[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6311451,"mediaKeyId","2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1","parentId",2395767,"title","Votes at a glance: Wasatch County Planning Commission, Jan. 9, 2025","audioSeconds",1708,"startMs",2243000,"endMs",3951000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1&start=2243&end=3951","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1/thumbnail_2243000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6311451/Utah/Votes-at-a-glance-Wasatch-County-Planning-Commission-Jan-9-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311451-54ac32e62b5c6e4dc6fb8513fa49afe8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775047348&Signature=OvKuMDjXgc72UJhamaf8ZgEjTW0zUTjUS~XGs~j1Ht4KMgZEI9zY~5oNhV9-fSbYeLrlIbYyHwkwaH91saqj9cDiHElPEmgIQMr7Knvoei3LxGGAP1PmPjX-w~3s4sRPoVUa0QuLYTBJrjLQsyFg9WdHrlmrnkhOHqM80FHBSdfnTmY3yRQm5Z4Cpir-EJ4ytxiZHxABVBgYC4fUcbyz~bGSDiyW7rSK~wmC1C3ka1c3v4gZsQEX76ajAGd9DrmqWZtrzx9LYJKCbKnm3sFFM6V8fEBFbTXwNZzyFvTVYyQ3MGM0EugrJjFfYaGCkMBhn2lEq72vPc-2DRHu9bzf2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wasatch County, Utah","date","2025-01-09T18:00:00Z","article","The Planning Commission recorded the following formal actions on Jan. 9, 2025:

- Approval of minutes from the Nov. 14, 2024 meeting. Motion moved and seconded; passed by voice vote. (Transcript records \"All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.\")

- Consent agenda: approval of a second plan amendment extension request (Dancing Sun Phase 3, Lot 603 subdivision plat). Motion moved and seconded; passed by voice vote.

- Christianson Farms Phase 3 (Agenda Item 2): Final subdivision plat approved \"so long as the applicant fulfills the commitments made,\" and subject to resolution of DRC comments and commitments including trail construction and affordable-housing in-lieu obligations. Applicant registered a formal protest regarding applicability of a 2024 state statute; staff said the project is vested and recommended proceeding. Motion passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally recorded in transcript.

- Caretaker ADU code amendment (Agenda Item 3): Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation to the County Commission to allow caretaker ADUs in the Jordanelle Basin overlay as a conditional use, and added a stipulation directing county planning staff to propose alternative language to allow greater flexibility in the building-envelope shape. Motion passed by voice vote.

Notes: Several items were processed administratively or by consent; voice votes were recorded with no roll-call tallies in the transcript. Where counts were not specified in the record, the meeting minutes should be consulted for definitive tallies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wasatch County Planning Commission\t1/9/2025 6:00:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken by the Planning Commission at the Jan. 9 meeting, including minutes approval, consent agenda, final plat approval for Christianson Farms Phase 3, and a recommendation on a caretaker ADU code amendment.","taxTitle","Wasatch County Planning Commission, Wasatch County Commission, Wasatch County Commission and Boards, Wasatch County, Utah","taxId",19315,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6311456,"Commission opens code review of home-occupation rules and single-family design standards; staff to return with revisions",2022,5238000,7260000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1&start=5238&end=7260","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1/thumbnail_5238000.jpg","/articles/6311456/Utah/Commission-opens-code-review-of-home-occupation-rules-and-single-family-design-standards-staff-to-return-with-revisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311456-b36d060ebeca61a269bb5a5aa963ea08/orig.mp4?Expires=1775047348&Signature=WQQkUoLgQxKyIIIcywRWOPjHE4wHABDIHx3NzAFA9KVe3ohiCOTbw~xy~P9sRFxG8an0bEV0krqsZfZOYTUZH7JyTjICWZEClEDb~AcDZlovFREu0-sJLSfMhFq1OqvWwMw8odqnVUK6MCeaZkr~2ubN8tXi4KijP4eza409mouSBOxas~hAJ~xM4ScmU5tBYARsUrdlv5MFy5AbEAn6tatHtQQ~eY1R~g3QsGDxELRgSTy5So0rq~kdnkihSk7X6oaBl~VtML1xKAsKwMh7m59Cn0FVKXlgHuR2E5bs-jy99zY4TwCqE3LDc3F6TlmrebD8se5x0py9ake7P6N5dg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Jan. 9 the Planning Commission conducted a discussion-only session on two interrelated code topics: home-occupation regulations and single-family dwelling design standards. Staff asked for guidance and said they would return with draft code language.

