july 11, 2018 - utahchapter 1, inspection; (9-6a-6) chapter 6, uses table, addition of...

July 11, 2018 Kane County Planning Commission

Land Use Authority Commission Chambers, Kane County Courthouse

76 North Main Street, Kanab, Utah

Agenda Facilitator: Chairman, Tony Chelewski Attendees: Planning Commission, County Staff, Interested Citizens 5:30 PM Work Meeting 6:00 PM Pledge of Allegiance

Prayer Approval of Minutes Chairman, Tony Chelewski Announcements Chairman, Tony Chelewski Public Comment Chairman, Tony Chelewski

Legislative (1.) Conditional Use Permit: Mike Vaccaro Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit for no more than thirty (30) ATV-UTV

rentals and a souvenir retail store, parcel # I-58, all of lot 58, Movie Ranch Subdivision Unit “A” amended and extended, 795 Movie Ranch Road, , 0.51 acres, Duck Creek Village, Kane County, Utah; submitted by Mike Vaccaro

Administrative (2.) Lot Joinder: Elizabeth Bayley Public Hearing Swains Creek Pines, Unit 3, amended lot 570 & 571A, becoming new

lot 571A, within NW ¼ Section 26, Township 38 South, Range 7 West, Salt Lake; submitted by Platt and Platt, on behalf of Elizabeth Bayley

Legislative (3.) Kane County Land Use Ordinance: O 2018-7 Public Hearing Proposed revisions to the Kane County Land Use Ordinance: (9-1-8)

Chapter 1, Inspection; (9-6A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table, addition of “campground/ glamp-ground” and “recreational vehicle park” as non-permitted uses in all residential zones; submitted by Shannon McBride

Land Use Ordinances: kane.utah.gov > government>ordinances>title 9

Information Packets: kane.utah.gov>government>departments>planning commission>documents>general

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS: Planning Commission Meetings Statutory Authority, Rules & Procedures can be found online at kane.utah.gov>Departments>Planning Commission>General>Land Use Ordinance 9-2-1 through 10.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Shannon McBride at (435) 644-4966 or Adé Nelson at (435) 644-4964. Agenda items may be accelerated or taken out of order without notice as the Administration deems appropriate. Definitions: “Public Hearing” means a hearing at which members of the public are provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on the subject of the hearing. “Public Meeting” means a meeting that is required to be open to the public pursuant to the requirements of Title 52, Chapter 4 Open and Public Meetings; the public may or may not be invited to participate. “Legislative” means an action taken by the County Commission or Land Use Authority; amending ordinances, adopting general plan, annexations, zoning and rezoning; a reasonable debatable action that could promote the general welfare of the community. “Administrative” means an action taken by the Land Use Authority Commission, staff, County Commission interpreting ordinances and regulations, conditional uses, approving subdivision site plans, issuing building permits; an administrative decision must satisfy the requirements prescribed under state law or the County Land Use Code (LUC), whichever is stricter.

Approved Minutes for May 9, 2018 Page 1

MINUTES

Kane County Planning Commission & Land Use Authority Meeting

76 North Main Street, Kanab June 13, 2018

CHAIRMAN: Tony Chelewski MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Chelewski, Hal Hamblin, Wade Heaton, Danny Brown,

Byard Kershaw, Robert Houston MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Clarkson EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Dirk Clayson STAFF PRESENT: Shannon McBride, Land Use Administrator; Ade’ Nelson,

Land Use Administrative Assistant; Reid Mann, County Attorney; Lou Pratt, GIS / Transportation Director

PUBLIC PRESENT: Charlie Saba, Susan Fishbein, Monte Chamberlain, Britt Roth,

James Bermant, Valerie Bermant, Sue Scott, Kristi Bundrick, John Ehlert, Oscar Castro, Ken & Connie Rogers, Dan & Nancy Boris, Karen Heet, Justyne Moore, Margaret Stone.

5:30 PM Work Meeting 6:00 PM Meeting called to order by Tony Chelewski Pledge of Allegiance Tony Chelewski Prayer Wade Heaton Announcements Tony Chelewski

Announcements/Updates: Tony Chelewski noted that he spoke to Mr. Kemp, Mr. Kemp has not seen Rudy on the road in a long time and there haven’t been any problems. Motion was made by Wade Heaton to approve the May 9, 2018 minutes. Motion was seconded by Hal Hamblin. The Chair asked for any questions or comments. Motion passed unanimously.


Motion was made by Wade Heaton to go in and out of public hearing at the call of the chair. Motion was seconded by Hal Hamblin. The Chair called for the question and the motion passed. Shannon McBride takes the time to thank and appreciate the P&Z board members for their time as they are volunteers. With the permission of the commissioners, Shannon was able to purchase $25 gift cards to Houston’s to show our appreciation for their hard work and hard decisions they make. James Bermant, a resident of Vermillion Cliffs Subdivision has a love hate relationship with subjects like this, he is all for growth, but he explains that the road (old HWY 89/ Chinle Dr.) does not have the structure to support the additional use. He claims it is too narrow, especially where there are drainage ditches. He states that if this is approved they (the planning commission) need to make sure that the money is available to make road improvements. He is also concerned about fire issues, if a visitor comes and lights a cigarette and then a fire is started, it won’t be long until it grows and before they know it they will have fire in their backyards. Dan Boris, Lost Springs resident would like clarification of how and when his letter will be read that he submitted to Shannon. Reid Mann clarifies that the letters that are sent in will be read and become a part of public comment, and because Dan was present, he was welcomed to either make his own public comment, read his letter aloud himself, or have him (Reid) read it aloud, but that it was Dan’s decision to make. Dan Borris requested that Reid Mann read his letter aloud as public comment. Reid Mann reads aloud an email sent to Shannon McBride on June 5th, 2018 from Dan and Nancy Boris, Lost Springs, Kane County, Utah residents. (See attached letter #1) Reid Mann reads aloud an email sent to Shannon McBride on June 11th, 2018 from Ashley Crompton, property owner, Palomar Estates Subdivision, Kane County, Utah. (See attached letter #2) Reid Mann reads aloud an email sent to Shannon McBride on June 11th, 2018 from George and Christine Lowe, Kane County, Utah residents. (See attached letter #3) Reid Mann reads aloud an email sent to Shannon McBride on June 11th, 2018 from Kevin and DeeDee Spies, Mike Spies, and Robert and Sheree Myers, property owners, Kane County, Utah. (See attached letter #4) 6:20 pm Commissioner Clayson is in attendance. Ex-officio Member, Commissioner Dirk Clayson, has requested to recuse himself for both

applications submitted by Britt & Jeff Roth and Rick & Meryl Kesser, as he is the listing agent

of the proposed site.


