Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs staff changes to variable lot size rules, including 30% open space requirement
Summary
The commission voted to recommend County Council approval of amendments to Wasatch County Code (16.08 & 16.27) to align variable lot size development with the general plan, clarifying density (1.3 acres/unit), adding a 30% open space requirement, and allowing council discretion to accept civic uses in lieu of open space.
The Wasatch County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the County Council consider staff's proposed amendments to Wasatch County Code sections 16.08 and 16.27, changes intended to better align the variable lot size development type in the RA‑1 zone with the county general plan.
Staff told the commission the draft amendments would: (1) revise the RA‑1 purpose statement to remove misleading references to rural densities, (2) clarify base density as 5 acres per unit with a defined bonus density pathway that can reduce the effective acreage per unit to 1.3 acres (and in some small‑scale cases to 1.0 acre), (3) add a 30% open space requirement (or a minimum of 5 acres, whichever is greater) for developments using the variable lot size option, and (4) add a discretionary allowance for the County Council to accept civic or institutional sites in lieu of open space in certain cases.
Commissioners extensively questioned the numeric implications for a sample 10‑acre parcel, examining how different minimum lot sizes, internal road exclusions from net acreage and the 30% threshold would affect lot counts and open‑space acreage. Staff explained variable lot size development allows clustered small lots (third‑acre, half‑acre, or one‑acre minimums depending on location between Mill Road and 3600 East) so long as the overall density does not exceed the defined per‑unit cap; the 30% requirement was drawn from general plan policy 4.1.
The proposal also removed duplicative fencing language in favor of relying on the county’s ‘‘right to farm’’ regulations and added a council review step to examine proposals for conformity with the general plan before approving bonus density. Commissioners debated whether small‑scale subdivisions (defined as five lots or fewer) should also be eligible for the variable lot size option; the majority supported allowing small‑scale eligibility while keeping the 1.3 acres/unit density calculation consistent across scales.
Doug Granquist moved that the commission recommend County Council approval of staff recommendations consistent with the staff analysis; Mark Hendricks seconded. The chair opened public comment as required, recorded no speakers, and the motion carried.
Next steps: the Planning Commission will forward the staff‑recommended amendments to the County Council for formal consideration and public hearings there.
