GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ......General Plan Steering Committee Meeting January 29, 2020 Page 3 of 5 The group then engaged in philosophical discussion and debate about

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MAY 27, 2020 AT 6:00 PM 505 EAST 2600 NORTH NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

Welcome: Mayor Berube

Thought, Supplication, Praise, Thanksgiving, reading, or Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance: By Invitation

AGENDA

1. Consideration to approve the January 29, 2020, February 26, 2020, and April 22, 2020, General Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes.

2. Public Comments*

3. Discussion regarding vesting residential zones in North Ogden City Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney

4. Discussion on Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for conservation areas of the City Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney

5. Discussion on recommended Washington Blvd. commercial corridor Presenter: Rob Scott, Planning Director

6. Committee/staff/Mayor comments

7. Adjournment

*Public Comments/Questions

a. Time is made available for anyone in the audience to address the Committee.

b. When a member of the audience addresses the Committee, they will state their name and address.

c. Citizens will be asked to limit their remarks/questions to five (5) minutes each.

d. The Mayor shall have discretion as to who will respond to a comment/question.

e. In all cases the criteria for response will be that comments/questions must be pertinent to this Committee, that there are no argumentative questions and no personal attacks.

f. Some comments/questions may have to wait for a response until the next Regular Committee Meeting.

g. The Mayor will inform a citizen when he or she has used the allotted time.

The Committee at its discretion may rearrange the order of any item(s) on the agenda. Final action may be taken on any item on the agenda. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify Annette Spendlove, City Recorder at 782-7211 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted within the North Ogden City limits on this 21st day of May, 2020, at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website, and faxed to the Standard Examiner. The 2020 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 22, 2019.

Please click the link to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86447483614

Or Telephone Dial: 669 900 9128, or 253 215 8782, or 346 248 7799

Webinar ID: 864 4748 3614

Page 1

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86447483614

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting January 29, 2020 Page 1 of 5

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

January 29, 2020 The North Ogden General Plan Steering Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on January 29, 2020 at 6:02 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the General Plan Steering Committee, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on January 24, 2020. MEMBERS: Christian George - Excused Dan Nixon (arrived 6:25 pm) Dave Gordon - Excused Don Waite, Planning Commissioner Eric Thomas, Planning Commission Chairman Grant Protzman Ryan Barker, City Council Member - Excused Phillip Swanson, City Council Member - Excused

Robert Bolar - Excused Susannah Burt - Excused Stephanie Casey Julie Anderson (arrived 6:10 pm) Meg Sanders (arrived 6:10 pm) Mark Brown - Excused Charlotte Bailey - Excused Bruce Christensen

STAFF: Neal Berube Mayor Jon Call City Attorney/Manager Rob Scott City Planner Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant Kai Johnsen Planning Tech VISITORS: Christina Watson Scott Shuman Mayor Berube called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Mayor Berube offered a thought to open the meeting. He also led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA:

Page 21.


1. Public Comments There were no public comments. 3. Discussion concerning the direction for the General Plan Steering Committee Mayor Berube stated he has read the General Plan that was most recently updated in 2015 and he thinks it is a good document, but for future revisions he would like to simplify the document so that it is easier for citizens to understand and in order for it to serve as a guiding document for the Planning Commission and City Council as they consider land use actions. It is important for the Committee to recommend that the General Plan is a living document and can be adjusted responsive to needs of the community. City Manager/Attorney stated that this group has talked about two concepts in the past that have also been discussed with the City Council; this includes the idea of transferrable development rights (TDR) to achieve preservation of green or open space in the City. For a TDR program to work, it is necessary to identify the locations of the City where increased density is allowed and those areas of the City that should be preserved as open space as a result of a TDR action. Another option for preserving open space is the idea of a conservation easement that can be recorded against a property to ensure future preservation. The group engaged in high level discussion about the two concepts raised by Mr. Call and indicated they are willing to consider and explore both concepts to determine if they are appropriate for the City. Several members of the group communicated they feel that it is necessary for the General Plan to represent the desires of the community. There is a great desire to preserve open space and reduce density of new housing developments that continue to be proposed. Meg Sanders stated that she feels that members of the Planning Commission and City Council have ignored the requests made by residents to deny high density projects that are eliminating green space in the community. Planning Commissioners Thomas and Waite indicated that the Planning Commission does not have the ability to deny a project that complies with City ordinances or conforms with the General Plan. The Council has greater discretion when assigning zoning. Mayor Berube stated that it seems that the City has gotten into the habit of rezoning properties as requested and he would like for the General Plan to be updated to be reflective of the desires of the community in order to guide the Council as they are considering zone change actions. Grant Protzman stated that his concern has been that some projects that have been built in the City do not comply with the approvals that were granted by the City Council. The developer of the Village at Prominence Point project has requested several amendments to his development agreement and the Council felt they had no choice but to approve those changes. He would like for developers to be held to the approvals they have been granted. Stefanie Casey agreed, but added that project approvals must be realistic. If the market changes drastically and certain business models are no longer viable, it is appropriate to consider adjustments rather than force a developer to stick to a project that will never come to fruition.

Page 31.


The group then engaged in philosophical discussion and debate about the level of detail appropriate for the plan and how restrictive the document should be. There was a break in discussion to allow for action on the minutes listed on the agenda. 2. Minutes Consideration

a. Consideration to approve the August 28, 2019, general Plan Steering Committee Meeting minutes

b. Consideration to approve the October 23, 2019, General Plan Steering Committee Meeting

minutes

Grant Protzman made a motion to approve the minutes. Eric Thomas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Discussion regarding the direction the Committee would like to take then resumed.

Grant Protzman moved that the Committee proceed in examining undeveloped parcels in the City and update the General Plan Map to appropriate future land use recommendations. Additionally, the General Plan document will be improved to include substance and enforcement capabilities. Bruce Christensen seconded the motion.

Mr. Call stated it is important for the group to understand that no other community in the State has considered adoption of a General Plan that includes language indicating that development rights are vested based upon the implications of the General Plan. He is unsure that such a plan in North Ogden will be successful, but he understands the group’s desire to improve the substance and enforcement options for the document. Mr. Thomas indicated that other cities have done something similar in regard to providing vesting rights based up on General Plan directives. Syracuse City requires a formal application for a General Plan text or map change if a property owner wants to pursue development that is not in line with their General Plan. They have a closure period for the Plan as well and this requires some applicants to wait to apply for an amendment. This creates an additional step in a rezone process that applicants would pursue. The group discussed whether vesting rights are appropriate for the General Plan. Mayor Berube stated he would rather use language indicating that the General Plan will be more substantive than indicate that adoption of the Plan will provide vesting rights for property owners. The group agreed. Mayor Berube called for a vote on the motion offered by Mr. Protzman and seconded by Mr. Christensen. All voted in favor; the motion carried unanimously.

