MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY · PDF fileMayor Johnson indicated Mayor Peter...

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

5:00 p.m. Council Chambers

8000 South Redwood Road West Jordan, Utah 84088

________________________________________________________________________ COUNCIL: Mayor Melissa K. Johnson and Council Members Judith M. Hansen, Clive

M. Killpack, Christopher M. McConnehey, Ben Southworth, and Justin D. Stoker. Council Member Chad Nichols was excused.

STAFF: Richard L. Davis, City Manager; Jeffrey Robinson, City Attorney;

Melanie Briggs, City Clerk; Tom Burdett, Development Director; Janice Larsen, Finance Manager/CFO; Wendell Rigby, Public Works Director; Marc McElreath, Fire Chief; Doug Diamond, Police Chief; Jim Riding, CIP/Facilities/Fleet Project Manager; Dave Murphy, Capital Projects Manager; Robert Thorup, Deputy City Attorney; Dave Clemence, Real Property Manager; Greg Mikolash, City Planner; Ray McCandless, Senior Planner; Scott Langford, Senior Planner, and Chuck Tarver, CDBG Coordinator.

5:00 P.M. WORKSHOP WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD

MEMBERS The meeting began at 5:04 p.m. Craig Dearing, Chamber President, welcomed everyone in attendance. Those in attendance reviewed the Chamber of Commerce’s quarterly report. Craig Dearing reviewed the Business Matters Luncheon, scheduled for Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 11:00 am, at The Gathering Place at Gardner Village. The speaker would be Chris Redgrave, Sr. VP of Community Relations at Zions Bank, as well as a popular radio segment host. The topic of discussion would be ‘Millennial Generation. How the workplace landscape will change.’ He reminded those in attendance that if they plan to attend to RSVP to the West Jordan Chamber of Commerce. The monthly meeting was sponsored by all five, valley wide Chambers. ‘Meet the Candidates Night 2012’ was scheduled for Thursday, October 11, 6:30 – 8:30 pm, Elk Ridge Middle School. Everyone was encouraged to attend and hear from the people that would have an effect on businesses and personal life for the next four years. The event was sponsored by the West Jordan Chamber, South Jordan Chamber, and the Southwest Valley Chamber.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Craig Dearing indicated that ‘Shop with a Firefighter’ to purchase school supplies for children in need, was a great success. He expressed his appreciation to those who participated in the Bowl-A-Rama event that helps fund this great project. Mike Anderson, Jordan School District, addressed the upcoming ‘Prosperity 2020’ event stating that chamber members throughout the Jordan District were invited to attend. Additional information could be found at www.prosperity2020.com Councilmember McConnehey asked that if businesses had concerns, to let the staff or Council know, so the City could address and encourage economic growth. The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION

DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION

COUNCIL: Mayor Melissa K. Johnson and Council Members Judith H. Hansen, Clive

M. Killpack, Christopher M. McConnehey, Ben Southworth, and Justin D. Stoker. Council Member Chad Nichols was excused.

STAFF: Richard L. Davis, City Manager; Jeffrey Robinson, City Attorney; Robert

Thorup, Deputy City Attorney, and Dave Clemence, Real Property Manager.

MOTION: Councilmember Killpack moved to go into a Closed Session to discuss

pending or reasonably imminent litigation. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Southworth.

A roll call vote was taken Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey Yes Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 6-0.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 The Council convened into a Closed Session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation at 6:01 p.m., and recessed at 6:21 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Austin Muncey, Copper Hills High School Student Body Vice President. III. PRESENTATION

AWARD OF A $110,000 GRANT FROM CHRIS HALLER, UTAH STATE PARKS AND BETTY BANGERTER, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE JORDAN RIVER TRAIL PARKWAY SYSTEM

Tom Burdett indicated the presentation that night was due to the efforts of Chuck Tarver, CDBG Coordinator, in securing the grant for the City, to be used for the Jordan River Trail Parkway System. Chuck Tarver introduced Betty Bangerter, Federal Highway Administration, and Chris Haller, Utah State Parks and Recreation. Betty Bangerter, Federal Highway Administration, was honored to be a part of the Recreational Trails Program, and stressed the importance of the Trail system across the State. Chris Haller, Utah State Parks and Recreation, briefly overviewed the grant process for the Federal Recreational Trails Program. Mayor Johnson indicated Mayor Peter Corroon, who was a strong supporter of the Jordan River Trail Parkway System, was in attendance that night. She invited him to participate in receiving the grant and photographs. The Council and Mayor Corroon accepted the award of the $110,000 grant from Betty Bangerter and Chris Haller. IV. COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER COMMENTS/REPORTS ANNUAL AUDIT Richard Davis reported on the annual audit process. He indicated that if the Council had any questions, or would be requesting additional research, to please contact Janice Larsen to coordinate an appointment with the auditors.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 LEAN CONCEPT Richard Davis introduced the new Lean concept, pointing out that it was not only a method of cost control, but also a change in organizational culture, which emphasized value to the customer. He said effective implementation of the concept would require a Lean facilitator to teach the program, and that more information would be forthcoming. RECRUITING PRACTICES Richard Davis reported on the meeting with two Councilmembers regarding the practices and policy of recruiting in the City. He extended an invitation to all of the Council if they wished to learn more about the practices of recruiting City employees. STAFF COMMENTS/REPORTS Staff members from the various departments reported on the following items: Tom Burdett –

• Joint meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission was set for October 10, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.

• RFP for the City Center project Marc McElreath –

• County-wide Mass Casualty training, October 7 – 15, 2012 • Firefighters hiring process

Wendell Rigby –

• Award of $618,000 Corridor Preservation funds for three parcels of property

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS/REPORTS JORDAN RIVER COMMISSION Councilmember Stoker reported on his attendance at the Jordan River Commission meeting. He indicated that he was asked to provide an alternate member for the Jordan River Commission and recommended Chuck Tarver be appointed as the alternate. The Council agreed. PARK IMPACT FEES Councilmember Stoker informed all in attendance that in an effort to increase public input regarding the use of park impact fees on the Westside of the City, a meeting was tentatively scheduled for October 11, at 6:30 p.m., at West Hills Middle School. WORKSHOP Councilmember Southworth recommended the previously suggested workshop with David Church be held on an off meeting night, possibly November 7. Jeff Robinson indicated he would correspond with David Church.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION Councilmember Hansen expressed appreciation to Police Chief Diamond and staff for ending a recurring incident in her neighborhood. INTERN Mayor Johnson requested the Council’s approval for hiring an intern MPA student primarily for the Legislative Session, and maybe to extend beyond. Mayor Johnson sated she would proceed forward since there was no objection from the Council. V. CITIZEN COMMENTS Peter Corroon, Salt Lake County Mayor, distributed and overviewed the pamphlet, Salt Lake County General Obligation Bond Election for Regional Parks & Trails Proposition #1:

