Minutes for Western Weber Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2021, held in the Weber County Commission Chamber, 2380 Washington Blvd. Floor 1 Ogden UT at 4:30 pm
Members Present:	Andrew Favero--Chair
Bren Edwards-- Vice Chair Wayne Andreotti
Greg Bell Chad Call Sarah Wichern
Excused: Jed McCormick Pledge of Allegiance
Staff Present: Charlie Ewert, Principal Planner; Liam Keogh, Attorney; Scott Perkes, Planner; June Nelson. Secretary
1.	Minutes were approved October 12, 2021, 6-0.

Petitions, Applications, and Public Hearings:

2.	Legislative Items

2.1	ZTA 2021-08: A county-initiated proposal to amend various sections of the County’s zoning ordinance to adjust and clarify permitted and conditional uses as well as the site development standards in the manufacturing zones (MV-1, M-1, M-2, & M-3) along with a county-initiated proposal to amend the Unified Land Use Code’s definitions of a “Lot of Record”; Staff Presenters: Charlie Ewert & Scott Perkes
This County-driven text amendment (see Exhibit A) has been undertaken primarily due to interest having been shown from
a food processing and manufacturing company that is looking to potentially locate in the Manufacturing zoned areas of western weber county. However, certain provisions of the existing manufacturing zoning ordinance have been identified as concerns for a potential food processing/manufacturing operation. As such, staff have combed through the existing ordinance and identified several amendments and clarifications needed to not only facilitate a food processing/manufacturing operation within a modified M-2 zoning classification, but to also prepare for other potential mixed-uses that are likely to locate within the manufacturing areas of west weber county. In addition to the food processing/manufacturing provisions and protections, other general improvements and clarifications have been proposed to allow the manufacturing zoning ordinance to be consistent with that which has already been done with the agricultural zoning ordinance, and that which is desired for the commercial zoning ordinance through future amendments.

Clerical Edits (House Keeping):
With all text amendments, there are a certain number of clerical edits that are proposed to adjust overall ordinance formatting and to clarify both existing and proposed language. These clerical edits can be found in various sections of the proposed ordinance and are generally “House Keeping” in nature.
Edits to Add/Edit Definitions for Terms Within the Land Use Code:

A new definition has been added for a “Large concentrated animal feeding operation”. This new definition matches that which has been established under state code and is needed due to the current lack of a
definition under the County’s Land Use Code.

An amended definition has been proposed for “Lot Frontage”. This definition has been simplified and is being incorporated as a House Keeping item.
An amended definition has been proposed for “Lot of Record”. The amended definition is needed due to three separate reasons.
1)	Adjustments to the existing paragraphs (d) &(e) are proposed as House Keeping adjustments to
facilitate the identification of historic lots of record (grandfathered) that may have met the zoning at a