Home occupations: Staff said the county's home-occupation code dates to 2002 and contains processes that do not match current practice (for example, applications are currently handled by the business-license clerk rather than directly by the planning department). Staff reported about 250\u0000275 active home-occupation permits in the county and said inspections occur only in response to complaints.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether and when outbuildings (garages or sheds) should be allowed to host home-occupation activity, how to limit noxious outdoor uses (storage of flammable chemicals, heavy equipment), and whether the permit should be processed administratively with neighbor notice or as a conditional use that triggers additional review and enforceable conditions. The county\u0000s fire district and health department raised concerns about hazardous materials stored in garages, and commissioners said stricter rules should apply if activity or storage is outside the conditioned home.

Design standards: Staff reviewed a 2002-era single-family design standard requiring pitched roofs, minimum eave overhangs and minimum primary-dwelling depths intended to prevent trailer-style or temporary housing forms. Commissioners noted changes in contemporary mountain architecture (flat roofs, parapet walls, linked conditioned appendages) and asked whether the code should continue to prohibit parapet walls and whether conditioned connections between structures should count as \"attached\" or remain \"detached\" for setback and accessory-use calculations.

Commissioners expressed varying views. Several said the county should not overregulate aesthetic design but should retain rules preventing circumvention of accessory-structure placement rules (for example, avoiding long conditioned corridors used to reclassify a detached accessory structure as part of the main dwelling). Staff said they will draft code updates that clarify the conditions under which appendages count as attached, set reasonable maximum dimensions for conditioned connections, and propose clearer rules for whether outbuildings may be used for business activities.

Outcome: The item was discussion-only. Staff will return with draft code amendments addressing administrative processing, outbuilding limits, hazardous-material safeguards, appropriate review pathways (administrative vs. conditional use) and clarifications on conditioned appendages and roof-form allowances.","Commission held an extended discussion about updating home-occupation permitting and single-family dwelling design standards to reflect changes since 2002, including questions about permitting outbuildings, enforcement and allowing varied roof forms; staff will draft specific code updates.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6311461,"Commission backs recommendation to allow caretaker ADUs in Jordanelle Basin overlay with conditions; staff to refine building-envelope language",1440,3970000,5410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1&start=3970&end=5410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1/thumbnail_3970000.jpg","/articles/6311461/Utah/Commission-backs-recommendation-to-allow-caretaker-ADUs-in-Jordanelle-Basin-overlay-with-conditions-staff-to-refine-building-envelope-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311461-64c925169ed1e23611989d24e9ab4833/orig.mp4?Expires=1775047348&Signature=Ml2yWbdHvGwDDuYX1n8cNGLAbhF5BFAqX1fl~l8fttOXF-NMKsug8i5PHr8U2B5uO0~4rlSE2uuQRxo8mTJlZsuiDeLC6uwEmacF2BcepDRcS4URlkkNZOSz5NfizpZfhlJoNPIxEoC7qCWQlxStgyJuIlx8Yq-ajrxW9SwoZLqqCYyTwu1~piPuNQknv38~FU3iY8xlGsrLrTej~mO259Cm6h6ePvNWZAnCGImcni8uGivWL0Vf4xSMDw5fxRbvsFtSKsAXaK2OBCn4iapQz7mSidg18mO89uZXarmA5O213vfOhaAiWjSZ6etpytSZNUfQSHNfzXwUEsXHDxE3Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on Jan. 9 voted to forward a code amendment to the County Commission that would permit caretaker accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a conditional use in the Jordanelle Basin Overlay Zone (JBOZ), subject to revised language limiting them to lots with adequate contiguous, buildable envelopes and without steep slopes.

Planning staff explained the amendment would add caretaker ADUs to the overlay zone\u0000s permitted/conditional-use table and modify existing caretaker ADU requirements (county code section 16.21.27). Staff proposed that a caretaker ADU be allowed only on parcels that meet the underlying zone minimum size or a minimum of 10 acres, and contain a contiguous generally rectangular building envelope of at least 1 acre that does not violate the county\u0000s physical-constraint analysis (16.27.25) and contains no natural or man-made slopes over 25% in the proposed envelope.

Staff said the change responds to an applicant request (Victory Ranch) and that the proposed language is intended to allow caretaker ADUs on large lots while preventing placement on very steep or constrained building areas. \"This is the requirements that are specific for a caretaker ADU...the lot must meet the minimum size requirements of the underlying zone, or a minimum of 10 acres, whichever is larger,\" staff summarized.