$47 million General Obligation Bond Residential tax impact per $238,000 = $5.73 Commercial tax impact per $238,000 = $10.24 Three new regional parks in Bluffdale, Draper and West Valley/Kearns Acquire land for future park development in the Magna area Substantially complete the Jordan River Parkway Trail and Parley’s Trail

connecting the entire Salt Lake Valley He asked for the Council’s assistance in making the citizens aware of the Special Bond Election for Proposition #1, Open Space, Natural Habitat, Parks and Community Trails. Austin Muncey, Student Body Vice President, on behalf of Copper Hills High School, invited the City Council to Homecoming Week. He provided the Mayor and Council with a schedule of events of the activities during Homecoming Week. Alex Pagoaga, Student Body Public Relations Officer, invited Mayor Johnson to hand off the game football outside of City Hall on Friday, October 12, at 5:30 p.m. Additionally, he provided a “PRIDE” pin to each member of the Council. Kendall Schmidt, owner of the Crazy Corn Maze, addressed the construction/traffic issues on 4000 West. He asked the Council not to close 4000 West to one-way traffic. Mark Borovatz, West Jordan resident, beekeeper in West Jordan, expressed his appreciation to the Council and staff for their efforts in establishing the proposed ordinance. There was no one else who desired to speak.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 VI. CONSENT ITEMS

a. Approve the West Jordan Youth Theatre’s request to remove non attending members from their subcommittee

b. Approve a Limited Restaurant Liquor License (Beer and Wine) for

Bombay House, LLC, located at 7726 Campus View Drive, Ste 120, Daniel Shanthakumar, owner/applicant

c. Approve Resolution 12-108, authorizing the Public Works Director to

sign the City of West Jordan’s Annual Storm Water Report d. Approve Resolution 12-109, declaring City property surplus, and

authorizing the disposition of said property e. Approve Resolution 12-110, authorizing the sale of the City’s Proctor

Well site to the Canyon’s School District f. Approve Resolution 12-111, authorizing the Mayor to approve

Amendment No. 11 to the Professional Services Agreement for support management and construction observation services for the 7800 South Phase 3 Project, in an amount not to exceed $6,416.00

g. Approve Resolutions 12-112, 12-113, 12-114, authorizing the Mayor to

execute the Settlement Agreement with Peterson Development for The Highlands; which includes a Development Agreement; and a right of way Purchase Agreement for corridor preservation along 5600 West Street

h. Approve Resolution 12-115, regarding the total bond release for Lucky

Clover and Canterbury Subdivision, located at approximately 7265 South 1200 West

i. Approve Resolution 12-116, regarding the total bond release for

Sycamores Phase II, located at approximately 8090 South 7465 West j. Approve Resolution 12-117, regarding the total bond release for

Sycamores Phase 12, located at approximately 8090 South 7465 West

MOTION: Councilmember Southworth moved to approve Consent Items 6.a through 6.j. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Killpack.

A roll call vote was taken

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey Yes Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 6-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL

ORDINANCE 12-25, REGARDING A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES FROM A-20 ZONE TO SC-2 ZONE, WHEATLAND VILLAGE, LLC/BRETT W HASTINGS, APPLICANT

Tom Burdett explained the proposed property was currently partially developed as a parking area with a vacant commercial pad site. The existing Future Land Use Map designated the property as Neighborhood Commercial; however, the zoning on the property was A-20. The property was located just east of an Auto Zone store. He then introduced Ray McCandless, Senior Planner, to overview the General Information and Analysis. Ray McCandless outlined the subject property’s surrounding zoning and land uses as follows: Future Land Use Zoning Existing Land Use

North Medium Density Residential

R-1-8D(ZC) Single-family Residential

South Low Density Residential R-1-12E Single-family Residential

East Neighborhood Commercial

A-20 Vacant

West Neighborhood Commercial

SC-2 Commercial

The applicant was requesting to rezone the property from an agricultural A-20 to SC-2 to accommodate future commercial development. On September 4, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed this request and in a 6-0 vote, favorably recommended approval of the rezone request to the Council (Exhibit I of the Council’s Agenda packet). He reviewed the following Findings of Fact:

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Section 13-7D-7(A): Amendments to the Zoning Map Criteria 1: The proposed amendment was consistent with the purposes, goals,

objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Discussion: The property was currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial on the Future Land Use Map but was zoned A-20. Extending the SC-2 zone to the east to include this parcel was consistent with the commercial land use designation. Finding: The proposed rezone was consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Criteria 2: The proposed amendment would result in compatible land use

relationships and did not adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The property to the west was developed as commercial

property. Extending the SC-2 zoning to this property would not affect adjoining properties any more than the existing Auto Zone and commercial strip center to the west now did.

Finding: The proposed amendment would result in compatible land use relationships and did not adversely affect adjacent properties.

Criteria 3: The proposed amendment furthered the public health, safety and

general welfare of the citizens of the city.

Discussion: The SC-2 zoning district had specific standards which would be met when the property was developed. The SC-2 zoning would not harm the public health, safety or welfare of the City as a whole. Finding: The proposed amendment furthered the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City.

Criteria 4: The proposed amendment would not unduly impact the adequacy of

public services and facilities intended to serve the subject zoning area and property than would otherwise be needed without the proposed change, such as, but not limited to, police and fire protection, water, sewer and roadways.

Discussion: The Engineering Department had verbally indicated that the

City would have the ability to service the property with water, sewer, streets and storm drainage. The Police and Fire Departments would review any proposed developments at the time of subdivision application to ensure full serviceability.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012

Finding: The proposed amendment would not unduly impact the adequacy of public services and facilities intended to serve the subject zoning area and property than would otherwise be needed without the proposed change, such as, but not limited to, police and fire protection, water, sewer and roadways.

Criteria 5: The proposed amendment was consistent with the provisions of any

applicable overlay zoning districts which might impose additional standards.

Discussion: The property was not located within any overlay districts.

Finding: The property was not located within any overlay districts. Criteria 6: A finding was made that there were adequate school facilities, if the

amendment was made to the zoning map, and if section 13-7A-4 of this chapter (adequate school facilities) was applicable.

Discussion: This Criterion did not apply.

Finding: This criterion did not apply as the rezoning request was for commercial zoning.

In conclusion, he stated the SC-2 zoning was compatible with adjoining land uses and with the neighborhood. Based on the findings set forth in the report, staff recommended that the City Council rezone approximately .94 acres located at approximately 4708 West 7800 South from an A-20 (Agricultural 20-acre lots) Zone to a SC-2 (Community Shopping Center) Zone. The Council and staff addressed clarifying questions relating to whether or not there was an interest in development on the proposed property.

Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. There was no one else who desired to speak. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Councilmember Southworth moved to approve Ordinance 12-25,

rezoning the property located at approximately 4708 West 7800 South from an A-20 (Agricultural 20-acre lots) Zone to a SC-2 (Community Shopping Center) Zone. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Stoker.