specific point in time (December 31, 1992) that represents a cut off of grandfathered rights.
2)	The added paragraph (g) has been added as a reprieve to the platting requirements for especially large lots (>100 acres) that may accommodate larger scale developments.
3)	The added paragraph (h) is proposed as a House Keeping provision to help existing unplatted lots of record to be adjusted without having to go through a full subdivision platting process.
Edits to the Application Requirements for Rezoning Procedures: This edit softens the requirements for applicants to provide a will-serve letter for water and sewer connectivity at the time of rezone application. This edit is proposed
to allow large-scale projects to propose rezoning requests while working through water and sewer connections that may require larger infrastructure connections or the formation of a service district.
Additional Clarification to Zone Boundaries: The existing Sec.104-1-3 titled “Rules or Ordinance and Maps” has been separated into two sections (Sec. 104-1-2 “Boundaries of Zones” & Sec. 104-1-3 “Rules of Interpretation”) for better formatting and clarity. These edits are House Keeping in nature.
Addition of New Section to the General Zoning Provisions in Section 104-1: Subsection 104-1-5 (Large Concentrated Animal Feed Operation) is proposed as an addition to the land use code and is considered a House Keeping item.
State code recently changed (2021 General Session) requiring Counties to adopt a large concentrated animal feeding operation land use ordinance by no later than February 1, 2022. The proposed added language is simply addressing this state requirement prior to the deadline.
Edits to the Manufacturing Zoning Ordinance Use Tables: The language in the header paragraph for the proposed manufacturing zoning use tables has been updated to provide specificities related to uses found in the tables and to clearly indicate that all uses are considered “indoor” unless explicitly stated otherwise with the terms “outdoor” or “yard”.
The current manufacturing zoning use tables are proposed to be repealed in place of the proposed tables. The proposed tables have been reformatted and recategorized under a logical hierarchy of manufacturing uses and include minor adjustments to permitted, conditionally-permitted, and not-permitted uses. These minor adjustments have been selective and intentional to further stratify and create a distinct separation between the M-1, M-2, and M-3 zones. Special attention has been placed on the allowances and protections surrounding food
processing/manufacturing within the M-2 classification. More specifically, proposed adjustments have been selected to ensure potentially impactful manufacturing uses (inks, paints, chemicals, odorous processes, dust generation, etc.) are adequately separated and mitigated from impacting food processing/manufacturing uses.
Edits to the Manufacturing Zones Special Regulations: A special regulation is proposed for a Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junkyard use. This special regulation intends to help further mitigate and separate such a use from other uses in the M zones as well as other adjacent zoning classifications.
Additional edits to the manufacturing zones special regulations include a separation of requirements for a “Mixing Plant for Certain Construction Material” and a “Mixing Facility for Asphalt or Concrete, Temporary”.
Edits to the Manufacturing Zoning Site Development Standards: These edits remove a minimum lot width
requirement and clarify setback requirements based on a lot’s proximity to existing or planned rights-of-way/s or residential zones. These adjustments are house keeping in nature, but also anticipate and facilitate a variety of manufacturing uses in the County.
Edits to the Application and Review Section of the Design Review Chapter: The proposal adds a provision to the application and review section of the Design Review chapter. This added provision will allow the Design Review requirements to be waived or modified by the County Commission by means of an executed and recorded development agreement.
Edits to the Cluster Subdivision Lot Development Standards: These edits are House Keeping in nature and address an omission in rear yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in cluster subdivided lots. This adjustment
brings the setback requirements into alignment with setbacks required for accessory buildings on all other lots-of record

Reference to MV1 has been removed from this document, item 2.1 ZTA 2021-08 for further review by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission.

Scott Perkes states that this item has some housekeeping items, and some other changes. The first item is an Amendment.

A M E N D M E N T

Sec 101-2-13 La Definitions

Land use authority. The term "land use authority" means a person, board, commission,

agency, or other body designated by the local legislative body to act upon a land use application.

Landscape plan. The term "landscape plan" means:

(a)	Detailed plans depicting the layout and design for landscaping, including, but not limited to location, height and materials of walls, fences, hedges and screen plantings;
(b)	Ground cover plantings or other surfacing to break monotony of building materials, concrete and asphalt;
(c)	Number, type, maturity, and planted size of all landscape plantings; method of watering, location of water meter, piping, pumps, timers, point of connection and any blow-out or winterizing system; location, type and size of any existing trees over four-inch caliper;
(d)	Location, type and size of any existing landscaping not planned for removal; location,type and size of any decorative lighting systems.

Large concentrated animal feeding operation. The term "large concentrated animal feed operation" means the same as provided in the Large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Act of state code.

Sec 102-5-4 Application Requirements

(a)	A rezoning application may be initiated by an owner of any property or any person,firm, or corporation with the written consent of the owner of the property, or be county- initiated.
(b)	An application for a rezoning shall be prepared and submitted on forms provided bythe planning division. The application shall be accompanied with the following information:
(1)	The application shall be signed by the landowner or their duly authorized representative and shall be accompanied by the necessary fee as shown withinthe applicable fee schedule.
(2)	A proposed rezone to any zone may be required to be accompanied by a concept development plan, may be required in accordance with Section 102-5-5 of this chapter. A detailed site plan, in lieu of a concept development plan.
(3)	Letters of feasibility from the appropriate state or county agencies for water and wastewater.A narrative explaining the potential for future access to waterand wastewater facilities.
(4)	A narrative from the project engineer discussing the feasibility for the mitigation of stormwater runoff.
(5)	The applicant shall provide a narrative addressing the following information:
a.	How is the change in compliance with the general plan?
b.	Why should the present zoning be changed to allow this proposal?
c.	How is the change in the public interest?
d.	What conditions and circumstances have taken place in the generalarea since the general plan was adopted to warrant such a change?
e.	How does this proposal promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the county?
f.	Project narrative describing the project vision.