Page 41.


4. Discussion concerning Central Business District (CBD) Planning Director Scott provided the group with information and documentation regarding the idea of creating a Central Business District (CBD) for downtown North Ogden. This is a tool that can be used to accomplish future development goals for downtown and to ensure sustainability of development. He reviewed a map to illustrate the portion of the City that he would envision making up the CBD for North Ogden. This area is already comprised of several different zoning types. The City is working with a consultant on revising the City’s zoning ordinances it is an option to utilize that consultant to create zoning guidelines for a CBD zone in the City. This would include development and design standards. He referenced a CBD zone that has been in place in Ogden City for several decades and it includes minimum design standards and guidance regarding allowed uses in the zone. He facilitated a high-level review of the zoning ordinance and focused on the language that could be paralleled for a CBD in North Ogden. He then stated that aside from the CBD zone, he would recommend a neighborhood commercial/convenience zone be created for areas outside of downtown North Ogden. This could allow for smaller business uses that could provide convenient access to goods for residents living further distances from the CBD. He stated that is something the group can consider as they proceed with updates to the General Plan. The group then discussed the concept of creating a CBD zone for North Ogden. There was also a brief focus on the concept of a neighborhood commercial zone, with several members expressing support for that type of land use. Dan Nixon stated he feels it is necessary to consider General Plan amendments as quickly as possible. There have been development concepts presented for areas of the City, but they were killed because the General Plan or zoning ordinances were not flexible enough. The economy is thriving right now and it is necessary to consider code amendments to allow for developers to capitalize on good market conditions while providing projects that can benefit the entire community. 5. Public comments

Christina Watson stated that from a citizen’s perspective, when the City is considering zone changes for which citizen notification is required, the City should take care of that notification in the discussion phase of a zone change or rezone rather than after decisions have been made. This would give citizens the ability to provide input early in the process. Many people may disregard a general notice about something in the City, but when it directly impacts their own property, they care and they want to voice their opinion. She stated that it is important to communicate General Plan changes to the entire community so that they understand that potential changes could have an impact them on the future. The group discussed notification practices and suggested that information be provided in person to property owners as well as through the City website and various social media channels. 6. Committee/staff/Mayor comments Mr. Call asked for direction from the Committee regarding the subjects they would like to discuss and work on over the course of future meetings. Mr. Thomas suggested that each Committee

Page 51.


member familiarize themselves with the current General Plan and land use implications. He also suggested that they read through zoning ordinances in order to participate in discussions about the appropriate locations for different zoning designations. Mayor Berube noted the next Committee meeting will be scheduled in April; notification will be provided to Committee members. 7. Adjournment

Julie Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meg Sanders seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.

_____________________________ S. Neal Berube, Mayor

_____________________________ Lynne Bexell, Administrative Assistant

_____________________________ Date Approved

Page 61.

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting September 25, 2019 Page 1 of 2


February 26, 2020 The North Ogden General Plan Steering Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on February 26, 2020 at 6:02 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the General Plan Steering Committee, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office, and posted to the Utah State Website on February 20, 2020. MEMBERS: Bruce Christensen – Excused Charlotte Bailey Christian George – Excused, Resigned Christina Watson - Excused Dan Nixon - Excused Dave Gordon Don Waite, Planning Commissioner Eric Thomas, Planning Commission Chairman Grant Protzman John Arrington

Julie Anderson Mark Brown – Excused Meg Sanders Phillip Swanson, City Council Member - Excused Robert Bolar – Excused Ryan Barker, City Council Member Scott Shuman Stephanie Casey Susannah Burt – Excused, Resigned Tim Billings – Excused

STAFF: Neal Berube Mayor Jon Call City Attorney/Manager Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant VISITORS: Noel & Margaret Schvaneveldt Randy Shaner City Manager/Attorney Jon Call called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Dave Gordon offered the Thought, Supplication, Praise, Thanksgiving, Reading, or Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Page 71.

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting September 25, 2019 Page 2 of 2

AGENDA: 1. Public Comments

There were no public comments. 2. Discussion on vesting the General Plan and the Future Land Use Map

City Manager/Attorney Call used the map in the General Plan document to talk about future land use and the direction that the Committee would like to take with the map. The room was set up with four separate tables with a black/white map of the city for each table. Each group was asked to consider what zoning they would like to see on the map for individual areas and use the crayons to designate those areas with the colors that had been pre-determined. The colors assigned: Purple – 8 units to the acre Red – 6 units to the acre (approx. current zone R-1-5) Orange – 4 units to the acre (approx. current zone R-1-8) Yellow – 3 units to the acre (approx. current zone R-1-10) Green – 2 units to the acre (approx. current zone RE-20) Blue – 1 unit to the acre They were asked to consider:

• What neighborhoods do you want to see replicated? • What are your favorite areas of the City? • Are there other neighborhoods outside of the City you enjoy? • Would you trade density for continuous open space?

The agenda and rules for the meeting were suspended and the groups worked together until they were finished with their maps.

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm



_____________________________ Date Approved

Page 81.

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting April 22, 2020 Page 1 of 4


April 22, 2020 The North Ogden General Plan Steering Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on April 22, 2020 at 6:02 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the General Plan Steering Committee, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on April 16, 2020. MEMBERS:

Phillip Swanson, City Council Member-Excused Ryan Barker, City Council Member-Excused Don Waite, Planning Commissioner Eric Thomas, Plan Commission Chair-Excused Charlotte Bailey Christina Watson Dan Nixon Grant Protzman (joined about 6:20pm)

John Arrington Julie Anderson Mark Brown (Joined about 6:30 pm) Meg Sanders Scott Shuman Stephanie Casey Tim Billings

STAFF: Neal Berube Mayor (Joined about 6:40pm) Jon Call City Attorney/Manager Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant Rob Scott Planning Director Brandon Bell Associate Planner Kai Johnsen Planning Tech VISITORS: Tiffany Shapiro Greg Montgomery John Janson City Manager/Attorney Call reported that Mayor Berube, who is also the Chair of this Committee, is unable to participate in tonight’s meeting. He asked that the Committee nominate a Vice Chair to conduct the meeting.

Page 91.


