[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6283622,"mediaKeyId","2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba","parentId",2586603,"title","Commission approves Huntsman-related request (item 6)","audioSeconds",19,"startMs",2983000,"endMs",3002000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba&start=2983&end=3002","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba/thumbnail_2983000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6283622/Utah/Commission-approves-Huntsman-related-request-item-6","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283622-382f504afa9237ff7d42998a41116f09/orig.mp4?Expires=1770727681&Signature=jLS~GfSqdJoA0Mkb9sdeJEanmumcJa3cWOpaXk0R8K7iWBwxDKOrgV5wp4kUu9oZsJ2w~RJA4TXGyyQBH1d71unamY355StMTHPmoJgrb6HkM4Oy5LFaR~cCTmtbw3eVc1o5C9DBbEhb8YlDkgrk31odweh85Z45M8Qd14TFgN1C6YcE7CK7Vnbanc2qhWCFjIFIPj2Epth4XN21LBJd929c8Oc~w1hx7vYxQqSyqiOZdEvbbAvW2rX7PZpy0leGvvnMsgHaK0XPCdu~sMRzU9sRv~TtzMK6iQUqdMLXG5mCj0LrHeeaOr2gYqf3gdeI9TKM89J6o2X5Zyk4K8N1Tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-12T14:50:49Z","article","Commissioners voted to approve agenda item 6 at their March 12 meeting. The item was discussed briefly; one commissioner indicated a prior position on the subject and moved to approve and another seconded the motion. The chair called for the ayes and the motion carried.

The transcript records only a brief exchange on the item; no additional details about contract numbers, fiscal amounts or program specifics appear in the recorded discussion. Commissioners indicated awareness of the request and proceeded to approve it by motion and second. No roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Utah County Commission Public Meeting - March 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved item 6, a request described by commissioners as advancing a Huntsman‑related funding or contract matter; the motion passed by voice vote at the March 12 meeting.","taxTitle","Utah County Commission, Utah County Commission and Boards, Utah County, Utah","taxId",67008,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283627,"Commission denies request to reduce RA-5 minimum lot size from 5 to 2.5 acres",679,2307000,2986000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba&start=2307&end=2986","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba/thumbnail_2307000.jpg","/articles/6283627/Utah/Commission-denies-request-to-reduce-RA-5-minimum-lot-size-from-5-to-25-acres","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283627-93b90a13ccf25de8102c0066247f72b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770727681&Signature=UrssTe7-0QmA9wnnR8fVXZSA5ysOWFFJekT-uLs4tRxRj3x9X73RNUeOu8OFFNhagoBdWf5vBG6nIRAKFz~BDaCr9-iG~faWy2aOcu0~T0JN6aL7CRSl~nCguUZlNISPyXbPAth7~JVKLcgegz9SpcDU9RD6wcZEfIgK01yP~9EMY7dLonqELgO2tGzIlzYnBV9tn7FEQSLfeKZdg58zl4~zvZIBGNnRrui~Qsj~Sjxi9gmSpT8jquekGW2P-W01mCL7KBs~pIYDlQIRVMcQfBwkVIPdS5I1mANZP5XRk1i5x82OG1obzcroXZK3~xQrIxrTJk257NsEyJNyfBvUuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah County Commission voted to deny a proposed amendment to Section 12.08 of the Utah County Land Use Ordinance that would have reduced the minimum lot size and frontage in the RA-5 zone on March 12.

Greg Robinson, a county community development staff member, told commissioners the applicant proposed lowering the RA-5 minimum from five acres to 2.5 acres and cutting minimum frontage from 250 feet to 125 feet for lots within an HOA, but Robinson said the applicant’s drafted ordinance language did not accomplish that change. Robinson and staff recommended denial; the planning commission had recommended denial at its February hearing by a 5-1 vote.

Robinson and Bryce Armstrong, also with community development, cited technical, environmental and policy concerns. Armstrong summarized historical changes to rural zoning — from one-acre rules in the 1970s to a 40-acre minimum and later a five-acre standard adopted in the 1990s — and pointed to technical papers and a statement from the state engineer recommending against lower minimums because of aquifer and septic impacts. “During that process . . . there was quite a bit of transmission of effluent through on-site septic systems,” Armstrong said, which raised concerns about potential contamination of Utah Lake.

Staff also reported market and annexation examples when evaluating the applicant’s affordability argument. Robinson said Goshen-area 2.5-acre lots in the county appraisal review ranged between $750,000 and $985,000. He also cited a recent 916-acre parcel that was annexed to Salem: under current county zoning that parcel could have yielded about 83 lots, and under the city’s current zoning it could yield “2,053 and 5,518 dwellings,” Robinson said.