City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey Yes Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 6-0. RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STONE CREEK DEVELOPMENT PLAN, P-C ZONE, AND A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR 11.34 ACRES FROM VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; 6.74 ACRES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO MIXED-USE; AND 3.11 ACRES FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; P-C ZONE, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7800 SOUTH 5490 WEST, PETERSON DEVELOPMENT/JUSTIN PETERSON, APPLICANT

Tom Burdett said due to a lack of pertinent information provided by the applicant, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to continue the proposed amendment requests from the August 21, 2012 meeting to the September 4, 2012 meeting. On September 4, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to support staff recommendations, which were contained in the Council’s Agenda packet, as well as the draft minutes of the September 4, 2012 Public Hearing (Exhibit 1). Briefly, he explained that in 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 99-29, which approved the Stone Creek Planned Community – a 285-acre master planned development, located at approximately 4800 West to 5600 West and 7800 South. The Stone Creek Master Plan was needed to provide proper balance and interplay between the various land uses proposed within the master plan, including; Low, Medium, and Very High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Professional Office, Public Facilities, and Parks and Open Land. In 2007, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Stone Creek Master Plan by adding an additional 15 acres of land and designating it to be developed at no more than 3.22 dwelling units per acre. On December 11, 2007, the City Council reviewed and discussed another set of amendments to the Stone Creek Master Plan that were to reflect modifications to the original text as adopted by Ordinances No. 99-29 and No. 01-55. The Stone Creek Master Plan amendment was denied by the City Council. A revised proposal was

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 brought back to the City Council for consideration on February 12, 2008. Ordinance No. 08-09 was adopted by the City Council, which approved modifications to the Stone Creek Development Plan by amending/superseding Ordinances No. 99-29 and No. 01-55, and limiting the overall number of dwelling units within Stone Creek to 859 units. It was important to note that Ordinance No. 08-09 contained the current approved development plan for the Stone Creek planned community. Ordinance No. 08-09 was the unifying and controlling document for Stone Creek. He then introduced Greg Mikolash, City Planner, to provide an overview of the general information and analysis of the proposed amendment requests. Prior to the presentation by Greg Mikolash, Mayor Johnson clarified that staff and the Planning Commission had agreed on a set of recommendations piece by piece. If the Council did not agree with those recommendations, the Council could use the criteria listed at the beginning of the staff report (contained in the Council’s Agenda packet) to explain why they disagreed with the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. Greg Mikolash explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map to facilitate additional amendments to the Stone Creek Development Plan / Ordinance #08-09. There were three separate areas within the Stone Creek community that the applicant intended to amend. Close attention should be paid to both the text and the accompanying exhibits/graphics contained in Ordinance #08-09. No Draft Ordinance Please note that due to the volume of potential amendments to both the Future Land Use Map and the Stone Creek Development Plan, an ordinance had not been drafted. After receiving input from the City Council, the applicant and staff would prepare an ordinance and development plan exhibits to ratify the City Council’s actions made during the September 26, 2012 public hearing. This ordinance would amend and supersede the existing ordinance #08-09 as the unifying and controlling document for Stone Creek. This new ordinance would be brought back to the City Council for final adoption during a future meeting. Proposed Amendments Review of the proposed amendments was first shown graphically by comparing the current Stone Creek Plan with the proposed Stone Creek Plan. Some reference to the text of Ordinance #08-09 was given as part of this analysis; however, an in-depth review of the proposed text changes followed the exhibit review. The Findings of Fact (Section IV) portion of this report provided a comprehensive analysis of how the amended exhibits and text affected the Future Land Use Map and the existing and future fabric of that part of the City.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 The three areas proposed to be changed were as follows: Stone Creek – Town Center B, D, & E This proposal would amend 3.11 acres of land from Professional Office to Medium Density Residential. This would facilitate an amendment to the Stone Creek Development Plan that would replace 36 dwelling units (multi-family condos at 9.7 du/ac), 1.4 acre park, and light office/retail buildings with 36 single-family residential lots (5.0 du/ac). See Exhibit E for an overall development plan. Current Plan Proposed Plan Stone Creek – Clay Hollow C This proposal would amend approximately 6.74 acres from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use designation. Ordinance #08-09 provided a lot of detail regarding this portion of Stone Creek. See Exhibit E of the Agenda packet for the overall development plan. Current Plan Proposed Plan

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Page 37 of Ordinance #08-09 stated, “this area requires a mixture of at least two land uses with combinations of retail, light office, and mixed use.” The ordinance even went as far as to reference a specific mixed use development that Clay Hollow B & C should resemble on a smaller scale if mixed use was chosen (Riverside by Post Properties, Atlanta Georgia). Page 39 of Ordinance #08-09 further clarified that “mixed use”, as it was used in the context of Clay Hollow C, meant mixed use buildings. In other words, standalone residential buildings neighboring an office or commercial building was not considered mixed use. Therefore, as it was currently written, Ordinance #08-09 would not allow standalone residential structures within this area of Stone Creek. See Exhibit E of the Agenda packet for the overall development plan. Stone Creek – Clay Hollow D, E, & F This proposal would change approximately 11.34 acres of Very High Density Residential to High Density Residential. This amendment would facilitate the replacement of 106 multi-family residential units (15.25 du/ac), a 2.27 acre neighborhood park, and a 0.4 acre community garden with 57 single-family residential lots (5.3 du/ac). See Exhibit E of the Agenda packet for the overall development plan. Current Plan Proposed Plan Ordinance #08-09 provided the following information regarding Clay Hollow Park (Clay Hollow E): Section 4, Item #7, page 7 “A 2.27 acre park will be built between Clay Hollow “A” and Clay Hollow “D”, represented as “Clay Hollow Park”. This land will replace the majority of the land allocated for the “Village Square”; eliminating the Frisbee golf course, the half-court basketball, and tot lot outlined in Section 4 Item 18 of this plan. Clay Hollow Park shall contain the following amenities and improvements:


A. A traditional tot lot with no less than 18 and no more than 24 components will be located in close proximity to the wash as part of the active play area of the park.

B. A half-court basketball court will be located in close proximity to the traditional tot lot as part of the active play area of the park.

C. A passive open space area will be located to the north of the active play area. It will consist of trees, shrubs, and park benches detailed below.

D. One (1) deciduous tree every thirty feet along the park’s perimeter. E. Eight (8) evergreen trees located with the park’s interior. F. Ten (10) shrubs located within the park’s interior. G. A majority of the park shall be planted in a grass that is drought-tolerant and

resistant to frequent traffic and/or high use. H. Six (6) park benches I. Lighting is to be placed along the perimeter of the park with a maximum

distance of separation of 150-feet, or as otherwise approved by the Planning Commission during final site plan approval.”

Ordinance #08-09; Section 4, Item #8, page 7 ‘The 0.4 acre community garden was approved for neighborhood gardening purposes and to be located directly north of the RV parking area of the Ranches area.” Additional details of this community garden were located on page 7 of Ordinance #08-09. See Exhibit H of the Agenda packet for more detail on the amendment proposed for the Clay Hollow D, E, and F areas. Future Land Use Amendment vs. Stone Creek Development Plan Amendment The City required all Future Land Use Map amendment applications to provide a conceptual development plan to ensure that the proposed amendment would be harmonious with the codes, standards, and policies adopted by the City. The concept plan for this Future Land Use Map amendment was more than just a standard concept plan, but an existing master plan – The Stone Creek Development Plan. Action to either approve or deny the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment should be based on the proposed amendments to the Stone Creek Development Plan. Because the City Council approval/denial of the Future Land Use Map amendments was based on the proposed amendments to the Stone Creek Development Plan, it was imperative to review the two amendments as a cohesive package. It was important to note that amendment to the Stone Creek Development Plan involved changing both the respective exhibits and text adopted by Ordinance #08-09. Proposed Text Amendments to Ordinance #08-09: The following tables showed all of the proposed text amendments to Ordinance #08-09 in legislative format. A current and complete copy of Ordinance #08-09 was attached as Exhibit H in the Agenda packet.


