Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County commissioners deny ordinance to reduce RA-5 minimum lot size from 5 to 2.5 acres
Summary
After staff and the planning commission recommended denial, the Utah County Commission voted to deny an ordinance proposal to amend RA-5 lot-size requirements. Staff cited groundwater and septic concerns, previous studies, and housing-price data showing limited affordability gains on 2.5-acre parcels.
The Utah County Commission voted on March 12 to deny an ordinance amendment request that would have reduced the minimum lot size in the RA-5 zone from five acres to 2.5 acres for dwellings within homeowners associations.
Greg Robinson of Community Development summarized the application to commissioners: the RA-5 zone currently requires a five-acre minimum lot and 250 feet of frontage for a dwelling; the applicant sought to reduce the minimum to 2.5 acres and 125 feet of frontage. Robinson said the applicant’s proposed ordinance language did not, as written, accomplish the changes the applicant described and that both the county planning commission and staff recommended denial; the planning commission had recommended denial at its February meeting by a 5–1 vote.
Bryce Armstrong, also with Community Development, described historical and technical reasons for the current standard. He said the county previously used larger minimums (about 40 acres beginning in the late 1970s) and moved to a five-acre minimum in 1990 after technical reviews. Armstrong told commissioners that state engineering analyses and technical papers presented at that time showed on-site septic systems could transmit effluent through drainage infrastructure and contribute to contamination of Utah Lake, a concern exacerbated by allowing smaller lots.
Robinson and staff also told commissioners they examined market parcels in the Goshen area at the proposed 2.5-acre size and found asking prices between about $750,000 and $985,000, which staff said undermined the proposal’s affordability argument. Staff noted annexation comparisons demonstrating that existing city zoning and annexation processes provide different density outcomes.
Several commissioners voiced support for the county’s policy approach to preserving agricultural and greenfield areas and expressed concern about groundwater, septic viability and the ordinance’s broad, countywide application rather than a site-specific approach. One commissioner said they would be more open to smaller lots if there were evidence a city had refused annexation and septic or other technical solutions were documented, but no such evidence was presented during the hearing.
A commissioner moved to deny item 3; the motion was seconded and the commission voice-voted in favor of denial. The chair announced the ordinance request denied.
The applicant did not appear at the planning commission hearing and did not attend the March 12 county meeting, Robinson said; the planning commission’s lone vote against denial had been a desire to hear from the applicant.