Meg Sanders nominated Julie Anderson to serve as the Vice Chair and conduct tonight’s meeting. Stefanie Casey seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. She offered the Thought, Supplication, Praise, Thanksgiving, Reading, or Invocation and Jon Call led the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA: 1. Public Comments There were no public comments. 2. Overview of Central Business District (CBD) Planning Director Scott introduced Greg Montgomery, Ogden City Planning Manager. He noted he and Mr. Montgomery worked together at Ogden City for 18 years and during that time, the City created its Central Business District (CBD). He has invited Mr. Montgomery to provide information about the process by which the CBD was created and the purpose the CBD serves in Ogden. Mr. Montgomery discussed his family’s relationship to North Ogden and his recollection of the manner in which the City’s downtown area has developed over time. The Ogden City CBD was developed to encompass the area thought of as downtown Ogden. If this Committee desires to create a CBD in North Ogden, he would suggest that the group consider the area that is most traditionally thought of as the City’s downtown. This could be considered independent of zoning designations; however, he would suggest that the group consider things like walkability, transportation, and common elements. Ogden’s CBD has an intensive zone and a general zone. That may not be necessary in North Ogden as the City’s downtown area is not as large as Ogden’s. However, it would be appropriate to consider if all CBD allowed land uses should be allowed anywhere in the CBD or only on certain parcels. The ordinances created for the CBD zone should be considered tools to enforce regulations and standards. This means that language must be clear and concise rather than arbitrary. Otherwise, landowners and developers will try to argue for things that may not have been intended for the CBD zone. He advised the Committee to envision what they want the area encompassed in the CBD to look like. Brainstorming could start from a point of looking at current uses and historical properties that residents are familiar with. Design standards could be patterned after those uses in order to provide compatibility for future development. Mr. Montgomery then engaged in high level discussion with the group about topics such as what Ogden City learned throughout the creation of the CBD and what things they would have done differently; the pros and cons of combining several types of commercial zone into one for the purpose of development in the CBD zone; and the option of posting a pending ordinance to halt any development of property in the CBD area until after final ordinances are adopted. Julie Anderson polled the Committee to determine if there is support for recommending a six-month moratorium on development of any property in the potential CBD area to give the City time to

Page 101.


develop a CBD ordinance and associated zoning regulations. The group engaged in philosophical discussion regarding the concept of a moratorium and concluded to support a recommendation to the City Council to enact a moratorium. Grant Protzman moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt a pending ordinance to enact a moratorium on any development on the potential CBD area. Mark Brown seconded the motion. Mr. Scott reiterated the City is working with a consultant that is aiding the City in updating its zoning ordinances. That project could include work on a CBD and identification of the desires for continued development of downtown North Ogden. He would recommend review of the basic principles in the General Plan to inform the work to be done by this group and the consultants on development of a CBD ordinance. This led to discussion among the group about whether to recommend a moratorium to the City Council or to wait for more information from Planning staff and the consultant. The group briefly heard from a representative of the consultant group about the scope of work they are currently working under and how this current project differs from work done by the consultant in the past to update the City’s General Plan. The Committee asked City Manager/Attorney Call if they can address the City Council regarding their desires to place a moratorium on development in the City’s downtown area. They suggested that Ms. Anderson and Ms. Sanders represent the Committee. Mr. Call stated that what the City would be allowed to do is adopt a temporary ordinance that would give the City six months to develop specific regulations for development in the downtown area of the City. Ms. Anderson suggested that Committee members send their suggestions to Mr. Call for the types of restrictions they would like to consider for development. Mr. Call stated that he can write a draft ordinance for the Committee to review, but he advised them to reach a consensus on the goal of the ordinance. Mr. Protzman suggested that Mr. Call pattern the temporary land use ordinance after one that Ogden City has adopted in the past when they were in this type of situation. Mr. Montgomery noted that a temporary land use ordinance should be very specific and provide landowners with direction regarding the type of development they would be allowed to pursue during the six-month period or what type of development would be prohibited. Ms. Anderson stated that she would like to present to the City Council during their May 12 meeting. She asked Mr. Call to provide the draft temporary land use ordinance to all Committee members for their review before that meeting. The group then engaged in high level philosophical discussion/debate of the types of regulations that should be included in the temporary land use ordinance. They also briefly focused on the purpose of this Committee at the present time and if the group will have any involvement in the process of updating City land use ordinances. Ms. Anderson then called for a vote on the motion made to recommend consideration of a temporary land use ordinance to the City Council. All voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously.

Page 111.


3. Further discussion and review of Future Land Use from Feb 26, 2020 General Plan Steering Committee Meeting.

City Manager/Attorney Call stated that during the last meeting, Committee members had the opportunity to prepare maps illustrating their desires for General Plan amendments. He presented the map and discussed some commonalities between the maps. Ms. Anderson suggested that an overlay of the different maps be created and sent to all Committee members for further review. Mr. Call stated he can provide that type of document and stated that it would be helpful for the group to reach a consensus on how they would like to proceed with developing a proposed future land use map that could eventually be presented to the City Council, if that is a goal the Committee would like to pursue. The Committee stated they would like to look at a document identifying commonalities before proceeding with determining the goals for the land use map. 4. Committee/staff/Mayor comments Several Committee members commented on the importance of this group for communicating the desires of the community to the City Council relative to continued development activities in North Ogden. There was a brief discussion about the current COVID-19 pandemic and different ideas about the manner in which this crisis will change the local and national economy in the long term. Mayor Berube stated that many things will likely change and he is supportive of considering amendments to the General Plan that are rooted in reality. 5. Adjournment

Mark Brown made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meg Sanders seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m.



_____________________________ Date Approved

Page 121.

Page 133.

Page 37-1

TITLE 37

Chapters37-1. Authorization and Purpose.37-2. Definitions.37-3. Establishment of Sending and Receiving Zones.37-4. Process for Transferring Development Rights.37-5. Using Transferable Development Rights in the Receiving Zone.37-6. Public Acquisition of Transferable Development Rights.

37-1 Authorization and Purpose.

A. Statutory Authorization. Pursuant to Utah Statutes Title 57 Weber County establishes a transfer ofdevelopment rights program for the purpose of preserving open space, including natural and scenicareas, and productive agricultural land in Ogden Valley. The program’s policies, rules and officialcontrols are adopted in this ordinance, hereafter known as the Ogden Valley Transfer of DevelopmentRights (TDR) Ordinance.

