Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orderville planning commission tables Frost Lane modular housing plan pending UDOT review
Summary
The Orderville Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 30 tabled a conditional-use permit for an applicant proposing up to six modular long‑term rental units at 40–50 Frost Lane, citing parking, traffic and access concerns and the need for UDOT approval; commissioners also noted quorum and conflict‑of‑interest issues.
The Orderville Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 30 opened a public hearing on a conditional‑use permit for 40 and 50 Frost Lane and then tabled the request after neighbors raised traffic and density concerns and the commission said it needed Utah Department of Transportation approval before forwarding a recommendation to the town council.
The applicant, introduced in the agenda as Tim Hoyt, described plans for up to six modular dwellings of about 1,200 square feet each with two to three bedrooms and tenant storage at the rear, saying the units are intended for “long term rental” and “not focused on short term rentals.” The proposal drew repeated questions about setbacks, spacing and parking.
Neighbors said Frost Lane is already congested and urged the commission to limit the number of units. “I think that that is just way too many,” said Lynn Frost (public commenter). Residents also worried the project could functionally resemble an apartment complex and asked whether the town’s short‑term rental rules would apply.
Commissioners and staff reviewed zoning and ordinance language. Staff explained that R‑2 zoning allows multi‑family dwellings and that the town’s ordinance treats three or more dwellings under common ownership as an apartment complex; Chapter 3 contains exceptions that can allow separate structures under single ownership if conditions are met. The planning staff also noted a 9,000‑square‑foot minimum lot area appears to apply when evaluating unit counts on lots in this zone, and that Frost Lane’s substandard width and its intersection with the state highway would require UDOT review of access.
Chair (speaker 4) said the commission “will not advance it to town council until we have an approval for UDOT,” and commissioners debated conflicts of interest and whether members should abstain on votes affecting acquaintances or property they own. Because the commission did not have enough members present to reach a robust majority and because UDOT’s input was pending, the commission voted to table the conditional‑use request until UDOT has reviewed access and the board can gather a full complement of members. The motion to table was moved by staff member (speaker 5) and seconded by committee member (speaker 8); the chair announced the motion carried.
The public record includes questions about affordability (applicant estimated rents “around $1,500… probably between 15 and 1,700”) and whether the units would be subject to short‑term rental restrictions if treated administratively as apartments. Commissioners suggested several possible conditions — limiting on‑street parking, requiring tenant parking on private lots, obtaining fire‑department signoff, and UDOT approval — that the town council could attach if it later considers the permit.
The hearing will be reopened after the applicant obtains UDOT review and the commission can consider the permit with a full panel. For now, the conditional‑use request is tabled.