SECTION 7:	ADOPTION “Sec 104-1-5 Large Concentrated Animal Feed

Operation” of the Weber County County Code is hereby added as follows:

A D O P T I O N

Sec 104-1-5 Large Concentrated Animal Feed Operation(Added)

A large concentrated animal feeding operation, as defined by UCA Section 17-27a-1102, is a use not permitted in any zone in Unincorporated Weber County. Considering all criteria of UCA Section 17-27a-1104, it has been determined that the geography and geometry of the densely populated areas of the county, both existing and planned, renders virtually no suitable locations for the siting of a large concentrated animal feeding operation except for higher elevations that are generally inhospitable for year-round animal operations.

Scott Perkes stated that we have an animal feed code, but not one for large, concentrated animal feed operations. The State has required that we have an item in our code or we will default to the State code. Commissioner Edwards states that he doesn’t agree with this item. We already have some large dairy operations. There are existing agricultural zones, will those be allowed there? I do not want to limit a farmer from enlarging his heard if he would like to. What if they want to expand? Charlie Ewert says that current operations will be grandfathered in. Commissioner Edwards asks what if smaller ones want to expand. Commissioner Bell asks if this is already restricted. The legislature says that we need to have something in our code. As population grows, it will push out operations. Many dairy farmers have left areas because of problems from neighbors moving close to their farms. It could also be pigs, chickens, turkeys or other livestock. Commissioner Favero states that this item needs more discussion. We should exclude it until another time. Attorney Liam Keogh says that the state deadline to include this is February 1, 2022.

Sec 102-5-4 Application Requirements

(a)	A rezoning application may be initiated by an owner of any property or any person,firm, or corporation with the written consent of the owner of the property, or be county- initiated.
(b)	An application for a rezoning shall be prepared and submitted on forms provided bythe planning division. The application shall be accompanied with the following information:
(1)	The application shall be signed by the landowner or their duly authorized representative and shall be accompanied by the necessary fee as shown withinthe applicable fee schedule.
(2)	A proposed rezone to any zone may be required to be accompanied by a concept development plan, may be required in accordance with Section 102-5-5 of this chapter. A detailed site plan, in lieu of a concept development plan.
(3)	Letters of feasibility from the appropriate state or county agencies for water and wastewater.A narrative explaining the potential for future access to waterand wastewater facilities.
(4)	A narrative from the project engineer discussing the feasibility for the mitigation of stormwater runoff.
(5)	The applicant shall provide a narrative addressing the following information:
a.	How is the change in compliance with the general plan?
b.	Why should the present zoning be changed to allow this proposal?
c.	How is the change in the public interest?
d.	What conditions and circumstances have taken place in the generalarea since the general plan was adopted to warrant such a change?
e.	How does this proposal promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the county?
a.	

WESTERN WEBER PLANNING COMMISSION
f. Project narrative describing the project vision.

Exhibit A

Scott, next item is lot frontage.

Lot, frontage. The term "frontage lot frontage" also referred herein as "street frontage" or "street frontage of a lot," means the yard lot line all the property fronting or abutting one side of thea street and/or right-of-way. No lot shall utilize any part of the temporary end or dead end of a street for frontage. At no point shall the frontage be less than 50 feet, and shall meet the lot width at the front yard setback.