B. Purpose and Intent. This Ordinance is adopted for the following purposes:

1. To establish procedures by which development rights can be granted, conveyed, applied, andrecorded.

2. To implement the goals of the Ogden Valley General Plan regarding managing growth andprotecting rural areas. This TDR program addresses the following specific goals as statedin the General Plan.

a. Require that development be compatible with the valley’s rural character andnatural setting;

b. Promote agricultural land;

c. Recognize and respect private property rights;

d. Protect open space and sensitive lands; and

e. Preserve wildlife and important wildlife habitat.

3. To serve additional public purposes through open space protection including the efficient useof community infrastructure.

4. To benefit the community economically through efficient use of community infrastructureand community services.

37-2 Definitions.

For the purpose of this Ordinance, certain words and phrases are defined as follows:

OGDEN VALLEY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Page 144.

Page 37-2

A. Development Rights: An interest in and the right to use and subdivide land for any and all residential,commercial, and industrial purposes and activities which are not incident to agriculture and openspace, in accordance with zoning and other regulations.

B. Receiving Zone: A zone designated for concentrated density uses, within which developers may usedevelopment rights transferred from land in a sending zone.

C. Sending Zone: A zone designated for continued rural uses, from which landowners may sell theirdevelopment rights to private individuals, a land trust, or a government agency. The developmentrights which are sold may be used to build dwelling units or commercial development as allowed ina designated receiving zone. Where the development rights have been sold the land will be in apermanent conservation easement. The minimum sending area is 3 acres with a qualified entity thatwill hold the Deed of Conservation Easement.

37-3 Establishment of Sending and Receiving Zones.

A. Establishment of Sending and Receiving Zones. The following procedures and regulations apply tothe transfer of development rights from land classified in the Sending Zone to land classified in theReceiving Zone. The Sending and Receiving Zones are overlay zones as shown on the official zoningmap. The Sending Zone overlays all of Ogden Valley. The Receiving Zone overlays RecreationResort Zones, Cluster Subdivisions (only as a purchased density bonus as stated in Chapter 22B),andReceiving Nodes as defined below in Ogden Valley with sufficient infrastructure access. For specificlocations see the Weber County Zoning Map.

NOTE: These terms are to be included in the Cluster Subdivision Chapter and presented to the Commissioners within60 days of approval of the TDR Ordinance: The bonus density in Ogden Valley which may be granted is to be earned as specified for a maximum of 20 percent andmay be purchased using TDRs up to a maximum of an additional 20 percent, for a total bonus capability of 40 percent.

1. Receiving Nodes. Nodes are defined for the purpose of identifying areas in which higher densitydevelopment is encouraged. It is expected that the nodes will be pedestrian and bike friendly and willproject a small town/resort atmosphere in all seasons of the year. Nodes are defined as points to beexpanded as receiving areas diminish and as individual applicants wish to develop.

a. Expansion. Application to expand a node will be noted in the standard building permit orsubdivision application. The Planning Commission may not delegate approval of suchapplications. A property to be included in a node must be adjacent to a property that isalready part of the node.

b. Uses. Permitted and conditional uses are those of the underlying zone with the addition ofmixed use if such is not otherwise included. Applicants who wish to change the underlyingzone will do so by application and zoning will be approved on condition of the purchase ofDevelopment Rights. Commercial uses shall be adjacent to other commercial uses creatinga commercial core, with the lowest density furthest from the commercial areas.

c. Density. Density is determined from the underlying zone at the effective date of thisordinance plus the number of purchased Development Rights.

d. Standards. Parking is required to be at the side, underground, or at the rear of commercialproperties and multifamily residential units. Sidewalks, pathways, or boardwalks arerequired.

e. Location. The Receiving Zone shall be within 500 feet of the five (5) nodes defined:

i. Trappers Loop. A single location to be selected by the property owner along Hwy167 between the junction with Hwy 39 and the Weber County boundary as thecentral point with all development adjacent to the central point.

Page 154.

Page 37-3

ii. Greater Huntsville. The intersection of Hwy 39 and 500 South, generally knownas the "Chevron Intersection".

iii. Eden. The intersection of SR 158 and Hwy 162, generally identified with theValley Market and the Maverick gas station.

iv. Eden Historic. The intersection of Hwy 166 and 2200 N., generally identified asthe "General Store". The intent of this node is to start at the Hearthside ReceptionCenter on 2200 N. proceeding west to the General Store including the lot to thewest of the General Store and then south along 5500 E. opposite the Eden Park. Itis intended that eventually the area surrounding the Park, one lot deep, would bedevoted to the Historic node with expansion beyond that point determined byapplication to expand the node. The Historic node is intended to be the "Old Eden"center, where architecture and building materials are to reflect the 1800's asexemplified by the Blacksmith Shop, the General Store, and the "Wilbur" house,and the Hearthside Reception Center.

v. Liberty. The intersection of Hwy 162 at the 3-way stop, generally identified as the"old church" site.

B. Granting Transferable Development Rights Within the Sending Zone. Except as noted below, everyparcel or record as of the effective date of this ordinance within the Sending Zone is grantedDevelopment Rights as current underlying zoning dictates. For example, if a 10-acre parcel is zonedas FV-3 which allows a 3-acre minimum lot area under the zoning at the effective date of thisordinance, ten percent of developable land shall be subtracted from the 10 acres to provide for therequired public or private right-of-way and the remaining 9 acres shall be divided by the 3-acreminimum lot area which identifies 3 development rights. Transferable development rights are notgranted to:

1. Land restricted for any use subject to Weber County Zoning Ordinance Title 28, Chapter 33Floodplain Overlay Zone, defined Non-developable Area in Chapter 1, and Chapter 38Natural Hazards Overlay Districts;

2. Land restricted from development by covenant, easement, or deed restriction, unless and untilsuch time as said covenant, easement, or restriction is dissolved or rescinded;

3. Land restricted by conservation easement, including a conservation easement created throughthe Ogden Valley Purchase of Development Rights program;

4. Tracts of land or portions thereof subject to easements that preclude development (including,but not limited to, easements of roads, rights-of-way, railroads, electrical transmission lines,telephone lines, and water, sewer, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmentalagencies, utilities, and railroads;

5. Legal non-conforming parcels of land;

6. Tracts of land owned by a government agency (e.g., Federal, State of Utah, Weber County);and

7. Parcels zoned as open space or other zones that may have no development rights associatedwith them.

Page 164.

Page 37-4

37-4 Process for Transferring Development Rights.

A. Voluntary Nature of Transfer. The conveyance of transferable development rights will occur only ona voluntary basis. Landowners will not be compelled in any way to convey their transferabledevelopment rights. If conveyances occur, they must be done according to paragraph 37-5-D of thisordinance.