Page #6 Section 4;2 2. This PC Zone has a maximum density of 859 residential dwelling units. Modified Area names and locations are identified on Exhibit C, Master Development Plan Neighborhoods." "Exhibit B, Stone Creek Housing Densities," is the modified table of housing areas and densities. The maximum density and number of units is: Minimum Square Feet of Finished Area: Units/Acre Maximum Units: Floor Area Above Ground: a. Stone Hollow: 3 96 units (34.9 acres) Stone Hollow A: 1,500 Stone Hollow B: 1,700 Stone Hollow D: 1,500 b. Island Park 1-6 3.3 101 1,400 (30.9 acres) c. Clay Hollow A: 20.17 280 600 (1 bdrm); 800 (2 bdrm); (13.88 acres) 1,100 (3 bdrm) apartment d. Clay Hollow C: 7.27 49 600 (1 bdrm); 800 (2 bdrm); (6.74 acres) 1,100 (3 bdrm) apartment d. e. Clay Hollow D: 15.25 5.3 106 57 725 (1 bdrm), 900 (2 bdrm); (6.95 acres) 10.76 1,300 (3 bdrm) 1,200 e. f. Ranches 1-4 4.3 76 1,300 (17.67 acres) f. g. Stone Creek Condos 1-2 9 140 725 (1 bdrm); 900 (2 bdrm); (14.8 acres) 1,300 (3 bdrm) g. h. Town Center B 9.7 5.09 36 1,200 (3.7 acres) 7.07 h. i. Town Center C: 8.6 24 1,100 (2.8 acres) Total Number of Allowed Residential Units: 859 Does not include “loft” units. Type of Housing Product: Single Family Detached Areas: Stone Hollow – All Island Park 1-6 Single Family Detached and/or Attached Areas: Stone Creek Commons “A” Apartments: Clay Hollow “A” Single Family Attached/Detached Condos or Townhomes: Stone Creek Commons “B” Clay Hollow “C” and “D” Town Center “B” and “C” Page #7 Section 4;7 7. A 2.27 acre park will be built between Clay Hollow "A" and Clay Hollow "D", represented as "Clay Hollow Park" (Clay Hollow "E"). (See Exhibit E). This land will replace the majority of the land allocated for the

"Village Square"; eliminating the Frisbee golf course, the half court basketball, and tot lot outlined in Section 4, Item 18 of this plan. This park shall be improved by the Developer as part of Clay Hollow "A" or "D" (whichever phase is developed last) and dedicated to the City upon completion and acceptance of all improvements. "Clay Hollow Park" shall contain the following amenities and improvements:

A. A traditional tot lot with no less than I8 and no more than 24 components will be located in close proximity


Page #6 Section 4;2 to the wash as part of the active play area of the park.

B. A half-court basketball court will be located in close proximity to the traditional tot lot as part of the active play area of the park.

C. A passive open space area will be located to the north of the active play area. It will consist of trees, shrubs and park benches detailed below.

D. One (1) deciduous tree every thirty feet along the park's perimeter. E. Eight (8) evergreen trees- located within the park's interior. F. Ten (10) shrubs- located within in the park's interior. G. A majority of the park will be planted in a grass that is drought-tolerant and resistant to frequent traffic and/or

high use (i.e. Bermuda grass). All areas of the park are intended to be irrigated. H. Six (6) park benches. I. Lighting is to be placed along the perimeter of the park with a maximum distance of separation of 150-feet, or

as otherwise approved by the Planning Commission during final site plan approval.

Page #7 Section 4;8 8. A 0.4-acre Community Garden (Clay Hollow F) will be set aside for neighborhood gardening purposes, to be

located directly northwest of the RV parking area of the Ranches phases of the development. Installed within the confines of the garden area shall be appropriate soils for gardening purposes, a plaque which signifies the areas intended use as a neighborhood garden, and appropriate perimeter fencing. This garden area shall be improved by the Developer as part of the Clay Hollow "C" or "D" (whichever phase is developed last) and maintained by an HOA.

Page #9 Section 4;22 22. Town Center "B" and "C" may have additional recreational amenities as approved by the developer and

Planning Commission in final site plan approval. The developer of these areas will pay for and install the amenities with the first phase of each project. This amenity is also known as Town Center "En and is 1.4 acres. Town Center "E" will be a private open space area which will be maintained by an HOA.

Page #35 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Design Concepts and Elements: Clay Hollow The Clay Hollow neighborhood has been initially laid out in only a very conceptual stage. For the most part, this is the result of the timing of the development of the Mountain View Corridor. The Mountain View Corridor is planned as a limited access freeway system, anticipated to be constructed within the next 10 to 30 years. Because it is likely that this area will not develop in the next few years, this less refined design allows the consideration of This area is less refined allowing for alternative design techniques and likely a better integration of this site with the future development of the areas to the west and north. In any case, because of the relative intensity in residential density and land use for this neighborhood, a more detailed plan needs to be approved for the entire Clay Hollow neighborhood prior to the development of any portion of the neighborhood.

Page #36 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 The conceptual design of the commercial loop system has the roadway entering the Clay Hollow neighborhood from the west, along the north side of the Clay Hollow drainage. The road continues to loop from the drainage northward toward and beyond 7800 South Street on an axis running southward to Grizzly Way. It is anticipated that the loop's connection with 7800 South would warrant a signalized intersection, therefore by traffic design standards the roadway as it connects with 7800 South needs to be a minimum distance from the freeway 5600 West intersection.

Page #37 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Clay Hollow Area “C” This area requires a mixture of at least two land uses with combinations of retail, light office, and mixed use.


Page #37 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Drive through services may be allowed with Planning Commission approval. This area must also provide for pedestrian throughways between Area "B" and the parkway. If developed in conjunction with Area "B" the site plan might resemble a smaller scale version of the Riverside by Post Properties located near Atlanta, Georgia. The two sites would could combine a mixed-use building of residential and/or hotel areas above-ground floor retail areas, located across a public square from a larger, multistory office building. This area could also incorporate a horizontal mix of uses with retail and light office in Area “B” and the west side of “C”, transitioning into residential on the eastern side of area “C”. This horizontal mix would allow for a nice transition to the Stone Creek Condos and the Ranches communities. Page #38 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Clay Hollow Area "D" This area provides a relatively large site for corporate office type use, characterized by the office building(s) being oriented closely with Clay Hollow Boulevard in conjunction with the development of Areas "B" and "C". Ancillary commercial uses are allowed; however, drive through services would be limited. As an option, up to 106 residential units may be developed on the entire "D" site or at a density of 15.25 units per acre on any portion of the site .The residential development may be either detached or attached units or a combination of both. Any development should be oriented around a "park corridor" continued from the Ranches residential area and leading toward the Clay Hollow retail area. The "park corridor" will essentially be two large parks linked by the Clay Hollow Wash Trail that will connect the Ranches to the commercial to the East. One park is the Ranches park, and the other is the 2.27 acre Clay Hollow Park. Clay Hollow Area "E" This area will provide a gathering place for the residents who live in the Clay Hollow Area as well as the Stone Creek Condominiums and Ranches areas. A 2.27 acre Clay Hollow Park will be built in this area. The amenities that will be included in this park area a half-court basketball court and a traditional tot lot with no less than 18 and no more than 24 components. Clay Hollow Area "F" This area will become a community garden for the residents of Clay Hollow D. Land Use Data: Clay Hollow Acres % of neighborhood % project Total site area 39.29 40.44 13.1 Area "A" 13.88 35.33 Area "B" 8.8 22.4 Area "C" 7.0 17.8 Area "D" 6.95 10.76 17.69 26.6 Area "E" 2.27 5.7 Area "F" 0.4 1.0 Page #39

Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3

Land Use Description: Clay Hollow Area "A" Multifamily residential apartments Area "B" Mixed-Use/retail office. A specialized shopping area limited in size and oriented in more of a

"downtown" pedestrian manner. Drive-through services and a gas station may be considered. Area "C" Light retail, light office. Mixed use buildings are is allowed. Area "D" Corporate office and/or residential. A "park corridor" should be continued from the Ranches

neighborhood, through this site, toward the Clay Hollow "A" apartment area. Area "E" Clay Hollow City Park


Page #37 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Area "F" Community Garden Residential Units Types: Clay Hollow Sub Area Unit Type Allowable Density Max. # of Units A Apartment 20.7 u/a 280 B Live Above See Sect. 4 #3 (page 8) See Sect. 4 #3 (page 8) C Live Above, Attached, SF Sect. 4 #3 Sect. 4 #3 D Attached SF 15.25 106

Page #42 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Design Concepts and Elements The major design consideration of the Stone Creek Town Center was melding an existing 20acre commercially zoned area at the northeast comer of the project with residential neighborhoods instead of separating the uses with a block wall. In addition, consideration had to be given in the elementary school site, which is more closely associated with this neighborhood because it is not separated by the parkway area or a larger street. The planned commercial layout works to make the area more walkable, both within the commercial area and from the neighboring residential areas. In trying to better realize that concept, "Commerce Street" was included as a back street area opening the commercial area toward the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Realizing that the grocery store area is more auto-oriented, openings from that area of the center toward Commerce Street allow an ease of movement without bringing the larger parking lot onto the street. The "Mashpee Commons" look (in Mashpee, Massachusetts) includes a pedestrian streetscape with awnings and street furniture. It also includes the allowances for second-story uses including professional offices and even a limited number of residential units. The Town Center "E" Village Green was added as a gathering place for the neighborhood and as a tie-in between the surrounding land uses. A plaza in Town Center “D” could be used as a gathering place and as a tie-in between the commercial and residential land uses. The townhomes which provide a common design element throughout the development also serve to incorporate more of a "mixed use" into the area with allowances for office or even retail uses on the first floor. Grizzly Way forms somewhat of a hard border to the neighborhood on the west; however, pedestrian access can be realized through the two street connections with the Ranches neighborhood. Page #43 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Stone Creek Town Center Area “B” This area allows for a 36 residential units at a density of approximately 10 5.09 units per acre. The layout is not defined but the dwellings may be in detached single family homes or a mix of attached condominium units, generally similar to those of Area "B" in the Ranches neighborhood. The units should be oriented principally toward the Commerce Street area. Site amenities will be required with the development of the site, with the amenities congruent to the population of the proposed project.

Page #44 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Stone Creek Town Center "E" Village Green The Stone Creek Town Center "E' Village Green is a .74 acre park that is intended for neighborhood activities. It is a gathering place that will be within walking distance of the future commercial. Land Use Data: Stone Creek Town Center


Page #44 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 Acres % neighborhood % project Total site area 28.8 9.6 Area "A" 1.6 5.5 Area "B" 3.7 7.07 13.2 24.5 Area "C" 2.8 9.7 Area "D" 19.3 69 Area “E" 1.4 2.5 Land Use Description: Stone Creek Town Center Area "A": Light office for professional or medical facilities. Area "B": 36 single-family attached or detached units at a density of about 10 5.09 units per acre. Orientation of

neighborhood is primarily toward Commerce Street area. Area "C": Single-family attached units. Area "D": Neighborhood retail. Grocery store with outlying pad sites oriented to 7800 South and 4800 West.

Commerce Street with smaller retail shops has more of a pedestrian design with awnings and street furniture. Office and limited residential uses may be incorporated on the second floor.

Area "E": This space is created as a neighborhood gathering place.

Page #55 Exhibit “D” Stone Creek Development Standards and Design Guidelines; Section 3 * As a general note: All exhibits must be updated to reflect proposed text changes.

Greg Mikolash then reviewed the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Section 13-7C-6: Amendments to the Land Use Map The findings required for Future Land Use Map amendments were also applicable to the Stone Creek Development Plan amendments. Prior to approving a General Plan Future Land Use Map amendment and Stone Creek Development Plan amendment, the City Council should make positive findings of fact on all of the following criteria: Finding A: The proposed amendment conformed to and was consistent with the

adopted goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the City General Plan. Discussion: The applicant was proposing to amend the Future Land Use Map from Very High Density Residential to High Density Residential (11.34 ac); from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed-Use (6.74 ac); and from Professional Office to Medium Density Residential (3.11 ac). Three general areas of the existing Stone Creek Development Plan were proposed to be changed in association with the Future Land Use Map amendment. A brief analysis of these three areas as they relate to this finding was as follows: Town Center B, D, & E The proposed amendment of 3.11 acres of land from Professional Office to Medium Density Residential appeared to provide a natural extension of


the recently constructed Princeton Park neighborhood. Slight modifications to road alignments during future reviews should resolve most of staff’s concerns with the proposed layout shown on the amended Stone Creek Development Plan exhibits and accompanying text. Clay Hollow C The proposed amendment of 6.74 acres of land from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed-Use appeared to be in conformance with the Stone Creek Development Plan. The existing Ordinance #08-09 already provided the flexibility to develop this area with two of the following three uses; retail, light office, and mixed use. Staff was concerned that the exhibit submitted by the applicant showed the current Stone Creek Development Plan inaccurately labeled Clay Hollow C as allowing for “Light Retail/Residential/Office” land use. This was not correct. Ordinance #08-09 clearly stated that Clay Hollow C “required a mixture of at least two land uses with combinations of retail, light office, and mixed use.”(Ordinance #08-09; page 37) Page 39 of Ordinance #08-09 provided additional clarification that standalone residential structures were not listed as an approved use within Clay Hollow C. The applicant had indicated, through the proposed text amendments they wished to change the current requirement of vertical mixed use buildings to a horizontal mixed use development. The proposed amendments would facilitate a typical “silo” type development pattern with single use buildings neighboring other single use buildings. Staff did not support this proposed amendment as it was contrary to the currently adopted plan. Clay Hollow D, E, & F The proposal to amend 11.34 acres from Very High Density Residential to High Density Residential appeared to be an encouraging request at first glance; however, there were details and elements of the design that quickly became adversely apparent as this proposal was reviewed in the context of the Stone Creek Development Plan. The Stone Creek Development Plan was designed around the goals and objectives of the Planned Community (P-C) zone, which were in part to: “encourage imaginative, creative and efficient utilization of land by establishing development standards that provide design flexibility, allow integration of mutually compatible residential uses and encourage consolidation of open spaces, clustering of dwelling units, and optimum land planning with greater efficiency, convenience and amenity than might


be possible under the procedures and regulations of conventional zoning classifications.” The proposed 57 single-family lot subdivision was an uncreative attempt at inserting a standard residential subdivision into a community that had had its uniqueness diminished over the years through a series of previous amendments. The single-family subdivision not only removed the originally approved multi-family units but also the Clay Hollow Park, which was to provide much needed open space and amenities to all residents in Stone Creek. It was important to note that Clay Hollow Park and its associated amenities had been used as a negotiation tool in past amendments to garner the support of removing other amenities that were once parts of the Stone Creek Development Plan (see Section III of this report and page 7 of Ordinance #08-09). Not only was the Clay Hollow Park proposed to be eliminated, but also the supporting roads on the east and west sides of the park. These roads were an important component to the fabric of the master plan. Most impacted by the removal of the roads and park was the Boulder Canyon development, which was approved, based on this specific design. Guest parking requirements within the Boulder Canyon project was reduced because of on-street parking availability around the perimeter of this project (excluding 5600 West). The City Traffic Engineer had received multiple complaints regarding the lack of parking in the Boulder Canyon area. Eliminating the road along the east side of Boulder Canyon would prevent additional on-street parking around the perimeter of this development. The Boulder Canyon townhome units were specifically designed to face east so they would connect with the master planned road and park. The following exhibit was a floor plan for one of the constructed townhome units: Boulder Canyon Townhome Floor Plan