(a)	A parcel or lot described in a deed, sales contract or survey that was recorded in the office of the Weber County Recorder in between January 1, 1966, and June 30on December 31, 1992, which complied with the zoning requirements in effect on the same dateat the time of its creation and was shown to be the first or second division ofa larger parent parcel; or
(b)	A parcel or lot that was created in its current size and configuration and contained a lawfully permitted single-family dwelling prior to July 1December 31, 1992; or
(c)	A parcel of real property that contains at least 100 acres;
(d)	A parcel or /lot that does not fall within any one of the previously listed circumstancesbut has received a variance from the Weber County Board of Adjustment which hasotherwise deemed a particular parcel/lot as a lot of record; or.
  A parcel or lot that meets the criteria of (a) through (g) of this definition may reconfigured as long as:
(1)	The reconfiguration does not make the parcel or lot more nonconforming;
(2)	No new lot or parcel is created; and
(3)	All affected property is outside of a platted subdivision.

Scott Perkes says that the next item is:

Sec 102-5-4 Application Requirements

(a)	A rezoning application may be initiated by an owner of any property or any person,firm, or corporation with the written consent of the owner of the property, or be county- initiated.
(b)	An application for a rezoning shall be prepared and submitted on forms provided bythe planning division. The application shall be accompanied with the following information:
(1)	The application shall be signed by the landowner or their duly authorized representative and shall be accompanied by the necessary fee as shown withinthe applicable fee schedule.
(2)	A proposed rezone to any zone may be required to be accompanied by a concept development plan, may be required in accordance with Section 102-5-5 of this chapter. A detailed site plan, in lieu of a concept development plan.
(3)	Letters of feasibility from the appropriate state or county agencies for water and wastewater.A narrative explaining the potential for future access to waterand wastewater facilities.
(4)	A narrative from the project engineer discussing the feasibility for the mitigation of stormwater runoff.
(5)	The applicant shall provide a narrative addressing the following information:
(1)	
a.	How is the change in compliance with the general plan?
b.	Why should the present zoning be changed to allow this proposal?
c.	How is the change in the public interest?
d.	What conditions and circumstances have taken place in the generalarea since the general plan was adopted to warrant such a change?
e.	How does this proposal promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the county?
f.	Project narrative describing the project vision.

Commissioner Edwards says that the problem is that you can’t just go and create a new water district. You must go through the state. My concern is for the infrastructure. The state has a process that you have to go through.
Commissioner Wichern says that the biggest problem is feasibility and will serve. I want that information from the water company not the developer. Commissioner Edwards asked if we are creating more problems or issues.
Commissioner Bell says that with this, we have granted rights. If we grant a rezone, we want to make sure that this is feasible. Charlie Ewert states that we have rezone without the feasibility of water or sewer. It is not a matter of if they can access it. We just want the applicant to tell us what their plan is for water and sewer. Commissioner Edwards says that he would much rather leave it like it is. He is also concerned about emergency services. Can they handle the development? Mr Ewert reminds us that there are fees attached to the application. This is just a requirement for the application. After much discussion Mr Ewert says that they will revise this item. We can add an expiration to the rezone. There are large areas tied to residential, they can’t build without water and sewer. We want to set the community up to succeed. Commissioner Edwards’s states that he doesn’t like that way that it is presented. Mr Ewert says that he can rewrite this section and go back later.

Scott Perkes says that the next item is:
The following is just adding clarification.
.
Sec 104-1-2 Boundaries Of Zones

(a)	The boundaries of each of the said zones are hereby established as described herein oras shown on the maps entitled "Zoning Map of Weber County", which map or mapsare attached and all boundaries, notations and other data shown thereon are made bythis reference as much a part of this title as if fully described and detailed herein.
(b)	Where uncertainty exists as to the boundary of any zone, the following rules shallapply:
(1)	Wherever the zone boundary is indicated as being approximately upon the centerline of a street, alley or block, or along a property line, then, unless otherwise definitely indicated on the map, the centerline of such street, alley or block or such property line, shall be construed to be the boundary of such zone.
(2)	Whenever such boundary line of such zone is indicated as being approximately at the line of any river, irrigation canal or other waterway or railroad right-of-way, or public park or other public land or any section line,
then in such case the center of such stream, canal or waterway, or of such railroad right-of-way or the boundary line of such public land or such section line shall be deemed to be the boundary of such zone.
(3)	Where such zone boundary lines cannot be determined by the above rules,their location may be found by the use of the scale appearing upon the map.
(4)	Where the application of the above rules does not clarify the zone boundary location, the board of adjustment shall interpret the map.