B. Value of Transferable Development Rights. The monetary value of transferable development rightsis completely determined by negotiation between the transferor and the transferee of the rights.

C. Process for Conveying Transferable Development Rights from the Sending Zone. Transferabledevelopment rights granted under paragraph 37-3-B of this ordinance may be transferred, through saleor donation, to any party, subject to the requirements stated below.

1. The transferor and transferee shall submit an application signed by both on a form developedby Weber County stating the intent to transfer and acquire transferable development rights.The application form shall include:

a. A record of survey plat of the total property owned by the transferor from which therights will be transferred.

b. A site plan or survey of the sending property must also be submitted showing thefollowing elements:

i. total acreage;

ii. land restricted for any use subject to Weber County Zoning OrdinanceTitle 28, Chapter 33 Floodplain Overlay Zone, defined Non-developableArea in Chapter 1, and Chapter 38 Natural Hazards Overlay Districts;;

iii. land restricted from development by covenant, easement, or deedrestriction, unless and until such time as said covenant, easement, orrestriction is dissolved or rescinded;

iv. land restricted by conservation easement, including a conservationeasement created through the Weber County Purchase of DevelopmentRights program;

v. tracts of land or portions thereof subject to easements (including, but notlimited to, easements or roads, rights-of-way, railroads, electricaltransmission lines, telephone lines, and water, sewer, gas or petroleumpipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and railroads; and

vi. parcels zoned as open space or other zones that may have no developmentrights associated with them.

c. If a transfer of development rights involves less than the entire number of rights ofa parcel, the portion of the parcel from which the development rights are transferredshall be clearly identified through a record of survey plat, and shall be clearlyidentified on the site plan.

d. The application must also state:

i. the number of transferable development rights granted to the entire parcelor parcels under paragraph 37-3-B above and an explanation of how thedevelopment rights were calculated;

Page 174.

Page 37-5

ii. the number of transferrable development rights granted to the identifiedportion of the parcel from which the development rights are to betransferred; and

iii. the number of transferable development rights that would remain availableto the parcel after the proposed transfer.

e. A title search of the tract from which the transferable development rights will beconveyed sufficient to determine all owners of the tract and all lienholders.

f. A copy of the proposed Deed of Transferable Development Rights and a copy ofthe proposed Deed of Conservation Easement in accordance with paragraph 37-4-Dof this ordinance.

g. The application must include the items listed in 37-5-C.

2. Upon receiving a complete application, the zoning officer shall:

a. Determine the number of transferable development rights that can be conveyedfrom the sending property.

b. With the advice of the Weber County attorney, determine the sufficiency of:

i. the plan indicating the portion of the property to be restricted from futuredevelopment;

ii. the proposed Deed of Conservation Easement; and

iii. the proposed Deed of Transferable Development Rights.

c. The zoning officer shall inform the applicants of any determination in writing.

3. Upon receipt of written approval by the zoning officer, the transferor and recipient togethermay present Weber County with the Deed of Transferable Development Rights forendorsement. Weber County shall not endorse the Deed of Transferable Development Rightsuntil Weber County has received evidence that the Deed of Conservation Easement has beenduly signed by all relevant parties and recorded with the county recorder of deeds.

D. Conditions of the Conservation Easement. The owner conveying transferable development rights fromthe sending zone shall perpetually restrict the use of the parcel from which transferable developmentrights are conveyed by a Deed of Conservation Easement. The Deed of Conservation Easement shallcomply with Utah Statutes and shall be in a form approved by Weber County. The conservationeasement shall comply with the following conditions:

1. The Deed of Conservation Easement shall restrict future development and restrict future useof the property to agricultural, wildlife habitat, and undeveloped open space uses. DevelopedRecreation Facilities other than trails, trailheads, or similar facilities shall not be allowed inthe Conservation Easement.

2. The Deed of Conservation Easement shall be held by a qualified unit of government,conservation organization, land trust, or similar organization authorized to hold interest inreal property (pursuant to Utah Statutes) as approved by Weber County. Weber County willco-hold all easements to ensure the long-term protection of the easement in the event ofdissolution of the co-holder. Other local units of government may also hold or co-hold aneasement.

3. If the development rights are to be conveyed from less than the entire parcel, the applicationprepared in accordance with 37-4-C-1 above shall be attached to and recorded with the Deedof Conservation Easement.

Page 184.

Page 37-6

4. All owners of the tracts from which transferable development rights are conveyed shallexecute the Deed of Conservation Easement.

5. All lienholders of the tracts from which transferable development rights are conveyed shallexecute a subordination agreement to the Deed of Conservation Easement. Suchsubordination agreement shall be recorded with the county recorder of deeds.

6. Weber County shall rezone the area designated as sending the development rights as ZoneTDR Transferred Development Rights.

37-5 Using Transferable Development Rights in the Receiving Zone.

A. Transferable development rights may only be used to increase permitted density in the Receiving Zoneas it is shown on the official zoning map of Weber County and described in 37-3A.

B. For each transferable development right that is approved for conveyance, the recipient is entitled to:

1. an increase of one additional dwelling unit, subject to the minimum lot size of the underlyingzoning district; or

2. an increase of 2000 square feet for a condo-tel, hotel, commercial, or industrial buildingsubject to the bulk requirements of the underlying zoning district.

C. Preliminary subdivision plans may be submitted which expect to use transferred development rightsand must specify the intent to use transferred rights. No portion of the application for the transfer ofrights need by part of the application.

D. Along with the application materials required in paragraph 37-4-C-1 above, the person proposing touse the development right shall submit:

1. A final subdivision plan for the site to which development rights are to be transferredprepared in accordance with the Weber County subdivision ordinance, or resort recreationordinance, and indicating:

a. that transferable development rights are to be used;

b. the density allowed for the site according to the underlying zoning district;

c. the proposed number and size of lots of the site; and

d. the number of transferable development rights to be applied to the site.

2. An agreement of conveyance for the development rights between:

a. the owner of the tract to which development rights have been granted, or the ownerof the development rights that have been previously severed from a tract in thesending zone, as evidenced by a recorded Deed of Transferable DevelopmentRights; and

b. the owner of the tract proposed to be developed using the transferable developmentrights.

The agreement shall be contingent upon approval of a final subdivision plan of the tract tobe developed using the transferable development rights.

E. No final approval for any subdivision that utilizes transferable development rights shall be executeduntil Weber County has received a copy of the applicable recorded Deed of Transferable DevelopmentRights and a copy of the duly executed and recorded Deed of Conservation Easement.

Page 194.

