Minutes for 2002-12-17, Direct pdf link.

1. Welcome by Chair Burton.
   
   
2. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Patty Burton.
   
   
3. Thought of the Day was offered by Commissioner Bischoff.
   
   Consent Items
   1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $81,149.93.
   2. Warrants #170794 - #171049 in the amount of $1,958,752.25.
   3. Minutes of meeting held on December 10, 2002.
   
   
   Commissioner Cain moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
   
   
4. Non-Action Items: None.
   
   
5. Action Items:
   1. Approval of a Contract with the Acorn Antique Show for an Antique Sale and Show to be Held at the Golden Spike Event Center February 22-23, 2003 -Contract C2002-162
      
      Jim Harvey, Golden Spike Event Center, stated that this item and item E.2. were standard contracts and very similar, with different dates. He addressed Commissioner Cain's question regarding the number of chairs and tables listed on the agreement.
      
      
      Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2002-162 between Weber County and the Acorn Antique Show for an antique sale and show to be held at the Golden Spike Event Center February 22- 23, 2003; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.
      
      
   2. Approval of a Contract with the Acorn Antique Show for an Antique Sale and Show to be Held at the Golden Spike Event Center November 1-2, 2003 -Contract C2002-163
      See item E.1. above.
      
      
      Commissioner Cain moved to approve Contract C2002-163 between Weber County and the Acorn Antique Show for an antique sale and show to be held at the Golden Spike Event Center November 1-2, 2003; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
      
      
   3. Approval of a Promotional Services Agreement with Janet East Productions for Advertising, Marketing and Sponsorships at the Golden Spike Event Center -Contract C2002-164
      
      Jim Harvey, Golden Spike Event Center, stated that a bid process had been followed, bids were reviewed and Janet East Productions was selected. This contract is valid through the end of 2003. With this contract, the GSEC will receive a better value from advertising for county-sponsored events. Mr. Harvey addressed the commissioners' questions and clarified that Ms. East only received commissions for the work she generated.
      
      
      Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2002-164, Promotional Services Agreement between Weber County and Janet East Productions for advertising, marketing and sponsorships at the Golden Spike Event Center; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.
      
      
   4. Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the 2003 Weber County Budget - Resolution 47-2002
      
      Alan McEwan, County Comptroller, stated that a few changes had been made after the 2003 tentative budget public hearing. This included changes to the jail and the Conference Center budget. Mr. McEwan recapped that it was a balanced budget, that there was no tax increase and no cost of living for employees or elected officials.
      
      
      Commissioner Cain moved to adopt Resolution 47-2002 adopting the 2003 Weber County Budget; Commissioner Bischoff seconded
      
      Roll Call Vote
      Commissioner Cain. . .aye
      Commissioner Bischoff. . .aye
      Chair Burton. . .aye
      
   
   
6. Public Hearings
   1. Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye.
      
      
   2. Public Hearing on the Rezoning of Property at 6741 North Fork Road from Forest F-5 to Forest Residential FV-3
      
      Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, showed area maps and gave an overview of this item. It is to rezone 9+ acres of property located just below the Durfee Creek Subdivision. Mr. Gentry said that there was some existing FV-3 zone (single family residence on 3 acres) on the other side of the road that belonged to another owner. The petitioner proposes to build one home now and possibly two others in the future. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on a 3-1 vote.
      
      Chair Burton invited public comments. Edward Toner, resident of Durfee Creek, stated that the area in Durfee Creek was currently zoned for 5 acres and that he and many of those home owners had concerns about changing it to 3-acre minimum building parcels due to possible future expansion of Durfee Creek based on the 3 acres. He said they saw this as possibly opening the door to a trend, that the area had been set aside as 5 acres minimum building parcels for a reason, which could include watershed concerns because these parcels of land border the North Fork River that will all be on septic systems. Chair Burton asked for clarification whether the subject property was in Durfee Creek and Mr. Toner replied it was not, that it was just below Durfee Creek, however, that the developer had the right, as written in their covenants, to buy back common land from Durfee Creek if it were ever rezoned to 3 acres. This was a concern to Durfee Creek area residents. Karl Miller, Durfee Creek resident, asked if the subject property had been zoned F-5 when the petitioner had purchased it or if it had been imposed on him. Mr. Gentry replied it had been zoned F-5. Mr. Miller stated that the petitioner had bought the land knowing the present zoning and he asked the Commission to consider the value of the property of others in the area, pointing out that there were both tangible and intangible values. He stated that the property owners valued the current low density, that this is what made it valuable to them, and for the Commission not to impose a situation that could result in higher density on Durfee Creek. Mr. Miller asked if clustering could be a consideration in this case and Chair Burton said that it could be but would come at a later time, such as when the land was subdivided.
      
      
   3. Public Hearing on the Proposed West Central Weber General Plan
      
      Craig Barker, County Planning Department Director, stated that there was a county General Plan and this was an update of that plan, which (in approximately 1984) had been approved for the western part of Weber County. It costs a fair amount of county funds to update a plan. Mr. Barker outlined the different facets of the process thus far completed including the work done over the last year by the four pertinent Planning Commissions and Landmark Design, the Planning Consultant (Jan Striefel). Public input was taken at a number of public meetings at the Township Planning Commission, at workshops, and at the Townships' joint public hearing. The County Commission had received a copy of the plan and comments from each Township as they reviewed the plans for their area. Mr. Barker explained that upon the completion of this hearing the Commission could take a number of actions including adopting the plan as presented, amending it or rejecting it. He stated that, as happens in most general plan processes, there had been controversy. Recent activities in western Weber County had created issues regarding land use and transportation such as the significant sewer construction project which introduced land uses and densities with unheard of potential in unincorporated Weber County most of that area has had septic tank and drain field which have minimum requirements for land area and the study of the Legacy Highway that was completed within the last 18 months. This Highway, as projected from Davis County, would extend through Hooper, Taylor, West Weber, Plain City and through the entire western part of the county. Other issues that had been discussed included retention of the rural landscape and rural condition in the communities, agricultural preservation and protection.
      
      Ms. Striefel stated they had been thrilled with the public participation throughout this process in western central Weber County. There had been 120 in attendance at the public scoping meeting. Envision Utah, one of the partners and one of the funding groups throughout the process, sponsored a workshop and was primarily involved in assisting with that process. Following, there was an alternatives meeting where those present provided written and verbal comments. Two alternatives had initially been prepared for the communities to review. One of them was very similar to the one Ms. Striefel was now presenting and had evolved as the preferred plan. The other plan included 1/4 or