Editors Note: Ord. No. 2021-XX consolidated the text that was in Section 104-1-3 Rules or Ordinance And Maps into this Section 104-1-2 Boundaries Of Zones, and changed Section

104-1-3	to Rules of Interpretation

Scott Perkes says that we are just making clarifications to this section. There is no new language. If it is not listed, it is not allowed.
The next item is on page 8. It is the heading.

In the following tables of possible uses, a use designated in any zone as "P" is a permitted use. A use designated in any zone as "C" will be allowed only when authorized by a conditional use permit obtained as provided in Title 108, Chapter 4 of this Land Use Code. Uses designated as "N" will not be allowed in that respective zone. Unless more specifically regulated in the following table, any use listed as "P" in the C-3 zone is a permitted use in each manufacturing zone, and any use listed as "C" in the C-3 zone is a conditional use. All uses listed are indoor uses unless explicitly stated otherwise with the terms "outdoor" or "yard." When a use fits more than one use listed in these tables, the more specific or more restrictive provision applies. In all manufacturing zones, any manufacturing process that will result in odors, dust, fumes, or other airborne contaminants that have the potential of negatively affecting the manufacturing of food products intended for human consumption, or the work environment in which such manufacturing occurs, shall provide mechanisms, by installation or otherwise, that will keep the airborne contaminants from leaving the site.

Commissioner Wichern asks what the standard for smell is. How is this enforced? Scott Perkes says that the language is important to keep in mind. Mr Ewert says that if it created a smell that is a foul odor a food manufacture would need to contain it. This ordinance would apply to the M zones. A potential company has asked for this legislation. We have buffers to keep this away from residents.
Commissioners Bell and Edwards asks if we are adjusting this code for only one manufacture. Mr Ewert says that he feels that this legislation will protect everyone. Commissioner Wichern states that this is really only targeted to one manufacture. Charlie Ewert says that we have to look at the greater public good. How will this benefit the community? Commissioner Edwards states that he feels that this is being rammed down our throats. Commissioner Bell thinks that the language is specific enough. Charlie Ewert says that all manufacturers should have safeguards in place to protect the environment. Odor is subjective. We are focusing on M2 just because of food manufacturing. We are not writing a blank check. They are moving to 120 acres of property.

Scott Perkes. In the next area, we looked for duplication and updated terms. This is for tables on page 8 and 9.

(a)	Accessory Uses.
	MV- 1	M-1	M-2	M-3	SPECIAL PROVISIONS	
Accessory use customarily incidental to a main use. Including an accessory building incidental to the use of a main building, and a main building designed or used to accommodate the main use to which the premises are devoted.	

P	

P	

P	

P		

Dwelling unit for night watchman or guard and family.	
P	
P	
P	
P	
See Section 104-21-4.	
Retail sales, limited.	P	P	P	P	See Section 104-21-4.	

Temporary building for uses incidental to construction work.	

P	

P	

P	

P	The buildings must be removed upon completion or abandonment of the construction work.	

(b)	Aeronautical, Space-Based, or Defense-Based Manufacturing.

	MV- 1	M-1	M-2	M-3	SPECIAL PROVISIONS	
Aircraft engine testing, including jet, missile and chemical engines.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

Aircraft or aircraft parts manufacturing.	
N	
N	
P	
P	In the M-2 zone, this use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

Missiles and missile parts.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	
Space craft and space craft parts manufacturing.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

(a) Animal Byproduct Harvesting, Processing, or Refining.
	MV- 1	M-1	M-2	M-3	SPECIAL PROVISIONS	
Animal byproduct manufacturing, generally.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

Fat rendering.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

November 09, 2021

Western Weber Planning Commission

Exhibit A

No discussion on those items. Next is page 10.