Several commissioners objected to the phrase \"generally rectangular\" as too prescriptive; one commissioner said the phrasing would generate needless disputes about envelope shape. The applicant\u0000s representative, Jeff Graham, said the amendment as drafted would not affect Victory Ranch lots but supported adding flexible language to allow other reasonably buildable envelope shapes. Commissioners therefore moved and approved a recommendation to the County Commission with a stipulation that county planning staff propose alternative language to allow more flexibility in the allowable building-envelope shape while preserving the 1-acre buildable-envelope requirement.

Motion and vote: the commission \"gave a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners\" for the code change and added a stipulation directing staff to recommend alternative language to allow greater flexibility in building-envelope shape. The motion passed by voice vote.

Staff and applicants noted the amendment would keep caretaker ADUs as conditional uses (requiring a conditional-use permit) and would exclude very steep, constrained lots from eligibility. Commissioners asked about interactions with state ADU legislation; staff said the code is consistent with state requirements that primarily require internal ADUs in certain zones but that caretaker ADUs are a distinct category tied to agricultural and caretaker needs.","Planning staff recommended and the commission voted to forward a code amendment permitting caretaker accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the Jordanelle Basin overlay as a conditional use with new buildability constraints; commissioners directed staff to craft more flexible building-envelope wording.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6311466,"Commission approves Christianson Farms Phase 3 final plat; developer recorded formal protest about new state subdivision statute",749,2591000,3340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1&start=2591&end=3340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1/thumbnail_2591000.jpg","/articles/6311466/Utah/Commission-approves-Christianson-Farms-Phase-3-final-plat-developer-recorded-formal-protest-about-new-state-subdivision-statute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311466-add5c9e5e59fad46990fc121b2977726/orig.mp4?Expires=1775047348&Signature=HSKHPPyQp2vHkEZ0lgpmbfRt2YgsmMNejTX24DlTClt51D3s5tqNcRRHYTe2Tg7Yk0lMx-6iNZZh3luTLrutfSSuCvPsLEexkCM0Jspa2FJmjkxoOHYexfwJaO0m70smqocqeoZ~~rZiGthHJwStymLvN0i23ZGgW8qa~NGOEqOi8q9Q5KQc3VofIBdh-sqr-Nwq4ZWJ2WsfdDYWRB~DV4Dc8yI2t5xvW4O7-cWLLyoQioHK0yP89n8ddgDpIRskcAXMxf6vQHtciwx4q2Us0Qgd7Fi4vVEhodkMii5ucamImOE3~XEILY17NpZuXGnnn7WA1DJsqbZmXrX~TzI6cg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wasatch County Planning Commission voted to approve final subdivision plat for Christianson Farms Phase 3 at its Jan. 9 meeting, subject to the applicant fulfilling the commitments made with the preliminary approval and resolving outstanding Development Review Committee comments.

Planning staff described the 36.53-acre phase as designed to continue an existing road network, provide a regional asphalt trail to be constructed prior to either 18 months after plat recordation or issuance of 50% of building permits (whichever comes first), and to use the same perimeter agricultural fencing adopted in Phase 2. Staff also noted the developer offered a 10% in-lieu housing obligation and that $78,400 remained due to satisfy that commitment.

Peter Gamverulis, identifying himself as a partner with Ivory Development (Christianson Farms Lots LLC), attended the hearing to register a formal protest and to record concerns about a 2024 change in state law that, he said, shifts final subdivision approvals to an administrative process. \"We attended in protest today,\" Gamverulis said. \"State code changed last year and was effective... final subdivision approval is now an administrative role that needs to be done at staff level.\" He said county management told the applicant staff-level approval was possible but that the county had not completed the notice period tied to the administrative route, and he asked for a record of his objection.

Commissioners and county legal/staff said the project was vested under earlier preliminary approvals and that multiple legal questions remain about how the newer state statute applies to vested projects. The county attorney's office was not on the record at the meeting; staff advised that if there are outstanding legal questions, they can be addressed through the county\u0000s normal legal channels but recommended proceeding with the project as presented because it meets the vested application requirements.

The applicant also told the commission there is not yet a recorded off-site easement for a cul-de-sac extension; staff said the proposed temporary barricade approach does not require that easement and that Lot 310 and Lot 311 would not be allowed driveways onto the barricaded road until it is extended.

Motion and vote: the commission approved final subdivision plat for Christianson Farms Phase 3 \"so long as the applicant fulfills the commitments made,\" and subject to resolution of DRC comments. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the meeting record shows the motion carried following a voice \"Aye\" with no recorded roll-call tally in the transcript.