Charlie Saba has asked if Shannon McBride could post the conditions that are required during public comment. Shannon McBride explains public comment and that this is the time to voice opinions or statements on any topic that they would like to address to the P&Z. Shannon responds to Charlie informing him that she will be listing the conditions during the agenda items presentation to keep in compliance with Utah Public and Open Meetings Act. Chairman Chelewski called the commission into public hearing. Legislative (1.) Zone Change: Britt & Jeff Roth and Rick & Meryl Kessel

Public Hearing Zone Change located on Old Hwy 89, south of the UDOT shed, parcel # 3-6-36-1B, consisting of 40 acres in Kane County, Utah for no more than 50 Recreational Vehicle and Camp sites. Proposed zone change from Agricultural to Commercial 2; submitted by Britt & Jeff Roth and Meryl Kessel

Britt Roth introduces herself as joint owners of the proposed project, her other partners include; Jeff Roth who is her husband, and Rick and Meryl Kessel who are her parents. Britt states that she has come to the meeting with an open mind, and would hope that the public and the P&Z members can do the same. She explains that she is doing this with her family; her and her family would like to settle roots in Kanab and become a part of the community. They (Britt and her family) love Kanab and have been looking to change their way of life and enjoy what Kanab has to offer. While on a yearlong vacation, in which they traveled all over in an R.V. they discovered Kanab when passing through the area. They love that Kanab is magically unspoiled; they love the sense of community that Kanab presents. Britt and her family are seasoned vets to RV’ing, they do not want to spoil the land by creating a concrete jungle. They would like to keep the natural landscape, in order to preserve the beauty of the area that they fell in love with. It is so important to them to create a beautiful and successful business that they will be able to pass on to their kids and future generations. Britt then continues to explain her business idea through a power point presentation she put together for the P&Z members and the public. Britt Roth, reiterates the importance of preserving the beauty and the natural surroundings. They are proposing that they develop 15 of the 40 acres for 15 or so sites in phase 1 of the ranch. She also mentions that they would like to use all low output lights to preserve the dark skies and natural surroundings. Britt Roth describes and explains the site plan, see proposed site plan in the PowerPoint presentation attached. Tony Chelewski has asked if the applicants have already purchased the property. Britt Roth answers Tony’s question and explains that they have presented an offer to buy the property which was accepted and will be finalized contingent on the zone change approval.


Danny Brown asks if the RV’s waste will be contained individually with a central dumping station. Britt Roth confirms that there will be a central dumping station, and points to the site plan in the power point presentation. Wade Heaton, would like clarification on the total area of the acreage they will be developing and clarification on how many RV/ campsites they intend to have. Britt Roth answers that she would like no more than 30 sites on 15 acres. Wade Heaton would like to know if the easement showing on the map, that is located on the south side of HWY 89 is a dedicated right-a-way. Lou Pratt, Kane County GIS / Transportation Director, confirms that yes it is, and UDOT would be developing the turning lanes for that. Byard Kershaw would like to know who is responsible for the maintenance of old HWY89. (Chinle Drive) Lou Pratt confirms that old HWY 89 is the county’s road and that it is scheduled for maintenance this year, it will be chip sealed later this fall. Danny Brown, asks Britt what her definition of a large RV is and if they intended to accommodate to large RV’s. Britt Roth explains that she would like to cater to the average R.V’s with families, for example much like her and her family when they were vacationing. She explains that these tend to be smaller sized RV’s and camp trailers, people who enjoy the outdoors and get out of their camp trailers. The large Class A RV’s are more than likely not going to want to stay at their campground. Vacationers in expensive RV’s like those are looking for the amenities that large luxury resorts have to offer, not a small venture like the one that they are proposing. Robert Houston asks why it was noticed (in Public Notice) as no more than 50 sites, yet today Britt is describing and proposing no more than 30 sites. Shannon McBride explains that if they would like to amend the amount dependent on the approval of the conditional use permit, they can, the reason Britt has listed 50 on her application, is that in the future if she would like to expand she has the option to develop a maximum of 50 sites under this CUP. The amount Britt is requesting today is no more than 30 sites. They are planning on starting out with 30 for “Phase 1”. If business does well, and they have a demand for more sites, they would like to be able to develop a few more sites, but no more than 50 total.


Hal Hamblin asks why she has placed the RV dump site so far away from the bathrooms, and comments that he thinks it would make more sense to place the bathrooms by the waste dump in order to maintain both uses with the same septic tank. Britt Roth explains that in her experience, the dump station is always located near the exit so that guests can dump on their way out. It also makes sense that they would place the dump station away from campsites and amenities for odor and health purposes. Britt addresses Hal Hamblin and assures him that more thought and time will be spent on the exact plans once the zone change is finalized. Lou Pratt states for clarification that this property (the proposed zone change property) is about two (2) miles away from any residential subdivision areas. Robert Houston states that in order to have a commercial venture, the applicants will need to have the required infrastructure such as; water, roads, and amenities. Wade Heaton takes the time to explain to Robert that those items will be addressed during the agenda item for the conditional use permit. Reid Mann states for the record that the zone change will run with the land, if this zone change is approved, it will remain C2. The current property owners (sellers) will have to re-apply for a zone change from C2 to AG. Shannon McBride explains that if the sale of the property fails after the zone change is approved; the owner’s tax status for FAA tax compliance will not be affected. If the use of the land is not changed, it can continue to be assessed as FAA, the assessment is not dependent on the zone, and is dependent on the actual use. Danny Brown asks if the zone change is required to go before the commission for approval and if Commissioner Clayson will have to recuse himself from that discussion and approval as well. Shannon McBride confirms that all zone changes are required to go to the commission, regardless if they are approved or denied at the Planning and Zoning level. The Commissioners have the authority to grant or overturn any approval or denial of a zone change. She also clarifies that, yes, Commissioner Clayson would have to recuse himself from that decision as well because there is a conflict of interest. Chairman Chelewski called the commission into public hearing. Jonny Yurt, states that the property is about one mile south of this lot, he sees this road as an unsafe road and that it is not in proper condition to withstand the additional use that would be brought on with the commercial use of an RV park. He also states that Kane County’s general plan doesn’t support this, and he just doesn’t want to see it there.


