele County Planning
and Zoning Administrator
47 South Main Street
Room 208
Tooele, Utah 84074
Re: Proposed exclusions from proposed REZ 2021-003, specifically from the Tooele County Land Use Ordinance,
Chapter 17 in compliance to Chapter 3-15.
Dear Jeff,
After meeting on this matter on January 20 and listening to the applicant and other members of the commission I
would offer the following observations. The applicant indicated that he had looked into obtaining culinary water
and sewer to the site and found that doing so was cost prohibitive. That being said nearly every activity allowed or
could be approved by a conditional permit in this proposed rezone – CG would not be able to operate as they all
need both water and sewer access. That limits the use within this parcel to only recreation vehicle storage and
possibly a contractor equipment storage yard. As I review the various tables included in Chapter 17 of allowed
uses in a CG zone, given the lack of water and sewer I can only see that we could approve in Table 17.5-3.9 item e
– Contractor Equipment Storage and item q – Storage Units without outside storage. I do not understand item 2 of
section q as it seems the storage is not on the same parcel of land. If some of the storage is enclosed and some
outside, I would find that acceptable. The balance of other items listed in the tables in Chapter 17 would not be
acceptable at this time, because of the water situation. These conditions would only apply to the proposed rezone
from RR-5 to CG on property owned by Samuel Howard on parcels 03-014-0-0020, should the request to rezone be
approved. It is my opinion that we should deal with this proposal by indicating what is approved to be performed on
this parcel rather than trying to eliminate all of the items not meeting the uses because of its location in relationship
to existing housing, access issues and schools.
I would appreciate it if you would review these items and provide me some advice regarding my suggestion.
Thank you.
Tooele County Planning
and Zoning Commission
John H. Wright
Commission Member
Cc: Wade (Scott) Jacobs, Commission ChairmanYou can also read
