Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs setback and resort‑zone use fixes, tables fencing language for engineering review
Summary
The commission recommended approval of county code amendments to reduce Ogden Canyon setbacks and add back certain short‑term uses near Powder Mountain Resort, while tabling proposed corner‑lot fencing language pending engineering review and clearer sight‑triangle language.
The planning commission recommended that the county commission adopt several staff‑proposed changes to county land‑use code text: reduced setbacks in the former FR‑1 (now F‑1) zone for properties without direct Highway 39 access, re‑added short‑term lodging and recreation uses for limited R‑3 parcels near Powder Mountain Resort, and clarified fencing language — although the fencing section was tabled for additional engineering review.
Planning staff explained that many parcels in Ogden Canyon are much smaller than the current F‑1 minimums (1 acre/150‑ft frontage) and are effectively grandfathered; of roughly 160–170 canyon parcels, staff said about 80–90% do not meet current standards. To enable practical rehabilitation of small long‑standing cabins, staff proposed reducing front/rear setbacks from 30 to 15 feet and side setbacks from 20 to 10 feet for parcels that do not front Highway 39. Staff also noted accessory‑structure height could be raised from 25 to 30 feet to make small lots more usable, and cautioned commissioners to weigh viewshed and character concerns.
On the FR‑3 (now R‑3) conversion, staff recommended restoring short‑term rentals, transient lodging and recreation lodges as permitted or conditional uses where those parcels fall inside 1,000 feet of the DRR‑1 recreation resort zone adjacent to Powder Mountain Resort.
On fencing, staff proposed allowing 6‑foot backyard fencing on corner lots if the fence surrounds only the backyard and leaves a two‑foot maintenance strip between fence and sidewalk while preserving a clear‑view site triangle. Commissioners raised concerns that two feet might be insufficient for driveway visibility and maintenance; several asked staff to run the language by county engineering and compare neighboring city code language before forwarding it to the county commission. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the setback/height and R‑3 use changes and voted to table the fencing text for further work.
The planning office will forward the commission’s recommendation to the county commission, with a note to return revised fencing language (if needed) after engineering review.
