Planning commission recommends denial of proposal to cut RA‑5 minimum lot size from 5 to 2.5 acres

The Utah County Planning Commission voted 5–1 on Feb. 18 to recommend denial to the Utah County Commission of a proposed amendment that would change minimum area in the RA‑5 (residential agricultural) zone from five acres to 2.5 acres for properties associated with homeowners associations.

Staff told the commission the proposal was intended to allow smaller lots within an HOA but that the applicant’s written language was unclear and could be read to require HOAs on 2.5‑acre parcels. A planner said the RA‑5 zone covers roughly 70,000 acres of unincorporated county land and that the ordinance and the county general plan prioritize agricultural uses, protection of irrigated land and managed growth.

“It is my feeling that there is only a very small quantity of unincorporated water and the potential for withdrawing 5,000 additional acre feet from the ground water network could prove very taxing,” a staff member read from a historical state‑engineer comment included in the staff report, noting risks of well interference and drawdown. The staff presentation also cited health‑department well‑setback requirements that can be impracticable on lots narrower than about 100 feet.

Commissioners and staff discussed the applicant’s stated goal of producing “affordable housing” in unincorporated areas. Staff said comparable 2.5‑acre lots in some areas carry assessed values well above typical affordability thresholds and that, in practice, cities with central water and sewer can produce much higher housing densities than unincorporated RA‑5 land. Commissioners also heard staff examples of annexations and how parcels zoned in cities produced many more units under municipal zoning than would be possible under a county RA‑5 or a 2.5‑acre county standard.

Several commissioners described the proposal as a broad, countywide change that would affect tens of thousands of acres and said they were uncomfortable adopting such a sweeping amendment without the applicant present to answer questions. One commissioner urged giving the applicant another chance to appear, while others said the commission had accommodated the applicant’s prior requests to delay and that the application had been adequately noticed.

A motion to recommend denial of the land‑use text amendment carried on the commission floor. The commission chair and staff noted that the item will still go to the Utah County Commission; the planning commission’s action is a recommendation only and the applicant may appear at the county commission hearing.

The planning commission’s debate referenced the county general plan, the Utah County Land Use Ordinance, state code noticing requirements and health‑department setback rules; staff cited prior interjurisdictional communications about groundwater and infrastructure constraints as part of its justification for recommending denial.

Outcome and next steps: The planning commission’s recommendation of denial will be forwarded to the Utah County Commission, which will hold the final vote; staff said it will notify the applicant and will note that the applicant was not present for the planning‑commission hearing.