Kristi Bundrick, states that she is about a mile south from Jon’s property. The cows that they hear are usually theirs. She states that the well water has arsenic in it and it is low. Kristi says that she lives near there and that she drives old HWY89 at least twice a day, three times if she forgets something. She explains that the amount of traffic on it right now is incredible and that she can’t imagine how much additional traffic this new venture will bring in along with congestion and trash on the private road that connect the old HWY89 to the Lost Springs Subdivision. That road is a private road maintained by the residents that use it, that’s why it’s not always in the best condition. She believes that the increased traffic will not just affect the old HWY 89 use, but that it will also include added traffic on the private road. She states that guests and other passerby’s will want to explore the surrounding area of the campground, which will in turn most likely lead them to the use of the private road. She states that she measured the road just past AmeriGas, right after the City Yard and its currently only 18 feet wide and it floods. She states that she doesn’t agree with the feasibility letter provided by Kane County GIS/ Transportation Director, she doesn’t believe that the road is large (wide) enough for two (2) vehicles to travel passing at the same time, one person needs to pullover in order to pass. She says that she doesn’t think that this use is harmoniums with the area, and she doesn’t think that it follows Kane County’s General Plan, she likes cows, she likes agriculture, and they would like to keep it that way. (Kristi’s three (3) minutes were up, therefore she ended her comment and sat down) Valerie Vermont, lives in Vermillion Cliffs, she is all for business and thanks Britt for her presentation, but she is worried that the zone change would change the area and she doesn’t want to see the commercial encroachment extended. She voices that we need to protect our agricultural heritage and use; it’s unfortunate that there isn’t a way to grant the zone change for Britt, but if for some reason it fell through, besides requiring the land owner to apply and rezone it back to AG. All in all, she does not believe it would be a good change for the community. James Bermant, wants to know where the closest fire hydrant is. Lou Pratt and Shannon McBride answer his question by explaining the Kane County Fire Warden would be in charge of that, and that it would be a condition to receive a feasibility letter from the Fire Warden. James Bermant wants to state that if the zone is changed they will be stuck with C2 zoned property that could possibly become a used car lot for example. He states that he is just throwing out examples based on the uses allowed in C2, and some of these uses, including a used car lot are permitted uses without a conditional use permit. He addresses Britt and asks her if she has seen the effects of monsoon season. If she did she would rethink their concrete pads and that if they decide to try and keep the land natural they will see flooding. He uses past floods as examples, telling a story of a flood that caused a lot of damage in town and that they should rethink the drainage. Sue Scott, 8 Mile Gap, she thinks that this zone change is a terrible idea and that the road is an issue, it will need to be totally rebuilt to hold up the new use. She uses an example of the fact that her and her horse trailer will not fit on the road at the same time as a passing car. She says that the county access easement that could potentially be built to connect HWY89 to old HWY89 would cause


nothing but havoc, it will create unsafe conditions and traffic that will lead to fatalities. She explains that there are a lot of people that paid really good money for those surrounding properties, for example Lost Hills and Palomar. She believes that all the people that purchased property in Palomar most likely would not have purchased those properties had they known that an RV park was going to be built in that area. She explains that she believes that the corridor there is for living and cows. Should this fail, who knows what will come in after it, perhaps a gas station. We need to take care of this town and make it a place where your kids would like to grow up. This zone change would be a huge mistake. She appreciates that there are people that enjoy RV’ing, but there are other places for them to go and park their RV that doesn’t change an entire corridor. Justine Moore, she lives next to the proposed 80 RV pad park (Grand Plateau) and that during monsoon season it will flood. The reason that Britt is hearing so much from the local public is because they enjoy what’s out there, they like it how it is currently and the project would infringe on that and would take away from that beauty. She explains that the RV Park will bring in ATV’s and they always enjoy trespassing and riding in places that they shouldn’t. She wants to know when there will be enough RV parks in Kanab, and names all of the R.V parks she can think of. She also suggests that Britt do her homework to see what it will actually cost her and if it makes sense to try to start a business when there is potentially no demand for it, especially beforehand, there is a lot of money that will be required to develop the R.V. park. Danny Brown states that he would like to remind the public that they are not addressing the applicant Britt, they are supposed to be addressing the P&Z Committee. Susan Fishbein, new resident of Kanab, they have seen a lot of changes and that they are not opposed to growth and that sustained planned growth will maintain a community. The proposed project has no direct access that will come straight from HWY89, and even if the access is created from HWY89 to old HWY89, google maps will more than likely still send tourists and visitors directions that will include the use of the old hwy. These RV’s are usually driven by inexperienced RV drivers, it is dark and there isn’t much light, it is a large safety concern. She is concerned about the impact of these additional sites, she is aware that there is a park going in with 300 plus sites and wonders if there is a sustained need for additional RV sites. She believes it will be a negative impact on existing parks, and will there be housing for employees that will be needed to sustain these businesses. She also explains that if there are too many of these ventures and not enough labor and housing to support them, they will fail and overbuild and abandoned projects attract crime and negatively affect property values. (Time is up, Susan takes her seat) Ken Rogers, Lost Springs, he is in agreement with all of the negatives that have been voiced, his biggest concern is fire out there. There will be a bunch of people that will want fire pits and the wind is a constant out there (East of Kanab), it never stops. There is a guarantee that there will be a fire out there if you allow campfires, the roads are inadequate. There are no sidewalks to allow people to walk to amenities; therefore they will stay at camp instead of pulling out there RV’s to go into town for meals, leaving them to cook at their campsites; therefore increasing the chance of fires. He just thinks the zone change is a terrible idea, and doesn’t agree with it.


Monte Chamberlain, says that he is Britt’s neighbor and he has lived there for a while, he says that the road is terrible and soil is a problem. When it rains just a little bit, it’s hard to maintain if you keep it natural and have anyone driving on it. He is also wondering about the fencing, how the changes will affect him running cows in that area. He questions the location and it’s hard to picture something like that out in that area. Charlie Saba, a resident of 8 Mile Gap Road, voices his appreciation for what Britt is coming here and what she is trying to do, but it’s too close to everything. He states that there are better places for this further out where there is cheaper land. He says that it’s important that the board considers the feelings and thoughts of the public, with a zone change they are supposed to take into consideration the public’s thoughts and opinions. He explains that the 8 Mile Gap road is a problem, if you add that to this you have a large problem. He is concerned about safety. Nacy Borris, a resident of Lost Springs, she says that she loves the animals and that her concern is sanitation. There is no garbage and mail service where she is at. If Britt can come in and put the RV Park in and follow the conditions with the water and the sanitation it still doesn’t do anything for the residents, it still affects the roads and the area, and will have a negative impact on the existing residents. Dan Borris, a resident of Lost Springs, addresses the board and asks them to please reconsider. Please, make sure to keep in mind that Kanab is still a desirable place, and he would hate to see that change. He goes on to compare Kanab to Prescott, AZ, he and his wife used to live there and says that it was once a nice place, but because of commercial growth and rapid growth due to the change of zoning in Prescott Valley, that is not the case anymore. Please think about this and don’t spoil this area, he states that he would hope that we do not turn this (Kanab) into a Hurricane or St. George or anything like that. Reid Mann reads aloud an email sent to Shannon McBride on June 12th, 2018 from Joyce and Frederick Moyer, home owners, Palomar Estates Subdivision, Kane County, Utah. (See attached letter #5) Mark Foley, is here on his own time and not on official business. He would like to explain that he has been here for 12 years and he would like to see things stop in the sense that “I’ve got mine, and you can’t have yours”, there have and always will be someone there before you that didn’t want you there either. He thinks that there should be more factual evidence and less emotion discussed as far as reasons to approve or deny a zone change, these emotions and opinions would not stand up in court. Lou Pratt, the road (old HWY89) is a narrow road, but that is the same road that all of the currently existing subdivisions, Lost Springs, Palomar, were platted and approved on. It’s the same road that accesses Vermillion Cliffs. He states that he grew up in Kanab when there was nothing out there; there weren’t any houses or subdivisions. Things change and that area has changed because of your (the public present) residences. He speaks of a time when he would go out there and hunt rabbits with his grandparents and even where he has taken his kids out there, but he can’t do that now and