	MV- 1	M-1	M-2	M-3	SPECIAL PROVISIONS	
Animal hospital.	P	P	P	P		
Farm for the raising and grazing of horses, cattle, sheep or goats.	
N	
N	
C	
C		
Kennel.	P	P	P	P		
Large concentrated animal feed operation. The siting of a large concentrated animal feed operation, as defined by State Code.	

N	

N	

N	

N	

See Section 104-1-5.	

Stockyards.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

Slaughterhouse.	
N	
N	
N	
C	This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	
Veterinarian and small animal grooming.	P	P	P	P		

Charlie Ewert states that they can pull out the large concentrated animal feed operation off of this chart as well. There is a difference between using a product and manufacturing a product. Commissioner Bell states that certain manufacture process should be listed not products. Other commissioners said that they were concerned about the quantity of the products being produced. Commissioners have questions about the stockyards and slaughterhouse. Is this large scale? Does it come down to quantity? Commissioner Bell states that this is all part of a drive for a potential manufacturer. Are we limiting other businesses by making these changes? Charlie Ewert says that we are looking at the future of the M2 zone. We are making a buffer between the M2 zone and the agriculture zone. Planners say that most of these proposed changes are in support of this one manufacturer.
Commissioner Favero asks if we should open the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Edwards motions to open the Public Hearing. Commissioner Wichern seconds the motion. All voted yes. 6-0. Motion Passes.
Kate Duncan represents the company that would like to come to Weber County. She is concerned that the Planning Commission is not supportive of the changes that are being requested. She states that they have concerns about the things around them that could affect their product. She is happy to answer any questions for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Edwards states that they don’t want to give the perception that they don’t want this manufacturer here. There are lots of changes that will affect the area for a long time. We would normally go through a work session to make

these kind of changes. Kate Duncan states that the staff didn’t think that the changes would be hard to swallow. We are hoping that we are the first manufacture of this kind to come here, but not the last. We are just looking at things that might be harmful to us in manufacturing our food product. One of the biggest concerns is the Hazardous products. The staff has been very supportive of us in making these changes

	MV- 1	M-1	M-2	M-3	SPECIAL PROVISIONS	
Hazardous products. Chemicals, paints, inks, and other products that are or have potential of being combustible, explosive, oxidizers, organic peroxides, poisonous or infectious, radioactive, or otherwise hazardous or capable of posing a risk to health, safety, property or environment.	

N	

N	

N	

C	

This use shall be located at least 600 feet from any zone boundary.	

Commissioner Bell states that he likes the progression of the zones. It will provide a buffer for residential. We also have
other manufactures in the M3 zone. We don’t want the changes to hurt companies like Western Zirconium. We also don’t want to eliminate other potential businesses. Commissioner Edwards says that the county initiated these changes. It would be easier to make these changes if we knew what was being manufactures. Kate Duncan says the company makes pasta sauce. Commissioner Andreotti says that he doesn’t think that the changes will limit others from coming here. The more I
look at it, I don’t have a problem with it. Charlie Ewert states that the company is working with the land owner about this project. The land owner is on board with these changes. Commissioner Call states that we are making these zoning changes for everyone, not just one parcel. Commissioner Wichern states that we are doing a whole general plan for a certain company. Are we accomplishing that goal? We need to create communities and businesses. Kate Duncan says that this rule will apply to all. We don’t want any odor to affect our product. Commissioner Wichern asks if their product may create an odor that might affect others. Kate Duncan says that this manufacturer makes pasta sauce. There will be filters to contain any odors. Commissioner Andreotti states that he has no objections to the changes. This area was set aside in the manufacturing zone. We are meeting the requirements for this manufacturer. We either reject it or do it. Commissioner Favero states that he has heard 4 commissioners (including himself) say that this buffering is necessary. This does separate what these manufacturers do.

Chairman Favero asks for motion to close Public Hearing. Commissioner Andreotti motions to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Bell seconds the motion. Motion passes 6-0.