Side Facing Master Planned Road and Park The following exhibit was a partial copy (east side) of the Boulder Canyon Preliminary Site Plan approval. Notice the sidewalk on the east side of the development. This sidewalk was specifically eliminated from the Boulder Canyon plans during the Final Site Plan because this sidewalk would have been within a couple feet of the future sidewalk installed as part of the road shown on the approved Stone Creek Master Plan (Exhibit C of the Council Agenda packet). It should be pointed out that all of the other residential buildings in the Boulder Canyon development, including the town home units which face north onto Ranches Loop Road, were designed with sidewalks on all sides of those living spaces in order to create a pedestrian friendly and cohesive development. Removing the sidewalk and roadway as originally master planned defeated the purpose of a planned community where connectivity and walkability were key. Boulder Canyon Development (East Side) Townhome Units The proposed design of this subdivision submitted with this amendment application accomplishes the very definition of “subdivision”; as it quite literally sub-divides the integrity and continuity of this planned development. Finding: The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment and the associated Stone Creek Development plan for the Town Center B, D & E area conformed to and was consistent with the adopted goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the City General Plan. The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment and the associated Stone Creek Development plan

Location of Master Planned Sidewalk


for the Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F areas did not conform to and was not consistent with the adopted goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the City General Plan nor the purposes and objectives of the Planned Community (P-C) zoning district.

Finding B: The development pattern contained on the land use plan inadequately

provided the appropriate optional sites for the use and/or change proposed in the amendment.

Discussion: There were many other undeveloped areas identified on the Future Land Use Map as Medium and High Density Residential which could accommodate both Medium and High Density Residential development; several of which were owned by the applicant. The Future Land Use Map did not contain a lot of land designated as Mixed Use. Amending the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use was supported by the Stone Creek Development Plan as presently adopted. Finding: The development pattern contained on the land use plan adequately provided the appropriate optional sites for Medium and High Density Residential development. Adding more Mixed Use to the Future Land Use Map would provide for additional areas of the City to develop in this efficient land use style.

Finding C: The proposed amendment would be compatible with other land uses, existing or planned, in the vicinity.

Discussion: Finding A outlined many of the reasons why the amendments proposed for Town Center B, D, & E do not appear to threaten surrounding land uses. Finding A also provided significant reasons why the proposed amendment to Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F created multiple compatibility issues specifically with the Boulder Canyon development. Another issue with the compatibility between the applicant’s proposed amendment and Boulder Canyon was the grade difference between the existing townhome units and what would be the rear yards and windows of homes built on the proposed single-family lots. With the two-story townhome units sitting only 18 feet from the east property line, the approximate 5 to 6 foot grade difference would likely create privacy and potential drainage issues. Below are pictures of the east side of the townhome units:


Finding: The proposed amendment for Town Center B, D, & E would be compatible with other land uses, existing or planned, in the vicinity. The proposed amendment for Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F would not be compatible with other land uses, existing or planned, in the vicinity.

Finding D: The proposed amendment constituted an overall improvement to the

adopted general land use map and was not solely for the good or benefit of a particular person or entity.

Discussion: The applicant would directly benefit from approval of the proposed amendment; however, the amendments to Town Center B, D, & E would allow for a continuation of similar land uses and appeared to be an improvement to the existing in the Stone Creek area. Conversely, the proposal to amend Clay Hollow D, E, & F did not constitute an overall improvement to the adopted general land use map nor to the Stone Creek Development Plan. With the removal of a community garden and a community park laden with specific amenities and it appeared this amendment was solely for the good or benefit of the applicant or a few individuals who might reside in the Ranches neighborhood. The proposal to amend the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use appeared to be in alignment with the intent of this part of the Stone Creek Development Plan; however, after reviewing the proposed text changes, it was clear the amendment was not in harmony with the existing master plan. It was important to note that many homebuyers bought in this area with an expectation that a park, community garden, and vibrant mixed-use development would be installed as master planned. Finding: The proposed amendment for Town Center B, D, & E did not constitute an overall detriment to the adopted general land use map nor the


Stone Creek Development Plan and was not solely for the good or benefit of a particular person or entity. The proposed amendment for Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F did constitute an overall detriment to the adopted general land use map and was solely for the good or benefit of a particular person or entity.

Finding E: The proposed amendment would not adversely impact the neighborhood

and community as a whole by significantly altering acceptable land use patterns and requiring larger and more expensive public infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to, roads, water, wastewater and public safety facilities, than would otherwise be needed without the proposed change.

Discussion: None of the proposed amendments appeared to require any significant change and/or need in terms of providing acceptable levels of public services. Finding: The proposed amendment would not adversely impact the neighborhood and community as a whole by significantly altering acceptable land use patterns and requiring larger and more expensive public infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to, roads, water, wastewater and public safety facilities, than would otherwise be needed without the proposed change.

Finding F: The proposed amendment was consistent with other adopted plans,

codes and ordinances.

Discussion: Review of this application in regard to General Plan conformity was discussed in Finding A. The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Map were proposed to facilitate an amendment to the adopted Stone Creek Development Plan (Ordinance #08-09). Staff supports both the Future Land Use Map amendment and the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment for only the Town Center B, D, & E area. Staff did not support the Future Land Use Map amendment and the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment for the Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F areas as the proposed amendment to these areas represent a significant departure from the currently adopted Stone Creek Development Plan. Finding: The proposed amendment for the Town Center B, D, & E area was consistent with other adopted plans, codes and ordinances. The proposed amendments for the Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F areas are not consistent with the adopted Stone Creek Development Plan.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Finding G: A finding was made that there were adequate school facilities, if the

amendment was made to the land use map, and if section 13-7A-4 of this chapter (adequate school facilities) was applicable.

Discussion: The proposed amendments had the potential to change the current mix of residential dwelling types. The overall density of Stone Creek would likely not change, as the applicant intended to still build the 859 units allowed under the current Ordinance #08-09. The following was a table that illustrated the intentions of the applicant.

