WEBER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1990 Page Eight 1. Cluster Subdivision for Summer Homes - Zoning F-40 2. Private Streets in Subdivision - mountain road standard; gravel. 3. County Health Dept. to locate septic drainfield on each lot - covenant to run with the lot to notify each purchaser. 4. Existing water system to provide water. 5. Ownership to be cleared before recording currently B&B livestock and State of Utah. 6. County Engineer's letter of August 16, 1990: 1. Survey Corrections, 2. Street Monuments, 3. 10' utility easements needed 4. Addresses to be on plat 5. $18,100 improvement guarantee needed 7. County Attorney signature block to be changed to reflect current wording Mark Babbitt, Great Basin Engineering, indicated that initially the Developers of Sunridge were going to develop this phase as a part of Phase #6 but they encountered rock problems near the end of the ridge which made it difficult to excavate and install a water line. They have now gone only gone about half way down the ridge to a point where they can put the system and make it function properly. Jacob Calf, property owner, indicated that he owns three lots in the Sunridge Development and indicated it is a good development with a better water system than Ogden City. MOTION: Commissioner Thompsen moved to give Final Approval to Sunridge #9 Subdivision subject to the above stated staff and Engineering comments. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hancock and voting was unanimous, with Commissioners Coleman, Gibson, Hancock, Thompsen, Widdison and Thompson voting aye. 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Rezoning Procedure - Linkage of Development to all Commercial and Industrial Petitions for rezoning (See attached) Staff indicated that the Rezoning Procedure Agreement which was approved at the last meeting was reviewed with the County Commission and it their reaction was "why have an option" and why not require all Commercial and Manufacturing Zoning Petitions, to submit a Concept Plan and agree to carry it out or have the zoning revert back to the former zone. Staff has since redrafted the proposed ordinance amendment so that all Commercial and Industrial, Recreation Resort or Multi-family Rezoning petitions require a Concept Development Plan that must be approved and developed or the zoning will revert. A development agreement may be required by the County in large developments. Commissioner Hancock indicated that he believes the word "shall" should be changed to "may" in regards to having the zoning revert back if development is not accomplished. Because in the case where the developer still desires to follow through with his plan, then each individual case can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He has spoken with people who have stated that there are some problems with the Agreement if local planning commission's get too restrictive. Staff indicated that there have been other areas using Development Agreements and have been successful. The concept plan is not a specific site plan by only the general concept of a development. There is nothing in the agreement which states the County can change the position of the concept plan so the developer is protected. MOTION: Commissioner Hancock moved to approve the revised Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the Concept Development Plan as presented by the staff with the exception that "shall" will be changed to "may" in regards to having the zoning revert. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gibson. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION: Commissioner Coleman feels that a person should be able to zone without a purpose in mind because maybe he wants the property rezoned to pick up a buyer. He feels this might be depriving the individual the right to rezone his property. He questioned the staff as to whether development agreements have been tested in the courts. Phil Hancock indicated that everyone has the right to petition to rezone. 446