Commissioner Bell states that the M2 zone is necessary. He doesn’t like changing the zone for 1 applicant. He is ok with a food manufacture being in the M2 zone. This table seems restrictive across all zones where it does not need to be. I am ok with passing this. I would like a guarantee that we can talk about this later. Commissioner Edwards says that he agrees except what if we make changes the affect this manufacture. Commissioner Call says that the Hazardous charts are vague and misleading. Charlie Ewert says that the chart is for manufacturing of these products, not the existence of these products. Commissioner Wichern states that the food manufacturer knows what they need for their business. If we want to attract other like businesses, we need to make adjustments. Charlie Ewert says that the company helped us to focus on needed changes to make it possible for their business as well as others to work in these zones. We didn’t have enough time to make

some adjustments. Client found that some of the things in our current zoning would not work for their business. Commissioner Favero states that the changes make it more restrictive. That is the point. Most of the council seems to agree. Can we make an overlay zone to push this forward? Can we go back and make recommendations? Do we need to make a motion? Attorney Liam Keogh says that we need to make a recommendation or motion as presented or we can make changes. We can also change things in a different proposal. Commissioner Favero asks if we deny this or part, are we denying the other. Can we make an overlay with a 600 foot buffer zone for this property only? The applicant states the two items on the agenda are dependent on each other for this business. Existing code does not allow us to manufacture our product. If changes are not made, we may not be able to move forward. Charlie Ewert states that we will have to go back to make future adjustments. We have used a broad brush. We can bring up items in the next work session.

Commissioner Favero calls for a motion. Commissioner Bell recommends positive recommendation to the County Commission regarding the proposed text amendment with some proposed changes. Exclude the definition in section 1 and all of section 7 regarding the large concentrated animal feed operation. Section 2, lot definitions, clarifications on lot of record. In section 3 reword the letter of feasibility to allow for an expiration of a minimum of 24 months. Add clarification to the header on the use tables that makes it clear odor, dust, fumes, and other air borne contaminants must be protected for both food manufacturers and other manufacturing companies. Based on the following findings:
1.	The changes are supported by the 2003 West Central Weber General Plan.
2.	The changes are necessary to address the growing needs of manufacturing uses looking to locate in Weber County.
3.	The changes will enhance the general health and welfare of County residents.

Commissioner Call votes no, Commissioner Bell votes yes, Commissioner Edwards votes no, Commissioner Wichern votes yes, Commissioner Andreotti votes yes and Chairman Favero votes yes. Motion carries 4-2.

2.2	ZMA 2021-10: A county-initiated request to rezone Parcel ID: 10-042-0001 from its current M-3 zoning classification to an M-2classification. Staff Presenters: Charlie Ewert & Scott Perkes

When the Planning Commission is acting as a recommending body to the County Commission, it is acting in a legislative capacity and has wide discretion. Examples of legislative actions are general plan, zoning map, and land use code amendments. Legislative actions require that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to the County Commission. For this circumstance, criteria for recommendations in a legislative matter require a review for compatibility with the generalplan and existing ordinances.
This report is a review of a County-initiated request to rezone approximately 186.67 acres from the M-3 zone to the M-2 zoneat approximately 8300 West 900 South in the Reese area of Western Weber County. The purpose for the rezone is to allow the parcel to be developed for food processing/manufacturing uses within the M-2 zoning classification. The M-2 allowancesand protections have been specifically crafted to provide an environment that has been designed to mitigate its impact on surrounding property and uses while also being protected from adjacent impacts that could jeopardize the quality of food being processed and manufactured on-site.
The rezone is keeping with the West Central Weber County General Plan, which suggests that industrial uses that are non-polluting are desirous as a means to increase and stabilize the tax base.1
Staff are recommending approval of the rezone, provided the any future development on the property is willing to enter intoa development agreement.

A review of the existing uses and development in the vicinity of 8300 West and 900 South suggests that larger-scale manufacturing may be acceptable given the current general vacancy and large parcels/lots (100 + acres) surrounding the subject property.

Water: It is anticipated that, when developed, the land will be served by a new water improvement district established specifically for large-scale manufacturing operation/s in the region. No formal commitment for water is required at this time,but will be part of a future development process.
Sanitary Sewer: It is anticipated that, when developed, the land will be served by a new sewer improvement district established specifically for large-scale manufacturing operation/s in the region. No formal commitment for waste water treatment is required at this time, but will be part of a future development process.
Access and traffic circulation: Access to the site will be served by the existing 900/1200 South and a future extension of 8300West. Access may also include a new rail spur that ties into the existing railroad right-of-way that runs along the property’s southern property line. Transportation improvements that may be needed to accommodate future development on the subject property will be more specifically addressed through an associated development agreement.

