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

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.