Stone Creek Area Unit Type/Current # Unit Type/Proposed # DifferenceClay Hollow D Multi-family/106 du Single-family/57 du - 49 du Town Center B Multi-family/36 du Single-family/36 du 0 du

The applicant’s letter of intent indicated that they intend to relocate the 49 units to Clay Hollow C, which was permissible as long as they were built in a mixed use building and not as stand-alone residential buildings. It should be noted that Ordinance #08-09 (page 9) stated that residential units built within mixed use buildings within Clay Hollow B, C, and D areas were excluded from the maximum density of 859 units. Please see Section III of this report for more information regarding the allowed uses within Clay Hollow C. Staff had contacted the Jordan School District to receive their input on how the proposed amendments might impact their ability to serve the student population in this area. The Jordan School District did state that single-family residential homes typically house a larger number of school aged children compared to the same number of multi-family units. Therefore, because the applicant still intended to build 859 units within Stone Creek and increase the ratio of single-family units to multi-family units, it would appear that proposed amendment would impact the local schools by increasing the student population. A copy of the Jordan School District’s letter was attached as Exhibit G in the Council’s Agenda packet. The City Council did have the ability to adjust the overall density numbers down by 49 dwelling units from 859 to 810, in order to offset the change in unit type. Finding: It appeared the proposed amendments would likely impact the student population; however the Jordan School District had indicated that there was capacity in Fox Hollow Elementary and portables could be added to West Hills Middle and Copper Hills High to accommodate the projected students living within the amendment areas.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 In conclusion, he said there was a high level of flexible design and product type that could be constructed under the designation of Medium and High Density Residential land use. Due to this range of flexibility, there were literally dozens of different design alternatives that could be inserted within the areas proposed to be amended in the Clay Hollow and Town Center areas. Therefore, the specific design of each proposed amendment area became a key component in answering the questions listed in the required Findings of Fact listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Any negative recommendations found in the following section for the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments were a direct result of poor design reflected by the proposed amendments to the Stone Creek Development Plan (Ordinance #08-09). Staff believed there are several alternative designs that could be implemented under the High Density Residential designation (Clay Hollow D, E, & F) that could produce single-family lots while at the same time preserving the integrity of the Stone Creek Development Plan. Details of the final design for the Clay Hollow C area were lacking; however, based on the proposed text amendments to Ordinance #08-09, it was clear the applicant intended to move away from the original design of a true mixed use development for this area of Stone Creek. Because of this knowledge, staff met with representatives of Peterson Development, Ivory Homes, and the future owner of the Boulder Canyon Apartments on August 13, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if the applicant was open to alternative designs that addressed staff concerns and the concerns articulated by the future owner of Boulder Canyon. Peterson Development and Ivory homes stated in that meeting that they did not want to consider other alternatives and only wished to seek a decision by the Planning Commission and City Council per the plans submitted. Review of the required findings of fact clearly indicated there were significant problems associated with the proposed amendment to Clay Hollow D, E, & F. The proposed degradation of the mixed use within Clay Hollow C was also not supported by staff. On the contrary, the proposed amendment to Town Center B, D, & E appeared to present a more logical extension of existing and proposed land use. The amendment, as opposed to the other two proposals, did not appear to undermine the integrity of the Stone Creek Development Plan. He then summarized staff’s recommendations to the amendment requests as follows:

Future Land Use Map Amendment – Clay Hollow D, E, & F Based on the findings set forth in this staff report and the design shown in the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment, staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map of property generally located at

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 approximately 7800 South 4800 West South from Very High Density Residential to High Density Residential (11.34 acres). Future Land Use Map Amendment – Clay Hollow C Based on the findings set forth in this staff report and the existing Stone Creek Development Plan, staff recommends that the City Council approve the request to amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map of property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West South from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed-Use (6.74 acres). Future Land Use Map Amendment – Town Center B, D, & E Based on the findings set forth in this staff report and the design shown in the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment, staff recommends that the City Council approve the request to amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map of property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West South from Professional Office to Medium Density Residential (3.11 acres). Stone Creek Development Plan Amendment – Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F Based on the findings set forth in this staff report and the design shown in the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment, staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to amend the Stone Creek Development Plan for property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West South for the following areas within the Stone Creek Development Plan: Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F. Stone Creek Development Plan Amendment – Town Center B, D, &E Based on the findings set forth in this staff report and the design shown in the Stone Creek Development Plan amendment, staff recommends that the City Council approve the request to amend the Stone Creek Development Plan for property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West South for the following areas within the Stone Creek Development Plan: Town Center B, D, & E. The Council and staff clarified the minimum requirements of open space for the overall planned community was being met Justin Peterson, Peterson Development, applicant, confirmed there was no net loss in relation to open space. The difference was in the context of public parks verses privately maintained parks in townhome/condominium communities. He asked that while the Council was considering the proposed amendments, to weigh it on its own merits, and on the context of a fluid plan that had evolved, and hopefully could continue to evolve. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Richard Downing, West Jordan resident, spoke against the proposed neighborhood commercial zoning. He asked the City Council to keep the property on the west side of the community zoned as it was originally zoned.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Ron Cole, California resident, indicated he and his partner were in the process of purchasing Boulder Canyon Apartments, and would be closing on the property within 30-45 days. He addressed the following points relative to their investment in the community: 1) they were long-term holders of property; 2) removal of the proposed park adjacent to their property would be a serious impediment to quality of life; 3) the impacts of the revised initial plan relating to the placement of the doors from facing inward to outward; 4) the proposal did violate the General Plan, and 5) the proposed amendment to the master plan was driven primarily by economics. Danica Wade, Manager of the Boulder Canyon apartments, addressed her concern with the proposed removal of the planned park adjacent to the property. Breanna Muench, Boulder Canyon apartment resident, was concerned the already limited parking would be inadequate if the proposed road were to be removed from the plan. Representative Jim Bird, House District #42, questioned the proposed zoning. He felt it would be an economic disadvantage for the City to do away with the Commercial and Professional Office zoning. He recommended the Council take a serious look at the proposal, while determining the direction for the City. Nancy Chapman, West Jordan resident abutting the proposed development, questioned the wash land, and why it was not being developed for park land. Mayor Johnson clarified that the City Council was currently in negotiations with Peterson Development in relation to the wash land. There was no one else who desired to speak. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions relating to the Future Land Use Map Amendment – Town Center B, D, & E; and the Stone Creek Development Plan Amendment – Town Center B, D, & E, which included: 1) compatible transitioning methods for combining single-family residential and neighborhood commercial, and 2) adequate buffering measures between residential and commercial zones, and driveways. TOWN CENTER B, D, & E MOTION: Councilmember Southworth stated that based on the findings set

forth in the staff report, and upon the evidence and explanations received during the meeting, I move that the City Council approve the request to amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map of property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West from Professional Office to Medium Density Residential (3.11 acres); and also, approve the request to amend the Stone Creek Development Plan for property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West for the following areas within the Stone Creek Development


Plan; Town Center B, D, & E. The motion was seconded by Mayor Johnson.

Councilmember Stoker spoke against the motion based on the safety issues relating to residential units facing the street, and the incompatibility issue of single-family residential in combination with commercial. Councilmember McConnehey spoke against the motion due to the incompatible uses previously discussed, and the loss of potential economic development. A roll call vote was taken Councilmember Hansen No Councilmember Killpack No Councilmember McConnehey No Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker No Mayor Johnson Yes The motion failed 2-4. The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions relating to the Future Land Use Map Amendment – Clay Hollow D, E, & F; Future Land Use Map Amendment – Clay Hollow C, and Stone Creek Development Plan Amendment – Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F, which included: 1) clarity of the proposed horizontal mixed use verses vertical mixed use development; 2) consequences of the City’s request of eliminating the street and green space; 3) maintenance of the open spaces (covered in the Settlement Agreement approved that night), and 4) the foreseen problems, if any, of approving the land use map amendment and denying the development plan. CLAY HOLLOW C, D, E, & F MOTION: Councilmember Killpack stated that based on the findings set forth in

the staff report, and upon the evidence and explanations received during the meeting, I move that the City Council deny the request to amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map of property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West from Very High Density Residential to High Density Residential (11.34 acres); and also, deny the request to amend the Stone Creek Development Plan for property generally located at approximately 7800 South 4800 West for the following areas within the Stone Creek Development Plan; Clay Hollow C, D, E, & F. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Stoker.