Commissioner Edwards states that his concern is that we have a neighboring C1 land owner. There are many in the area who are not aware of this proposed change. Property owners within the required 500 feet of the property area were notified. It should be the applicant not the County bringing this forward. Commissioner Bell states that he struggles with the change without an applicant. Commissioner Wichern states that she thinks that M2 is more friendly than M3 zone. She has no
problem with this change or the county initiating this change. Charlie Ewert states this is supported by the land owner and the County Commission. Commissioner Andreotti states that he has no problem. The system is working with Economic Development and I am struggling with why we are worried about this. The tables will be changed again if needed. There is work that we need to do. It has been a great discussion. Commissioner Call says that he employees 60 people in Weber County. How do I change zoning to put my shops where I want? How many employees do I have to have? Charlie Ewert says 500+ jobs and 186 acres. Commissioner Favero says not to personalize this discussion. Commissioner Call says that there are a lot of things that needs to be addressed, not just for him, but for others as well. Commissioner Bell says that the County sees an opportunity. He doesn’t agree with all the changes to the M2 zone. Commissioner Andreotti says that if the land owner didn’t want this, these changes would not be happening. Commissioner Wichern says that the County Commission is looking out for all the County. This is a no brainer. The Commissioners are elected by the people. The people want jobs.
Commissioner Edwards asks about water and sewer. I think that we are putting the cart before the horse. Scott Perkes says that the company will recycle as much water as possible. Charlie Ewert states that the land owner had culinary water. He also says that equality and equity are two different things. This is equity. Also residents want a buffer around the manufacturing zone and residential zone. This was also noticed in the paper.
Commissioner Wichern motions to open the public hearing. Commissioner Andreotti seconds the motion. All voted in favor.
No comments from the public
Motion to close public hearing by Commissioner Bell and seconded by Commissioner Wichern. All in favor 6-0. Commissioner Wichern motions the following: To make a recommendation to:
That the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the County Commission regardingFile #ZMA 2021-10, a proposal to rezone approximately 186.67 acres from the M-3 zone to the M-2 zone. This recommendation comes with the following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1.	That a mutually agreeable development agreement, executed between a future developer of the subject propertyand the County, be recorded to the property that provides for negotiated and agreeable development terms for the County.
Findings:
2.	The proposal complies with the general plan for the area.
1.	

3.	The surrounding land uses do not pose a conflict with the proposed rezone, and the uses of the proposed rezoneare anticipated to fit into the area harmoniously.
4.	The proposed rezone is in the interest of the community’s health, safety, and welfare.

Commissioner Andreotti seconds the motion. Commissioner Bell, yes; Commissioner Edwards, yes; Commissioner Call, yes; Commissioner Wichern, yes; Commissioner Andreotti, yes; Commissioner Favero votes yes. Motion carries 6-0.

3.	Public Comment for items not on the agenda. Kate Duncan thanks Planning Commission and staff for all the hard work.

4.	Remark from Planning Commission: Commissioner Andreotti asks about some construction in the area. Charlie Ewert says that they are some large agriculture buildings. The County is aware of them. Commissioner Edwards thanks the staff for all the hard work and the secretary for the minutes.

5.	Planning Director Report: The Planning Commission did a great job and the Commissioners will take your thoughts into consideration. The General Plan will be updated in another Wester Weber Planning Meeting. Please remember that we are going to Uintah Highlands on December 1, 2021. Commissioner Favero states that he would not have minded seeing at least one of the County Commissioners at the meeting tonight. Especially when this is County driven. Charlie Ewert states that Commissioner Froerer would have been happy to come.

6.	Remarks from Legal Counsel: None

Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Bell. Seconded by Commissioner Wichern. All voted to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully Submitted,
June Nelson
Lead Office Specialist