his kids won’t be able to share that experience with their kids. Growth happens and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Old HWY 89 as it sits has viable access for the use that Britt is proposing, it is not ok to try and place the financial burden on a small business of around $200,000 in order for her to be able to have her small business up and running. Chairman Chelewski called the commission out of public hearing. Robert Houston would like to make comment that if this is approved, it’s almost given that more commercial zone changes will be 6/13 public meeting approved in this area. Once that happens and there is a need to improve the road how are we supposed to assign the costs of these road improvements? He doesn’t think that it’s fair to the citizens to bare the burden of the cost to maintain and fix the road. There are areas that flood there all the time. Byard Kershaw, asks if the big bus style RV’s will be on the road or if they will be smaller trailers. He remembers that when they first started coming here to Kanab, there was nothing out by old HWY 89, everything was empty and listed for sale, and now there are residences everywhere. He assumes that 20 or so years ago when people began trying to build and develop east of town there was probably the same push back from residents then like there is now. He states it’s important that people see and hear that they are in the county not in the city limits, he states that he sees that people are confusing the two, Kanab is different from the county. The general plan that was quoted was Kanab city’s general plan, not Kane County’s General Plan. There will be growth and we will have to deal with it and expect it, because we are known to the world, not just the U.S. Whether we like it or not, we didn’t hear any factual information and it was all emotional based, not valid points to deny the zone change, the water issues are legitimate. He states that she (Britt) will need a lot of rock to deal with the clay out there. Wade Heaton would like to take the time to thank everyone, Britt, and the public for attending and providing their input. He states that the majority of public comment was spent on opinions that were purely emotion based, and that there was no need to sit and try to pick apart Britt’s business plan. He addresses Britt and tells her that he owns three (3) businesses that some people didn’t think would work out and they have; he’s done pretty well, and to not let people’s opinions affect her plans. Wade also thanks the public for the factual comments and concerns that were brought up. He appreciates what Mark and Lou said, it is human nature to be threatened by any additional development ruining what they currently have. He doesn’t believe in limiting growth. He does understand that we should keep safe the protections of what private property owners are entitled to. But, where do we draw that line? What amount of distance will make or break what is considered to be enough or too little of distance from commercial properties. Lost Creek is actually .81 miles, more than far enough to not be considered infringement on others personal property rights. Where do we draw the line, is it, in your back yard, 2000 feet, 4000 feet, where do we draw the line of what we say the distance is that commercial use will negatively impact properties. Hal Hamblin thinks that a lot of emotion has come from this, he doesn’t believe that the light is an issue because he was out there before electricity and it’s ruined the night sky. Commercial growth will happen somewhere and eventually, you can stop what you can afford. Property is going to have


to go to commercial somewhere, and more than likely it’s going to be out there. (East of town) He knows that there will be conditions that will be mitigated and that the concerns of water and sanitation will be addressed. Robert Houston, says that it’s a concern that there aren’t the amenities and the infrastructure in place that are needed for this type of use. He doesn’t want to see a zone change approved only to not see a change in the available amenities. Danny Brown would like to know if there is a way to do a blanket zone change and the property owners would have to apply for it. Shannon McBride explains that blanket zone changes are frowned upon, it would have had to have been planned in the future before all of the property was purchased, each of the property owners would have to apply for it. She tried to set aside an Industrial Zone, but because of the complication of getting property set aside and rezoned it never moved forward. Danny Brown also states that from what he is hearing tonight based on the public comments, is that people are stating that they as tax payers don’t want to see this change and it’s not in their best interest, but everyone in Kane County pays the same taxes, so therefore everyone should have the same rights. He understands that he isn’t allowed to do certain things on his property that he used to be able to do for example paintballing, because of growth, his neighbors didn’t like it and complained. If we don’t allow growth here (east of Kanab area), where are we going to allow it? He thinks that anyone who bought out there (east of Kanab, by the proposed zone change), should have thought about the future and what growth could possibly happen there. Why would you not think that there would be any growth next to a major highway? Danny addresses Reid Mann and asks if there is a precedence that would require them (the P&Z) to follow suit in denying one R.V. park one month, and then approving another down the line. Reid Mann explains that zone changes are completely discretionary. The board members can approve or deny based on any reason. Byard Kershaw explains that he has the same thought as some of the public has addressed and that he thinks that Britt should get a little further along in her business plan. But, he also understands that, you can’t really do that if you don’t know that there is a possibility of being able to go through with the business and that he knows that it will be the next step after the zone change is granted. Robert Houston, says that if there was a little bit more comfort and reassurance that there were the proper amenities he would feel different about it. But he agrees with Byard, and also understands that those items come with the next step. Wade explains that there are other commercial properties existing and that there are not any threats of a large venture coming in and knocking on the door to come in.


Britt addresses the board members and just wants to let them know that they are not a large commercial business and that they would like to move in and become a part of the community. She wants to keep the community happy and wants to comply and make it a smooth transition. She says that she saw a video of Kanab that was put together and it said that Kanab welcomed growth and entrepreneurship. She loves what Kanab has to offer as a small town and that she wants to see it continue to be beautiful. They have been looking for properties for six (6) months and that she has looked into other properties, but they like this one and feel like it would be a good fit, and there isn’t much else left, property sells quickly. She also would like to let people know that she is also against ATV’s riding around everywhere, they will not be welcomed at their R.V. Park. She wants to explain that she would like to follow all of the control issues, fire and water and sewer and that she has a background in business and her and her partners will go about this in a smart way. Robert Houston would like to know if the sale of the property is contingent on the zone change. Britt Roth answers that the purchase of the property is contingent on not only the zone change, but also she has a due diligence phase in place, that will allow her to make sure that she can conduct the business she would like to on the property. Those items include; perk tests and an additional survey. Motion was made by Danny Brown to recommend approval, to the Kane County Commissioners, changing the zone from Agricultural to Commercial 2, on behalf of Britt & Jeff Roth and Rick & Meryl Kessel, who have legal authority to represent the zone change request, for parcel #3-6-36-1B containing 40+/- acres off of the frontage road, Old Highway 89, South of the UDOT shed and Highway 89, for no more than a total of fifty (50) recreational vehicle & tent sites, due to substantial evidence in the findings as documented in the staff report and a public hearing being held for public comment on the matter. Motion was seconded by Byard Kershaw. Motion passed, Robert Houston voted Nay. FINDINGS: Parcel # 3-6-36-1B, consisting of 40+/- acres, meets the acreage needed to be zoned Commercial 2. The Roth’s have authority to act on behalf of the property uses (zone change application) unless the change of ownership is not ratified. A real estate contract, (per addendum 1) in the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC), has been signed contingent on the zone change from Agricultural to Commercial 2 being passed for the R.V. park use. The property is currently in FAA use (FAA tax assessment), the zone change will be recorded on the date the ownership of property is transferred and recorded in the Kane County Recorder’s office. There are multiple concerns from local property owners about fire protection, dust, noise, traffic and law enforcement issues that may result from allowing a commercial business in this area. If the C2 zone change is granted, the applicants have submitted a commercial conditional use permit application with the intent to develop a R.V. Park / Campground with no more than 50 total sites. The applicants have stated that their intent is to retain the natural state of the land, with an emphasis on low ecological impact and minimal light pollution. Kane County General Plan recommends commercial zones be placed on highway frontage close to intersections in the unincorporated areas of the county. Utah State Code, 17-27a-103 (15) “General Plan” means a document that a county adopts that sets forth general guidelines for proposed future development of: (a) the unincorporated land within the county.