The staff report and the commission's decision require the developer to construct the regional trail and landscaping prior to the earlier of 18 months after plat recordation or issuance of 50% of building permits, and to satisfy the 10% in-lieu housing obligation or otherwise meet the preliminary-stage commitments.","The Planning Commission approved final subdivision plat for Christianson Farms Phase 3 with conditions requiring the developer to meet prior commitments; the applicant registered a protest saying recent state law changes authorize administrative final-plat approvals and the developer wanted a record of objection.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6311471,"Wasatch County staff outline public-engagement plan and timeline for general plan rewrite",1347,445000,1792000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1&start=445&end=1792","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2395767-7ab59dac85b55facc3f779e37d0362a1/thumbnail_445000.jpg","/articles/6311471/Utah/Wasatch-County-staff-outline-public-engagement-plan-and-timeline-for-general-plan-rewrite","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311471-6afc08aabaf7cce1d7a66e07561600be/orig.mp4?Expires=1775047348&Signature=UfkTKT7RvqlFWis~wBYGPF9pNKJoAkeNkOwL~6xkBBQZSPzrg-kEcovgtey1Vl2NQHw0MartznA4DGHA88oLEj9o4IMmBdw1Y~DzIe5mnhfDiDJ14yci0jWNL0IyCUL89isXTVDEPnqAuM2mVZEGb-waZzjwNPGC3EuEujsAL-6vud257Y6IDbneSuTlXD4I4qAdH0mxdaxLB3hkmtOqDCz6j5x~U4Tui4DK2kidCfOiVa2~1zKFbpdlwnJqunWF8V2v0HzhB12DPKcKx-Y3JOzPFov8zr-Xvp5V95DgIRnPH5ZXBHlW8jISLqjvSlzyl6XAR-8d4Mwx9VpQjdVqdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Wasatch County planning staff on Jan. 9 told the Planning Commission they are moving from data gathering toward broad public engagement for a countywide general plan rewrite, with drafting planned for spring 2026.

The county\u0000s communications director, Joan Gould, said the outreach strategy will pair education about what a general plan is with efforts to reach residents who do not normally participate. \"The reason why we're going to do any type of messaging strategy is because we want the community to participate in the general plan,\" Gould said, urging use of staffed tables at libraries and senior centers, social media, on-site signage with QR codes and email collection to keep participants informed.

Austin (planning staff) told commissioners the team has completed an initial data phase and showed population and housing snapshots the county will use to frame public discussion. He cited 2022 Census estimates putting county population just under 37,000 and said projections now show the county will reach roughly 81,000 residents by mid-century. He also said net in-migration, not natural increase, has driven much of recent growth and that about 40% of county housing is secondary (seasonal) homes.

Staff proposed two rounds of engagement: an open-ended, imagination-driven first survey (for example, asking respondents to choose a 2050 \"postcard\" vision) followed by a deeper second survey addressing specific code-driven topics. Gould and Austin said the second survey would ask tradeoff questions on affordability, open space, density and traffic so respondents understand that choices on one issue affect others.

The presenters said they will seek direction from the County Council about scope and also asked the Planning Commission to review a draft survey in February. Austin noted some outreach funds may be available to contract survey specialists and commissioners urged staff to consider professional survey design to avoid leading questions. \"Crafting the right questions and then deciding if you can put numbers to things so you can quantify data rather than ask people to write an essay,\" one commissioner said.

Staff emphasized timeline and limits: the draft plan will not be pre-formed, and staff said they are not drafting policy now but gathering data and public input first. The presenters proposed that a regional open house and at least two survey rounds be combined with existing commission meetings and targeted outreach to underrepresented groups.

Commissioners asked for clarification on who would be included. Gould said residents of incorporated cities can participate and submit surveys; staff said the county\u0000s general plan work will focus on unincorporated areas but that city residents are affected by county decisions and therefore will be included in outreach. Commissioners also recommended staff email commission members the draft materials for written feedback.

Staff said they will return with a draft survey for commission review in February and will continue refining outreach tactics and partnering with local organizations such as the Wasatch Community Foundation.","County planning staff presented a refined timeline and outreach strategy for a general plan rewrite, proposing two public surveys, open houses and targeted outreach to underrepresented groups with a target for drafting in spring 2026.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Wasatch County Planning Commission, Jan. 9, 2025

Commission opens code review of home-occupation rules and single-family design standards; staff to return with revisions

Commission backs recommendation to allow caretaker ADUs in Jordanelle Basin overlay with conditions; staff to refine building-envelope language

Commission approves Christianson Farms Phase 3 final plat; developer recorded formal protest about new state subdivision statute

Wasatch County staff outline public-engagement plan and timeline for general plan rewrite