Page 37-7

37-6 Public Acquisition of Transferable Development Rights.

Weber County may purchase, or accept by gift, transferable development rights. Any purchase or acceptanceby gift must comply with the requirements for a recorded Deed of Transferable Development Rights and arecorded Deed of Conservation Easement as set forth in this ordinance. Weber County may hold, resell, orretire any transferable development rights it has acquired.

Page 204.

CHAPTER 18.76TDR TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OVERLAY ZONE

18.76.010: CREATED: There is hereby created a transferable development rights (TDR) overlay zone which maybe applied to parcels of land in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Whenapplied to specific property, the TDR overlay zones shall be denominated as a sendingsite (TDR-S) or a receiving site (TDR-R) as set forth in section 18.76.045 of this chapter.(Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.020: PURPOSE: The purposes of the TDR overlay zone are to:

A.Promote the preservation of agricultural lands, rural open space, scenic vistas, criticaland sensitive lands, natural hazard areas, and natural features which are designated by theMapleton City general plan as important to preserve, and for the benefit of the citizens ofMapleton City;

B.Discourage development in areas deemed hazardous and in areas where delivery of cityservices may be difficult to provide; or have extraordinary costs in servicing an area, suchas hillsides and mountainsides;

C.Provide compensation to the owners of property from which development rights aretransferred;

D.Provide a method whereby development rights may be transferred from sending sites toreceiving sites in order to accomplish the purposes set forth in subsections A, B, and C ofthis section. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.030: APPLICABILITY: The procedures and requirements of this chapter shall apply to the creation and transfer ofdevelopment rights from sending sites to receiving sites. However, no property lyingoutside of the current corporate boundaries of Mapleton City shall be eligible forconsideration of a transferable development sending site. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff.11-16-2005)

18.76.040: DESIGNATION OF SENDING AND RECEIVING AREAS: A.The parcels of real property which may be preserved and protected by the transfer ofdevelopment rights from such parcels are those located within a sending area designatedby the Mapleton City general plan, or as described in this section. Those parcels of realproperty which are suitable for using development rights transferred from sending sitesare those parcels located within a receiving area designated by the Mapleton City generalplan. In no case shall an area be designated as a receiving area within any previouslyplatted subdivision or land that has previously received a change in the zone designationto a higher density zoning level.

B.Receiving areas shall be located exclusively within the A-2, RA-1, planned residentialcommunity (PRC) and specific development plan (SDP) zones.

C.With exception to the PRC and SDP zones, a TDR-R zone change shall not accompany

Page 214.

any other rezone proposal. Therefore, there shall be no simultaneous rezones to includean "up zoning" and a TDR-R overlay zone. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.045: DESIGNATION OF SENDING AND RECEIVING SITES ON ZONINGMAP: Each sending site from which a development right is transferred shall be denominated onthe official zoning map by using the suffix "TDR-S" in combination with the underlyingzoning designation of the property. However, if sending site is property that is proposedto be deeded to the city, the land will be given the open space and parks (OS-P) zonedesignation. Each receiving site to which a development right is transferred shall bedenominated on the official zoning map by using the suffix "TDR-R" in combinationwith the underlying zoning designation of the property. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff.11-16-2005)

18.76.050: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRANSFER OFDEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE: A.An eligible landowner or authorized representative must provide the following:

1. Name, address and telephone number of applicant and applicant's agent, if any;

2. Proof of ownership of the sending property;

3. Metes and bounds written legal description and plat prepared within ninety (90) days ofthe date of application by a licensed surveyor;

4. Written description of the physical characteristics of the property;

5. Site plan which illustrates existing or proposed dwellings, historic structures,easements or other encumbrances; and

6. The administrative fee relative to a transfer of development rights as established by thedepartment of planning and zoning ("the department"). (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff.11-16-2005)

18.76.060: TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; CREATION;SENDING SITES: A.Development rights shall be created and transferred only by means of documents,including a conservation easement, and a severance of TDR credit certificate ("certificateof sending credits"), which meet the requirements of this chapter.

B.In order to be eligible to transfer one or more development rights from a parcel ofproperty, such property shall be located within a sending area. If such property is locatedwithin the CE-1 zone, all property lying within this zone and owned by the same personor related persons, as defined in section 1031 of the internal revenue service code, shallbe designated a sending site at the same time, whether the entire parcel is one parcel,contiguous parcels, or noncontiguous parcels. The owner of such property shall apply forand receive approval to have the property placed in the TDR overlay zone, pursuant torezoning procedures set forth in this title.

1. Upon rezoning approval:

a. The property shall be shown on the official zoning map as a sending site by

Page 224.

denominating it as a TDR-S overlay zone;

b. A certificate of sending credits shall be issued to the property owner by the cityrecorder, pursuant to subsection B2 of this section, indicating the total number ofdevelopment rights which may be transferred from the property; and

c. The property owner shall be eligible, after complying with subsection B2 of thissection, to transfer development rights from the property in accordance with therequirements of this chapter.

2. No transferable development right certificate of sending credits shall be issued, untilpayment of an administrative fee determined by the planning department, and nodevelopment right shall be transferred, unless and until a conservation easement isrecorded among the land records of Utah County, Utah, as required by section 18.76.100of this chapter on the property from which such development right originates.

3. After recordation of the easement, a landowner shall request that the city recorder issuethe record owner of the property a certificate of sending credits. Such certificate shallonly be assigned in the name of the record owner and only for the total number of creditsassigned to the property.

C.Development rights attached to a particular sending site shall be determined andtransferred by applying the following rules:

1. Any sending site density bonus created by the application of this chapter shall beutilized only on a receiving site.

2. Within all zones except the critical environment (CE-1) zone:

a. The total number of development rights which may be created for a sending site shallbe equal to the site's base zone density.

b. The number of development rights to be transferred at any one time may be determinedby the sending site owner so long as the total number of rights transferred does notexceed the total number of development rights associated with the sending site. Forexample, if a property owner has ten (10) development rights in the zone designationwhere the property is located, no more than ten (10) development rights can betransferred. There shall be no additional density bonus except as allowed in this section.

3. Within the critical environment (CE-1) zone:

a. The total number of development rights which may be created for a sending site shallbe equal to the site's base zone density plus a density bonus granted pursuant to eithersubsection C3a(1) or C3a(2) of this section (but not both):

(1) If a sending site owner transfers only the development rights associated with the site,the density bonus shall be equal to three (3) times the site's base zone density. Thus, byway of example and not limitation, a property owner who transfers only the developmentrights from a sending site having a base zone density of ten (10) dwelling units wouldobtain a total of thirty (30) TDRs, illustrated as follows:

Base zonedensity:

10 TDRs (1 dwelling unit equals 1TDR)

Density bonus: 20 TDRs

Page 234.