Administrative (2.) Conditional Use Permit: Britt & Jeff Roth and Rick & Meryl Kessel

Public Meeting Conditional Use Permit for proposed plan of no more than 50 Recreational Vehicle and Camp sites, located on Old Hwy 89, south of the UDOT shed, parcel # 3-6-36-1B, consisting of 40 acres in Kane County, Utah; submitted by Britt & Jeff Roth and Meryl Kessel

Byard asks about the trash issues and if there is a service that is available. Wade confirms that special services districts will pick up trash there, and that it is available. Wade wants to know that we need to have that access from highway, and that it would be a good idea to look into putting in the right-a-way. He would like to know if we could make the development of the road a condition. Shannon McBride said that she could talk to Bert Harris. Robert Houston wants to know if we could include the city’s fire chief in the conditions, and that he would have to sign off on the project. His reason behind his comment is that it will be Kanab City’s fire department that would be the responding agency for any fire hazards. It is agreed by all of the P&Z that Kanab City’s fire chief should be included in the development meeting, and possibly provide a feasibility letter. Shannon McBride asks Reid Mann if we are allowed to include that as a condition, and would it be able to make or break a project. She explains that it is already required that the Kane County Fire Warden sign off on fire and water pressure and they follow all of the same standards. Robert Houston would like to know if there was something we could put in place that all projects within 10 miles of the city limits would need to be signed off and approved by the city. Shannon McBride responds to Robert Houston, informing him that we have recently changed the development meeting attendees to include the city on projects close to the city limits. That is where they will be able to discuss and weigh in on matters that they find important or issues that they may see. Hal Hamblin wants to verify that the feasibility letters will make sure that the water will be in before the construction starts. Shannon McBride confirms that all feasibility letters must be received before she will be able to sign for a business license for the R.V. Park.


Wade Heaton would like to know if there is a way to put a future condition in the CUP that Britt would enter into an agreement with the county to help upgrade the road. Shannon McBride explains that it wouldn’t be fair to place any burden on the tax payers back for a road that will allow traffic for just one business. It is agreed that you cannot place a condition in the CUP for the future, and that also, an MOU between Britt and the county wouldn’t be fair because she isn’t the only one that would benefit from the development of the road. Britt Roth expresses that in the future she believes that the right-of-way would be a good idea, but at this time she is trying to start her business and it wouldn’t be financially possible to incur the additional unplanned expense. Robert Houston expresses that his main concern is that the main access point will include a road that is partially a city road and there needs to be improvements, and it should be a condition. Britt Roth addresses the chair and makes the statement that she was told to contact the City’s Land Use Coordinator, Mike Reynolds and when she asked him, he informed her that the city doesn’t have any jurisdiction or authority to provide a feasibility letter for the city’s portion of Chinle Dr. where it continues on to become old HWY89. All members agree that although it may be an issue that needs to be discussed at a later date and also when and if there is any future development. Motion was made by Byard Kershaw to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for no more than 50 RV/camping sites on +/- 40 acres, parcel# 3-6-36-1B submitted by Britt & Jeff Roth and Rick & Meryl Kessel, The Ranch R.V. campground, based on the forgoing findings of fact. The Commission approves the conditional use as outlined in the conditions. The Conditional Use Permit is subject to all conditions listed herein and any other conditions enforceable in law or in equity. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit are not followed, the Commission reserves the right to revoke, in whole or in part, the conditional use granted herein. Motion was seconded by Hal Hamblin. Motion passed unanimously. FINDINGS: The above application complies with the Kane County Land Use Ordinance, 9- 15A-1-6: Conditional Uses. Kane County Land Use Ordinance 9-7B-5 Commercial 2 Zone (Uses Table) allows the use of, Recreational Vehicle Park and Campground through a conditional use permit. The CUP has the conditions to mitigate safety issues and must be implemented at the time of the building permit application. Legislative (3.) Kane County Land Use Ordinance: O 2018-6

Public Hearing Proposed revisions to the Kane County Land Use Ordinance: (9-1-7) Chapter 1, Definitions, define FAA Agricultural Land Use; (9-6-A-6) Chapter 6, Uses


Table, exclude multiple uses in the R ½ zone; (9-7B-5) Chapter 7, Uses Table, add “Glamp-ground” to conditional use in C-1 & C-2 zones; (9-15A-2) Chapter 15, Conditional Use Permit Process, updating number of camping & glamping sites allowed in the AG zone to seven (7) or less, reflecting prior approved ordinance change; (9-18-(1)(2)(3)) Chapter 18, Recreational Vehicle Parks, current Recreational Vehicle Park regulations to include regulating of Campgrounds & Glamp-grounds; and (9-21K-2-B5) Chapter 21, Rural Unimproved Subdivision Application, outlining FAA use restrictions for Rural Unimproved Subdivisions; submitted by Shannon McBride

Chairman Chelewski called the commission into public hearing. Chairman Chelewski called the commission out of public hearing. Shannon McBride explains to the P&Z members that all of the proposed changes do not change any of the ordinances we currently have in place, instead they are all changes that need to be made to reflect already codified ordinances so that all changes that affect other parts of the ordinance are updated to reflect changes and insure that there are not any places in the ordinance that contradict each other. (See attached draft of KCLUO O 2018-6 to see all proposed and accepted changes) Commissioner Clayson has requested that the following items be excluded from regulations of commercially zoned properties; temporary events and activities lasting less than 10 days, and no more than three times a year on the same property, non-commercial events and activities, and events and activities on public lands. Motion was made by Wade Heaton to recommend approval to the Kane County Commissioners, Kane County Land Use Ordinance No. O 2018-6: (9-1-7) Chapter 1, Definitions, define FAA Agricultural Land Use; (9-6-A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table, exclude multiple uses in the R ½ zone; (9-7B-5) Chapter 7, Uses Table, add “Glamp-ground” to permitted use in C-1 & C-2 zones; (9-15A-2) Chapter 15, Conditional Use Permit Process, updating number of camping & glamping sites allowed in the AG zone to seven (7) or less, reflecting prior approved ordinance change; (9-18-(1)(2)(3)) Chapter 18, Recreational Vehicle Parks, current Recreational Vehicle Park regulations to include regulating of Campgrounds & Glamp-grounds; and (9-21K-2-B5) Chapter 21, Rural Unimproved Subdivision Application, outlining FAA use restrictions for Rural Unimproved Subdivisions. Motion was seconded by Byard Kershaw. Motion passed unanimously. Administrative (4.) Lot Joinder: Thomas and Cynthia Keefer

Public Hearing Bryce Woodlands Estates, Unit #6F, Amended, lots 21 & 22, becoming new lot 22; in Kane County, Utah; submitted by New Horizon Engineering, Brent Carter holding Power of Attorney

Chairman Chelewski called the commission into public hearing.