Multiple commissioners expressed concern about groundwater, septic capacity and the ordinance’s broad application countywide. One commissioner said they would be more open to smaller lots through a specific area development agreement or an annexation tied to municipal sewer rather than a countywide ordinance change. Another commissioner noted the applicant did not attend the planning commission meeting or engage consistently with the review process.

A commissioner moved to deny item 3 and a second was made; the motion carried after the chair called for the ayes. No roll-call names were recorded in the meeting transcript.

","The Utah County Commission voted to deny an applicant’s proposed amendment to Section 12.08 of the Utah County Land Use Ordinance that would have reduced the RA-5 minimum lot size and frontage requirements; staff and the planning commission had recommended denial.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6283630,"Utah County committee presents maps for Alpine School District split; public comment open through March 26",1530,612000,2142000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba&start=612&end=2142","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2586603-6a967b6b1b897e91c58e918764c1baba/thumbnail_612000.jpg","/articles/6283630/Utah/Utah-County-committee-presents-maps-for-Alpine-School-District-split-public-comment-open-through-March-26","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283630-4e920170a32c93be65646db91d669e94/orig.mp4?Expires=1770727681&Signature=dhOVbgUoq8RjFz5I8EBs8dnkj1IOUZmZ20UXcyYR2MAkC~gu8B-wNuUS9VjOjkaiRU6JlsLysh5G8x-3XHx2dRPIf3Hg0UHaUWWTecp39RsI7tuuEqEnEBMFvOZcB2phgXhHUHetRNEx~YYinMobCKgJ5WHTLB8xWTzV~TB9YQScB2hxA7zz9ferYOnTzSNAtd9~0wGALfsLxpesEcQ390oPq85parA9w7VGpRpnyj3pytpSH-VHPKNw4gdMoTUKcDeO9~ri9viNHgdUTJlwVyA17gTEoI2A3EPiUug0k3KXLrmLN4XBsm8OCG1qBkf1utkBSKhT5gOqvPSOYj5vTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Max “Mac” Sims, the county-appointed chair of three citizen advisory committees, presented proposed trustee-district maps to the Utah County Commission on March 12, outlining how three new Alpine School District trustee districts would be drawn and why the committee used 2023 population estimates from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.

The committee recommended contiguous, compact districts that follow city and precinct lines where possible, Sims said, and factor in school boundaries, natural features and forecasted growth. “We needed to have good maps that got us good initial board members to get these different districts off on the right foot,” Sims said.

The presentation matters because the commission must adopt the new trustee-district maps and a random assignment of initial term lengths before elections. The commission intends to post the maps and a public feedback link the same day; Sims said the plan is to adopt final maps at the commission’s March 26 meeting after two weeks of public comment. He said state statute requires a random draw to assign three seats to three-year terms and four seats to five-year terms for initial staggering.

Sims told commissioners the committees used the Kem C. Gardner 2023 population estimates rather than the 2020 decennial census because local growth has outpaced the 2020 counts. He explained legal constraints tied to census geography: “When the US Census Bureau determines population, they do what’s called a census block. . . . if we want to draw lines and we need to have a population number associated with that, we can’t draw lines outside of the boundaries of a census block.” That limitation forced the committees to assign whole census blocks to seats even where rapid growth has made some blocks much larger in population than in 2020.

Sims described three draft maps for West, Central and South districts and explained the committee’s choices to under- or over-allocate population in specific seats in order to accommodate projected growth. He said committee members met three to four times, produced unanimously agreed maps, and solicited broader stakeholder input through conversations with city officials, school-board members and a South-district public survey that returned more than 1,000 responses. Kristen Swenson, a Utah County clerk’s office employee on the committees, participated to advise on GIS, elections and precinct impacts.

Commissioners voiced support for the stakeholder-driven process and acknowledged limitations created by using inter-census estimates: one commissioner said Utah County accounted for about 43% of the state’s population growth last year, making mid-decade redistricting imperfect but necessary. Sims emphasized the maps are not intended to be final for a decade: they will be revisited after the next census cycle.

The commission will accept public feedback through the posted link and intends to adopt final maps at its March 26 meeting, at which time it will also hold the random draw to determine the initial term lengths for the new trustee seats.

Sims and committee members said dates: public comment will be open for roughly two weeks; final adoption and random draw are scheduled for March 26. No formal vote on the maps occurred at the March 12 meeting.

","A county-appointed committee presented proposed boundary maps for three new Alpine School District trustee districts, citing 2023 population estimates and census-block constraints. Commissioners will consider final adoption March 26 after two weeks of public feedback and a state-required random draw to assign initial term lengths.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves Huntsman-related request (item 6)

Commission denies request to reduce RA-5 minimum lot size from 5 to 2.5 acres

Utah County committee presents maps for Alpine School District split; public comment open through March 26