Total 30 TDRs(2) If a sending site owner transfers fee title of the site to Mapleton City Corporation orthe sending site owner is Mapleton City Corporation, the density bonus shall be equal tofive (5) times the site's base zone density. Thus, by way of example and not limitation, aproperty owner who transfers development rights only from a sending site having a basezone density of ten (10) dwelling units would obtain a total of fifty (50) TDRs, illustratedas follows:

Base zonedensity:

10 TDRs (1 dwelling unit equals 1TDR)

Density bonus: 40 TDRsTotal 50 TDRsb. All development rights associated with property zoned CE-1 in a sending site shall betransferred at one time.

c. A parcel of land within the CE-1 zone may qualify as a sending site with the incentivebonuses established in subsection C3a(1) or C3a(2) of this section only if the sending siteparcel is the same parcel as it existed as of December 15, 1998. Any parcel which hasbeen subdivided, developed, or on which a structure has been built after December 15,1998, shall not qualify for the incentive bonuses established in subsection C3a(1) or C3a(2) of this section. It is the intent of this chapter to cause owners of potential sending siteswithin the CE-1 zone to decide either to develop all or some portion of the potentialsending sites, or to receive the incentive bonus by transferring all development rights offof the land, but not to allow for both, or some degree of both.

D.The transfer of any development rights from a sending site shall be evidenced by anotice recorded among the land records of Utah County, Utah, in a form approved by thecity council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission. Suchnotice shall indicate:

1. The total number of development rights which may be transferred from the sendingsite;

2. The number of development rights actually transferred at the time the notice isrecorded;

3. The number of development rights remaining; and

4. Notice to any potential buyer of the sending site that:

a. Any remaining development rights may have been transferred from the property; and

b. The buyer should contact Mapleton City officials to determine the number ofdevelopment rights, if any, remaining on the sending site. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff.11-16-2005)

18.76.070: TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; RECEIVING SITES: A.Transferable development right receiving sites shall be limited to the A-2, RA-1, PRCand SDP zone designations exclusively.

1. All areas shall be eligible to increase the density with the use of TDRs by no more thandoubling what the underlying zone designation allows.

Page 244.

B.In order to transfer one or more development rights to a parcel of property, such parcelshall be located within a receiving area. The owner of such parcel shall apply for andreceive approval to have the property placed in the TDR overlay zone pursuant torezoning procedures set forth in this title. In no case shall a receiving site rezone beapproved in any previously platted subdivision. Upon rezoning approval:

1. The property shall be shown on the official zoning map as a receiving site bydenominating it as a TDR-R overlay zone,

2. The property owner shall be eligible to transfer development rights to the property inaccordance with the requirements of this chapter, and

3. A certificate of receiving credits shall be issued upon payment of an administrative feedetermined by the planning department, to the property owner by the city recorderindicating the total number of development rights which may be transferred to theproperty in accordance to subsection A of this section.

The city council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission, mayapprove a subdivision or a concept plan for a receiving site at a density which equals thebase zone density plus the number of development rights which will be transferred tosuch site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the development density of a receiving site shallnot be increased above the maximum density recommended for such site by the MapletonCity general plan. Any density bonus applicable to a receiving site shall not exceeddensity limitations established by the general plan. In no case shall the overall densityexceed double of what the underlying zone designation would allow.

C.No site shall be designated as a receiving site unless the planning departmentcommission finds that the site has or will have adequate public facilities and otherresources to accommodate the increased development authorized by the transfer ofdevelopment rights from the sending district. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.080: DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES: The following development approval procedures shall apply to new developments withinthe A-2 and RA-1 zone designations:

A.A request to utilize development rights on a receiving site shall be in the form of apreliminary subdivision plan submitted in accordance with regulations contained in title17 of this code or a site plan submitted in accordance with regulations contained in thistitle.

B.In the event a receiving site is proposed to be subdivided, a site plan shall be submittedand approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter at the same time apreliminary subdivision plan is submitted.

C.The city council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission,shall approve a request to utilize development rights on a receiving site if the request:

1. Does not exceed the density limitations permitted by subsection 18.76.070B of thischapter;

2. Is in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;

Page 254.

3. Is in accordance with the subdivision and site plan regulations contained in title 17 ofthis code and this title;

4. Is consistent with other recommendations of the Mapleton City general plan; and

5. Achieves a desirable development compatible with both site conditions andsurrounding existing and proposed future development.

D.A final plan for a subdivision or a site plan which uses transferred development rightsshall contain a statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classificationof the property, the number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordationof the conveyance required by section 18.76.100 of this chapter. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.090: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A.The following development standards shall be applicable to receiving sites in the A-2and RA-1 zones:

1. Each development in a TDR-R overlay zone shall conform to the developmentstandards and permitted uses as required by the underlying zone, except as may bemodified by the provisions of this chapter. In such case, the standards of this chapter shallapply.

2. If density proposed on a receiving site exceeds the density permitted by the underlyingzone as per subsection 18.76.070A of this chapter, density, lot sizes, and otherdevelopment standards shall be determined by the city council, after receiving arecommendation from the planning commission, as part of the subdivision and/or siteplan review process. In making a determination of final density, the city council shall:

a. Consider the subdivision and site plan provisions of title 17 of this code and this title,

b. Consider whether a proposed plan has a design which:

(1) Provides a range of housing types;

(2) Takes advantage of existing topography and other natural features;

(3) Achieves a mutually compatible relationship between the proposed development andadjoining land uses; and

(4) Implements the policies set forth in the Mapleton City general plan, and

c. Make findings regarding the matters set forth in subsections A2a and A2b of thissection.

B.The following development standards shall be applicable to sending sites:

1. The uses permitted on a sending site shall be those uses allowed by the base zoneapplicable to the site, except as diminished by the transfer therefrom the developmentrights and by the terms of any conservation easement applicable to the site.

2. Any development request which is made for a sending site shall conform to thesubdivision and site plan provisions of title 17 of this code and this title and the followingadditional requirements of this subsection B.

3. The total number of dwelling units which may be constructed on a sending site shall be

Page 264.

the number of units allowed by the base zone density existing on the property when theproperty is designated as a sending site minus all development rights transferredtherefrom, excluding any density bonus that may be applicable to the site.

a. Any sending site density bonus created by the application of this chapter shall beutilized only on a receiving site.

b. No dwelling units may be constructed on a sending site located in a CE-1 zone whereall development rights have been transferred from the property.