Shannon McBride explains that New Horizon Engineering/ Brent Carter holds a power of attorney for the applicants. Brent Carter was unable to attend the meeting, but he is available via phone should there be any questions addressed that Shannon McBride cannot answer or confirm on behalf of Brent. Chairman Chelewski called the commission out of public hearing. Tony Chelewski voices that he has looked it over and doesn’t see any problems. Shannon McBride confirms that there aren’t any issues and that she recommends the approval to the P&Z. Motion was made by Hal Hamblin to recommend approving amending the Bryce Woodlands Estates, Block 12, Unit #6F plat, amended lots 21 & 22, becoming new lot 22, for Thomas and Cynthia Keefer, based on the findings documented in the staff report. Motion was seconded by Wade Heaton. Motion passed unanimously. FINDINGS: Amending (joining) the above stated lots conform to the standards in the Kane County Land Use Ordinance, 9-21E-9, A-F. Utah Code Sections §17-27a-201, 202, 206 & §17-27a-608 & 609 requirements have all been met. The project has been posted in three public places, noticed in the local newspaper, and on the county and state websites. Notices were mailed out to all property owners within 500 feet of the project. Combining these lots is in compliance with all state and local ordinances.

Motion was made by Wade Heaton to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Danny Brown. The Chair asked for any questions or comments. Motion passed unanimously.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm ___________________________ _______________________ Land Use Authority Chairman, Administrative Assistant, Tony Chelewski Adé Nelson

KANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. O 2018 - 6

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 CHAPTERS 1, 6, 7, 15, 18 & 21 OF THE KANE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, the Kane County Planning Commission and Kane County Board of Commissioners desire to make recommended changes to specific sections of Chapters 1, 6, 7, 15, 18 & 21 of the Kane County Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the purposes of amending these chapters are as follows: (9-1-7) Chapter 1, Definitions, define FAA Agricultural Land Use; (9-6-A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table, exclude multiple uses in the R ½ zone; (9-7A-4A) (9-7B-5) Chapter 7, Uses Table, add “Glamp-ground” to permitted use in C-1 & C-2 zones and adding additional language on codes and symbols for clarification on the uses table; (9-15A-2) Chapter 15, Conditional Use Permit Process, updating number of camping & glamping sites allowed in the AG zone to seven (7) or less, reflecting prior approved ordinance change; (9-18-(1)(2)(3)) Chapter 18, Recreational Vehicle Parks, current Recreational Vehicle Park regulations to include regulating of Campgrounds & Glamp-grounds; and (9-21K-2-B5) Chapter 21, Rural Unimproved Subdivision Application, outlining FAA use restrictions for Rural Unimproved Subdivisions; and

WHEREAS, the Kane County Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing, recommended for approval amendments to the following Chapters: (9-1-7) Chapter 1, (9-6-A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table; (9-7B-5) Chapter 7, Uses Table; (9-15A-2) Chapter 15 Conditional Use Permit Process; (9-18-(1)(2)(3)) Chapter 18, Recreational Vehicle Parks, (9-21K-2-B5) Chapter 21, Rural Unimproved Subdivision Application; and

WHEREAS, the Kane County Board of Commissioners, in a duly noticed public meeting, received the recommended amendments for the sections listed below for Chapters 1, 6, 7, 15, 18 & 21 of the Kane County Land Use Ordinance; and desires to enact the recommendations; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to update Kane County Land Use Ordinance under the authority granted in Utah State Code Unannotated, §17-27a-205, §17-27a-301-302, §17-27a-501-503, §17-27a-505.5 and § 17-27a-601-604.5, which authorizes the Kane County Commission to enact and amend land use ordinances upon recommendation by the Kane County Planning Commission;

NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE BODY OF KANE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Additions to the Ordinance are indicated with an underline, and deletions from the ordinance are indicated with a strike-through. Instructions to the codifiers are italicized and inside parenthesis.

//

TITLE 9 LAND USE CHAPTER 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

9-1-7: DEFINITIONS: FAA AGRICULTRAL LAND USE: land devoted to the raising of useful plants and animals with a reasonable expectation of profit. (59-2-502 4a) Accessory buildings directly pertaining to FAA Agricultural Land Use are allowed in addition to one (1) primary single family dwelling and one (1) guest home. //

CHAPTER 6: RESIDENTIAL ZONES ARTICLE A

9-6A-6: USES TABLE:

Use R-1/2

R-1

R-2

R-5

Apartment court C -

C P P

Apartment room C -

C P P

Apartments C -

P P P

Condos C -

C P P

Duplexes C -

C P P

Dwelling Single Family (1 per lot or parcel) P P P P

Fourplexes C -

C P P

Guest homes C -

P P P

Tiny homes C -

P P P

Townhomes C -

C P P

Triplexes C -

C P P

//

Chapter 7 COMMERCIAL ZONES

ARTICLE A. 9-7A-4: CODES AND SYMBOLS:

A. The C-1 column of the table in section 9-7B-5 of this chapter describes uses of land or buildings that are allowed in the zone as indicated by a "P". Conditional uses are indicated by a "C" in the column. Conditional uses require a permit, review and approval by the land use authority. This ordinance does not regulate; temporary events and activities lasting less than 10 days, and no more than three times a year on the same property, non-commercial events and activities, and events and activities on public lands.

CHAPTER 7 COMMERCIAL ZONES ARTICLE B. C-2 ZONE

9-7B-5: USES TABLE:

Uses C-1 C-2

Campground / Glamp-ground C C

//

CHAPTER 15 CONDITIONAL AND TEMPORARY USES

ARTICLE A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS

9-15A-2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS: E. Land Use Authority Action:

27. The conditions in subsection E26 of this section apply for glamping glamp-grounds; limited to six (6) seven (7) units sites per parcel of land;

28. The conditions in subsection E26 of this section apply for campgrounds; limited

to six (6) seven (7) units sites per parcel of land.

9-15A-4: INSPECTION:

The building official/Land Use Administrator shall inspect the conditional use during the course of construction to ensure that it complies with the conditions of the permit. (Ord. 2013-5, 8-12-2013, eff. 8-27-201

//

CHAPTER 18 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS

9-18-1: PURPOSE:

To permit development of recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds, and glamp-grounds as defined herein, in appropriate zones and to require that recreational vehicle, campground, and glamp-ground accommodations will be of such character as to promote the objectives and purposes of this title, to protect the integrity and character of the zones contiguous to those in which recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds, and glamp-grounds are located and to protect other use values contiguous to or near recreational vehicle park, campground, and glamp-ground uses.

//

9-18-2: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, CAMPGROUND, AND GLAMP-GROUND APPROVAL: A recreational vehicle park, campground, and glamp-ground may not be constructed unless first approved by the land use authority, after review of plans, for said park, campground, or glamp-ground, which satisfy the land use authority the proposed development will:

B. If attached to a mobile home park, the recreational vehicle, camping, and glamping area shall be at least one acre above the minimum area requirement for a mobile home park.

C. Meet all requirements of the state of Utah code of camp, trailer court, hotel, motel and resort sanitation regulations which are intended to apply to trailer court and tent camps, including glamp-grounds as defined in such code.

//

9-18-3: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, CAMPGROUND, AND GLAMP-GROUND APPLICATION:

A. An overall plan for development of a recreational vehicle park, campground, and glamp-ground shall be submitted to the land use authority administrator for review. The plan shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than one inch to fifty feet (1" = 50'). At least eight (8) copies of the plan shall be submitted. The plan shall show:

3. The proposed street and trailer or, vehicle, or site space pad layout;

4. Any proposed reservations for parks, sites, playgrounds and open spaces, and tabulations showing the percent of area to be devoted to parks, sites, playgrounds and open space, the number of trailer spaces or site locations and total area to be developed;

B. Upon receipt of the conditional use permit application and all other required materials by the land use authority administrator and review by the county engineer, the land use authority administrator will place the application on the land use authority agenda for review and approval. Should approval be denied, the applicant has thirty (30) days to appeal, in writing, to the Kane County commission. (Ord. 2013-5, 8-12-2013, eff. 8-27-2013)

1. Conditions and compliance requirements can be referenced in Conditional Uses: 9-15A-1-7.

2. Upon approval of conditional use permit application, applicant must contact the land use administrator to schedule a mandatory development meeting. The development committee along with the land use administrator will provide information pertaining to required inspections and enforcement of conditions and code compliance.

//

CHAPTER 21 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

ARTICLE K. RURAL UNIMPROVED SUBDIVISIONS

9-21K-2: RURAL UNIMPROVED SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: B. The proposed subdivision:

5. Is located in a zoned area; (Ord. 2013-10, 11-4-2013, eff. 11-19-2013) upon completion and approval of application, land will then comply with FAA Agricultural Land Use (59-2-502 4a) and will be zoned AG-FAA.

//

End of Ordinance

This Ordinance shall be deposited in the Office of the County Clerk, and shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the date signed below.

The County Clerk is directed to publish a short summary of this Ordinance with the name of the members voting for and against, together with a statement that a complete copy of the ordinance is available at the Office of the County Clerk, for at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, or as otherwise permitted and required by Utah State Law.

ADOPTED this ___ day of June 2018. ____________________________ Dirk Clayson, Chair ATTEST: Board of Commissioners

Kane County _________________________ Commissioner Clayson voted ____ KARLA JOHNSON Commissioner Matson voted ____ Kane County Clerk Commissioner Smith voted ____

76 North Main Kanab, Utah 84741 435‐644‐4966 www.kane.utah.gov

Kane County Planning & Zoning Land Use Authority Shannon McBride, Administrator

STAFF REPORT

DATE: 06/26/2018 PROJECT: The Applicant, Michael Vaccaro, lessee for lot #I-58, Movie Ranch Subdivision, Unit A, Amended and Extended, 795 Movie Ranch Road, Duck Creek Village, on .51 acres, zoned C-1, submitted the enclosed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for no more than 30 ATV/UTV rentals. He would like to rent out UTV’s for trail rides in the Duck Creek area. FINDINGS: The above application complies with the Kane County Land Use Ordinance, 9-15A-1-6: Conditional Uses. The Commercial 1 zone allows this use through a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission has granted three (3) other conditional use permits for the same use in the area. All safety issues have been mitigated with ingress and egress going in and out from the back of the property.

9-15A-E, 1-24: The land use authority shall approve a conditional use permit if conditions can be imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards. In approving any conditional use permit, the Land Use Authority may impose conditions deemed necessary to protect the public welfare, ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity, and ensure that the negative impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include the following:

1. Assurance that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, order, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; 2. Assurance the use will:

a. Comply with the intent, spirit and regulations of the Kane County Land Use Ordinance and Kane County General and Resource Plan;

b. Make the use harmonious with other neighboring uses in that zone;

3. The site size, dimensions, location, topography and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed use, considering the proposed building mass, parking, traffic, noise, vibration, exhaust/emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations;


4. Evidence that all required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed conditional use;

5. Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation;

6. Requiring size or architectural design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, exhaust/emissions, glare, erosion, odor and/or dust;

7. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points or parking areas;

8. Requiring street right of way to be dedicated and street(s), sidewalks, curbs, planting strips, pathways, or trails to be improved provided that:

a. An essential link exists between a legitimate governmental interest and each exaction; and

b. Each exaction is roughly proportionate, both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development;

9. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage, water quality facilities and/or

10. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance;

11. Encouraging the protection and preservation of natural features including existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas, drainage areas, historic resources, slopes, cultural resources, and/or sensitive lands;

12. Requiring the protection and preservation of groundwater recharge areas;

13. Limiting noise generation;

14. Minimizing environmental impacts to identified wetlands, wildlife habitat, air and water quality, cultural resources, and scenic qualities;

15. Providing for emergency access;

16. Requiring pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks;

Kane County Land Use Ordinance: 9-15A-2F-1-3:

F: Findings: In approving a conditional use permit, the land use authority shall find:


1. That the proposed use is necessary or desirable and will contribute to the general wellbeing of the community;

2. That the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of personsresiding or working in the vicinity, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity;

3. That the proposed use is in harmony with the intent of the general plan and the zone inwhich it is located. (Ord. 2013-5, 8-12-2013, eff. 8-27-2013)

All notices are in conformance with all standards and notice requirements of §17-27a-201-205. A notice was posted that was visible to the public for 10 days prior in three different public places and posted in the local newspaper and the Utah State web site.

This CUP complies with Utah State Code section unannotated § 17-27a-506 Conditional Uses.

(1) A land use ordinance may include conditional uses and provisions for conditional uses that require compliance with standards set forth in an applicable ordinance.

(2) (a) A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards.

(b) If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to achieve compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use may be denied.

The conditions as stated in the CUP application will be enforced by the Land Use Authority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Kane County Land Use Administrator, Shannon McBride recommends approving the Conditional Use Permit for Michael Vaccaro, lessee for lot #I-58, Movie Ranch Subdivision, Unit A, Amended and Extended, 795 Movie Ranch Road, Duck Creek Village, on .51 acres, Zoned C-1 zone with the stated conditions in the application. Having determined that the applicable ordinances and statutes have been complied with and that good cause exists for granting the Conditional Use Permit.

This does not need to be recommended to the County Commissioners.

MOTION IS ON NEXT PAGE


I _______________ make a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for: Michael Vaccaro, lessee for lot #I-58, Movie Ranch

Subdivision, Unit A, Amended and Extended, 795 Movie Ranch Road, Duck Creek Village, Utah on .51 acres, Zoned C-1 zone with the stated conditions in the application. Having determined that the applicable ordinances and statutes have been complied with and that good cause exists for granting the Conditional Use Permit. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit are not followed, the Commission reserves the right to revoke, in whole or in part, the conditional use granted herein. Motion was seconded by name. Motion passed unanimously.

76 North Main Street, Kanab, Utah 84741

DATE: 07/02/2018

PROJECT: A complete application for Vacating and Amending a Subdivision Plat for a

Lot Joinder, on behalf of Elizabeth Bayley, Swains Creek Pines, Unit 3, Amended, lots 570 &

571A, becoming new lot 571A, has been submitted. The application was submitted by David M.

Clark.

The reason for the lot joinder request is the owners want to save on taxes.