4. Maximum lot size within any developable area shall be not greater than the minimumlot size of the underlying zone.

5. The impact on existing uses and the rural character of the area shall be included in theconsideration of the number of units allowed. Any new lots adjacent to an existingsubdivision, or subdivision lot(s), shall be required to have the same lot size to that whichis adjacent to the proposed lot(s) within the TDR receiving site development.

6. Residential lots shall be located adjacent to existing utilities and roads to minimize theamount of construction and loss of agricultural land, unless such location directlyconflicts with the preservation goals set forth in the Mapleton City general plan or thischapter.

7. Where technically feasible, joint or common water and/or sanitation systems shall beused. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.100: CONSERVATION EASEMENT REQUIRED: This section shall apply only to properties where the development rights have beentransferred from the property, but the ownership of the property remains private.

A.A conservation easement shall be established on each sending site from whichdevelopment rights are transferred.

1. In CE-1 zones and in situations where all development rights attached to a sending siteare transferred, the easement shall cover the entire sending site.

2. If only a portion of the development rights attached to a sending site are transferred, thearea of the easement shall be the same as the total area of all the lots which couldotherwise be established on the site but for the transfer of development rights.

B.The conservation easement required by this chapter shall be in a recordable formapproved by the city attorney and shall meet the requirements of section 57-18-1 et seq.,of the Utah code. The conservation easement shall also include the following terms:

1. The holder of the easement shall be Mapleton City, another governmental entity, or acharitable organization which:

a. Qualifies as being tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code; and

b. Is organized in whole or in part for the purpose of accepting and managingconservation easements.

2. The easement shall require that the easement area shall be maintained as it exists whenthe easement is created, including natural areas, wildlife preserves, trails, or otheridentified environmental or open land resources. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city

Page 274.

council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission, may approvethe construction of improvements upon finding such improvements will be in harmonywith the purposes of the easement and intent of this chapter.

3. The easement shall include a reference to the extinguishment of the development rightstransferred from the sending site. If additional rights are transferred after the recordationof a conservation easement, the easement shall be amended to reflect the extinguishmentof those additional rights and shall be recorded thereafter.

4. All parties who have a declared interest in the property, recorded on the books of theUtah County recorder, must consent to the granting of a conservation easement.

C.If the holder of a conservation easement proposes to transfer the easement to anotherentity, the recipient of any transferred interest shall meet the requirements of this section.

D.Any instrument purporting to convey a conservation easement pursuant to this section,but that the city has not indicated its approval on the instrument is void, and shall not berecorded or accepted by the city recorder for recording at the county recorder's office.(Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.105: NOTIFICATION: A.The city shall notify the county tax assessor of a transfer of development rights withinthirty (30) days of:

1. The approval of a transfer of development rights pursuant to subsection 18.76.100B4of this chapter;

2. The issuance of a certificate pursuant to subsection 18.76.070B3 of this chapter. (Ord.2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.110: COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS AND PROCESSES: A.If subdivision review and approval is necessary, review of an application under thischapter shall be carried out simultaneously, and under the same application, referral,notice, and public hearing procedural requirements as is provided for a site plan review asset forth in this title.

B.In cases where a conditional use permit is required for a proposed use, review of anapplication under this chapter shall be carried out simultaneously with the conditional usepermit review as set forth in this title. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.115: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This section, or any provision thereof, shall not invalidate any completed transfer ofdevelopment rights pursuant to any earlier statute, ordinance, or regulation if said transferwas valid at that time. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.120: EXPIRATION AND APPLICABLE ACTION: A.Section 18.76.060, "Transferable Development Rights; Creation; Sending Sites", ofthis chapter will expire on December 31, 2010, after which time no application for thesending site (rezone application) will be accepted by Mapleton City.

B.Once an application is made for a TDR sending site (TDR-S) overlay zone, and the citycouncil has taken action to rezone the property, the applicant/property owner has six (6)

Page 284.

months to transfer title of the property to Mapleton City, or if applicable, file the requiredconservation easement necessary to gain the TDR certificates. If no attempt by theproperty owner/applicant to convey title or have the conservation easement recorded, thenthe city council shall consider the application "expired" and shall have the authority torezone the property back to its original zone designation, and minus the TDR-S overlayzone. The property owner/applicant may receive an additional six (6) month extension ifsuch an extension is found by the city council to be warranted. It shall be the propertyowner/applicant's responsibility to apply for said extension. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005,eff. 11-16-2005)

18.76.125: DEFINITIONS: BASE ZONE DENSITY: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by thezoning classification of a sending or receiving site and not including any density increaseresulting from an overlay zone.

COMPATIBLE: Once the city council has granted a TDR-R overlay rezone on a parcel,and the rezoned parcel meets all other requirements under the city's ordinances,"compatible" includes among other planning and design issues, street size, streetalignment and design, curb, gutter and sidewalk design, traffic flow issues, delivery ofservice issues such as size and location of pipes for culinary water, pressurized irrigationand sewer, surface water drainage and trail system. "Compatible" does not refer to lot sizebeyond the requirements identified separately under this chapter.

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: The potential for the improvement of a legally establishedparcel of real property, measured in dwelling units, existing as a result of the zoningclassification of the parcel. One development right shall be equal to the authority toestablish and maintain one dwelling unit.

RECEIVING AREA: A geographic area designated by the approved and adoptedMapleton City general plan within which one or more receiving sites may be located.

RECEIVING SITE: A legally created parcel of real property which has been zoned TDR-R and to which development rights are transferred in accordance with the requirements ofthis chapter.

RECEIVING ZONE: A zone designation wherein transferable development rights can beapplied.

SENDING AREA: A geographic area designated by the approved and adopted MapletonCity general plan within which one or more sending sites may be located.

SENDING SITE: A legally created parcel of real property which has been zoned TDR-Sand from which development rights are transferred in accordance with the requirementsof this chapter.

SEVERANCE OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) CREDITCERTIFICATE ("CERTIFICATE OF SENDING CREDITS"): The certificate issued bythe city recorder that represents the total number of development credits recognized forand derived from the sending site that may be transferred.

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: The conveyance of one or moredevelopment rights by deed, easement, or other legal instrument to another parcel of land

Page 294.

in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 2005-16, 11-16-2005, eff. 11-16-2005)

Page 304.

Documents

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ......General Plan Steering Committee Meeting January 29, 2020 Page 3 of 5 The group then engaged in philosophical discussion and debate about