FINDINGS: Amending (joining) the above stated lots conform to the standards in the Kane

County Land Use Ordinance, 9-21E-9, A-F. Utah Code Sections §17-27a-201, 202, 206 & §17-

27a-608 & 609 requirements have all been met. The project has been posted in three public

places, noticed in the local newspaper, and on the county and state websites. Notices were mailed

out to all property owners within 500 feet of the project. Combining these lots is in compliance

with all state and local ordinances.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Kane County Engineer, Tom Avant has reviewed this

project and recommends approval. Kane County Land Use Administrator, Shannon McBride,

recommends approval.

MOTION: I ____________ make a motion to recommend amending the Swains Creek Pines,

Unit 3, Amended, lots 570 & 571A, becoming new lot 571A, for Elizabeth Bayley based on the

findings documented in the staff report.

Thank you.


STAFF REPORT

Thomas Avant, PE, SE, PLS, CWI

President Building on Solid Foundations

Joshua Beazer, EIT

VP, Civil

Mike Downward, PE VP, Structural

P.O. Box 55 ▫ 460 East 300 South, Suite 1, Kanab, UT 84741 Office (435) 644-2031

Fax: (435) 644-2969 ▫ Email: [email protected]

July 11, 2018 Shannon McBride Kane County Land Use Administrator 76 N. Main Kanab, UT 84741 Re: Parcel Joinder Swains Creek Pines, Unit 3, Lots 570‐572 Review #2 (18031) Mrs. McBride: I have reviewed the Parcel Joinder Plat that our office. I recommend conditional approval based on the following items being addressed:

1. Keep the new lot as number 571A. Please contact us with any questions that you may have regarding the above items. Sincerely,

Thomas Avant, PE, PLS

cc. Platt and Platt, Inc.

Land Use Authority

76 North Main Street Kanab, Utah 84741

Phone (435) 644-4966 [email protected]

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the commission chambers located in the Kane County Courthouse at 76 North Main Street, the Kane County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to amend the subdivision plat for a lot joinder, on behalf of, Elizabeth Marie Bayley, trustee of Bayley Family Trust, Unit 3, Amended lot 571A & 570, becoming new lot 571B, within NW ¼ Section 26, Township 38 South, Range 7 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Kane County, Utah. At the time and place set forth above, all interested persons may appear and will be given an opportunity to be heard either in support of or in opposition to the application for a lot joinder within a subdivision plat. Any persons wanting to file a written objection to the inclusion of the owner’s property in the proposed subdivision plat amendment, may do so by either email or mail. Contact information can be found below. All Land Use Ordinances and information packets for Planning and Zoning Meeting agenda items can be found at www.kane.utah.gov Land Use Ordinances: kane.utah.gov > government>ordinances>title 9 Information Packets: kane.utah.gov>government>departments>planning commission>documents>general

Land Use Authority 76 North Main Street Kanab, Utah 84741

Phone (435) 644-4966 [email protected]

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the commission chambers located in the Kane County Courthouse at 76 North Main Street, the Kane County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to amend the subdivision plat for a lot joinder, on behalf of, Elizabeth Marie Bayley, trustee of Bayley Family Trust, Unit 3, Amended lot 571A & 570, becoming new lot 571B, within NW ¼ Section 26, Township 38 South, Range 7 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, Kane County, Utah. At the time and place set forth above, all interested persons may appear and will be given an opportunity to be heard either in support of or in opposition to the application for a lot joinder within a subdivision plat. Any persons wanting to file a written objection to the inclusion of the owner’s property in the proposed subdivision plat amendment, may do so by either email or mail. Contact information can be found below. All Land Use Ordinances and information packets for Planning and Zoning Meeting agenda items can be found at www.kane.utah.gov Land Use Ordinances: kane.utah.gov > government>ordinances>title 9 Information Packets: kane.utah.gov>government>departments>planning commission>documents>general

76 North Main Kanab, Utah 84741 435-644-4966 www.kane.utah.gov

DATE: 07/10/2018

I, __________________ make a motion to recommend approval of Kane County Ordinance O 2018-7 to the Kane County Commission, (9-1-8) Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 8, inspection; (9-6A-6) Title 9, Chapter 6, Uses Table, addition of “campground/ glamp-ground” and “recreational vehicle park” as non-permitted uses in all residential zones.


KANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. O 2018 - 7

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 CHAPTERS 1 & 6, OF THE KANE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, the Kane County Planning Commission and Kane County Board of Commissioners desire to make recommended changes to specific sections of Chapters 1 & 6 of the Kane County Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the purposes of amending these chapters are as follows: (9-1-8) Chapter 1, Inspection, revise inspection protocol to match Utah State Code (17-27a-303); (9-6A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table, addition of “Campground/ Glamp-ground” and “recreational vehicle park” as non-permitted uses in non-residential zones; and

WHEREAS, the Kane County Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing, recommended for approval amendments to the following Chapters: (9-1-8) Chapter 1, (9-6A-6) Chapter 6, Uses Table; and

WHEREAS, the Kane County Board of Commissioners, in a duly noticed public meeting, received the recommended amendments for the sections listed below for Chapters 1 & 6 of the Kane County Land Use Ordinance; and desires to enact the recommendations; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to update Kane County Land Use Ordinance under the authority granted in Utah State Code Unannotated, §17-27a-205, §17-27a-301-302, §17-27a-501-503, §17-27a-505.5 and § 17-27a-601-604.5, which authorizes the Kane County Commission to enact and amend land use ordinances upon recommendation by the Kane County Planning Commission;

NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE BODY OF KANE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Additions to the Ordinance are indicated with an underline, and deletions from the ordinance are indicated with a strike-through. Instructions to the codifiers are italicized and inside parenthesis.

// TITLE 9 LAND USE

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

9-1-8: INSPECTION: The Kane County Land Use Authority or any authorized employee of Kane County may enter upon any land at reasonable times to make examinations and surveys pertinent to the: (1)

preparation of its general plan; or (2) preparation or enforcement of its land use ordinances. (17-27a-303). shall have the right to enter the premises for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of this title; provided, that such right of entry shall be exercised only at reasonable hours and that in no case shall entry be made in the absence of the owner or tenant thereof without written permission of the owner, or the written order of a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 2013-5, 8-12-2013, eff. 8-27-2013)

// CHAPTER 6: RESIDENTIAL ZONES

ARTICLE A 9-6A-6: USES TABLE:

Use R-1/2 R-1 R-2 R-5

Campground/ Glamp-ground - - - -

Recreational vehicle park - - - -

// End of Ordinance This Ordinance shall be deposited in the Office of the County Clerk, and shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the date signed below.

The County Clerk is directed to publish a short summary of this Ordinance with the name of the members voting for and against, together with a statement that a complete copy of the ordinance is available at the Office of the County Clerk, for at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, or as otherwise permitted and required by Utah State Law. ADOPTED this ___ day of July 2018. ____________________________ Dirk Clayson, Chair ATTEST: Board of Commissioners

Kane County _________________________ Commissioner Clayson voted ____ KARLA JOHNSON Commissioner Matson voted ____ Kane County Clerk Commissioner Smith voted ____

july 11, 2018 - utahchapter 1, inspection; (9-6a-6) chapter 6, uses table, addition of...

Documents