City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey Yes Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 6-0. VIII. BUSINESS ITEMS

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING INCLUSION OF THE WEST JORDAN COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER WITH THE REDESIGN OF THE NEW FINANCE DEPARTMENT SPACE

Mayor Johnson explained the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money was decreasing every year, but the need for social services was not. She said there would never be enough funding to fully support the programs that helped the residents of West Jordan and the surrounding community. There was a need to find ways to partner with existing organizations and not duplicate services that were provided by other agencies. She indicated there was an opportunity for that exact partnership to flourish in West Jordan with the help of South Valley Sanctuary, an existing agency that provided services to the City’s residents. The mission of South Valley Sanctuary was to provide basic needs assistance with compassion and dignity to local families in need through a cooperative community effort. Some of the services currently provided included:

• Counseling Services – group and individual sessions • Career Services – Workforce Services and business professionals offering tips and

help • Parenting Classes • Youth Leadership Programs • Coordination with Legal Aid Society of Utah • Coordination with West Jordan Police Department and Victim Advocates • Multi-Cultural Legal Center – immigration services • Coordination with the Division of Child and Family Services • Coordination with West Jordan City Prosecution office

These services helped people in immediate need, but there were some limitations to the current program. South Valley Sanctuary operated a shelter in a confidential location. While providing security to people who sought help, there were challenges to providing assistance to members of the community who did not need to stay at the shelter, or those seeking a different level of help.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 She said the proposal was to expand the types of services provided by adding a location that was not confidential. The new office would act as both an extension of some services currently provided at the shelter and a community resource center to direct those residents with the greatest need toward programs that existed through other agencies. We would not be duplicating services; we would be coordinating the efforts of all federal, state, county, and city services. We would be creating a Community Partner Group enlisting the help of health professionals, disability advocates, the Chambers of Commerce and business community, and religious organizations, as well as all relevant state and county agencies and any other group that we can marshal. She felt it was essential to have the support of the City Council before moving to the next step. The City currently provided CDBG money each year to support the programs outlined in the report, but with decreased funding it was unlikely that the amount could be increased sufficiently to fund an additional office without severely impacting other programs. The solution was to expand the partnership. She pointed out that City Hall had historically housed a satellite office for the Salt Lake County District Attorney. With the expiration of that lease, space had become available that could be adapted to include office space for community resource personnel. South Valley Sanctuary had offered to staff the office and provide services to the residents of West Jordan at City Hall. Mayor Johnson introduced Carla Arroyo, Executive Director, South Valley Sanctuary. The Council and Carla Arroyo addressed clarifying questions including: 1) personnel/staffing and associated costs would be handled by South Valley Sanctuary; 2) anticipated funding from federal agencies, as well as private investors/donors; 3) the lease payment would be covered with CDBG funds; 4) innovation in partnering with other community and government agencies to provide services, and 5) the amount of office space needed, design details, etc. Richard Davis clarified the action that night was to direct staff to develop an agreement with South Valley Sanctuary for the occupancy of available office space, which would then be brought before the City Council for approval. MOTION: Councilmember McConnehey moved to direct staff to adapt the

design of office space on the first floor of City Hall to include an area that will serve as a West Jordan Community Resource Office, and work with the staff of South Valley Sanctuary to insure that the new Resource Office meets the objective of coordinating community and government efforts to help residents in West Jordan. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hansen and passed 6-0 in favor.


DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 12-118, AUTHORIZING THE REMODELING OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS OF CITY HALL, TO MOVE THE FINANCE AND LEGAL DEPARTMENTS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $50,000

Wendell Rigby explained staff had been asked to provide an estimate to remodel a portion of the North side of the first floor of City Hall to accommodate moving the Finance Department from the second floor to the first floor and moving the Legal Department from the first floor to the second. He introduced Jim Riding to overview the tasks and associated costs for the remodel. Jim Riding detailed the tasks that would need to be accomplished on the first floor:

• Remove existing single entry door to existing legal department from the atrium area and replace with a double door.

• Remove the existing cabinetry and glass window wall in the existing legal department area and replace with new cabinetry and tops to accommodate the Finance Department and provide easy access by the public.

• Remove an existing wall between the attorney reception area and workroom area to allow more space for customer service.

• Repair and paint walls, ceilings and patch carpet to match as close as possible. • Electrical, sprinkler, ceiling grid and mechanical work would be required to adjust

to the new space. • The IT Department would be involved in relocating both departments.

He then detailed the tasks that would need to be accomplished on the second floor where the Legal Department would relocate:

• Install a glass wall over the existing cabinetry and tops. In conclusion, he said the remodeling would allow easier and more defined access by the public to receive assistance by City personnel in signing up for utilities, paying their bills, questions answered, etc. Staff recommended the proposed remodeling of the first and second floors of City Hall to move the Finance and Legal Departments, in an amount not-to-exceed $50,000, which was available in the Capital Support account. The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions relating to the possible addition of sidelights next to the projected double doors on the first floor, which would allow a more expanded view and welcoming approach for customers. MOTION: Councilmember Stoker moved to approve Resolution 12-118,

regarding the proposed remodeling of the first and second floors of City Hall to move the Finance and Legal Departments, in an amount not-to-exceed $50,000, which would be taken from the Capital Support account. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Southworth.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 A roll call vote was taken Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey No Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 5-1.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCE 12-20, AMENDING THE 2009 WEST JORDAN MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ALLOW BEEKEEPING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, CITY OF WEST JORDAN, APPLICANT

Tom Burdett explained on August 8, 2012, the City Council reviewed an ordinance that would allow residents to keep honeybees in the City. The City Council tabled the item to revisit the ordinance to make it less restrictive than originally presented. He then introduced Ray McCandless, Senior Planner, to provide general information and analysis of the ordinance. Ray McCandless said in researching West Jordan’s City Code, staff found that the City had adopted Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) regulations by reference, which already had regulations specific to honeybee management. West Jordan’s Code citation adopting SLVHD regulations was as follows:

5-1-4: SALT LAKE VALLEY HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS ADOPTED:

A. Those regulations of the Salt Lake Valley health department, heretofore adopted and not repealed or superseded, together with such future regulations as will be validly adopted and promulgated by the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, as required by law, are adopted and made part of this chapter as though set forth in their entirety. Chapter 4 of this title provides a listing of the currently adopted and incorporated rules.

B. The regulations of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, as adopted by subsection A of this section, shall not be construed to repeal, supersede or otherwise invalidate any ordinance adopted by the city council that provides regulation or requirements stricter than those provided in the Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulations. In cases where a Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulation and a stricter city ordinance cannot be construed to give effect to both, the stricter city ordinance shall be given effect and the Salt Lake


Valley Health Department regulation shall not be deemed to be adopted. (2001 Code § 50-2-204; Ord. 09-21, 7-14-2009)

The Salt Lake Valley Health Department requirements specific to honeybee management are found in General Sanitation Regulation Section of the SLVHD regulations and read as follows:

4.12. Requirements for Honeybee Management.

4.12.1. It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain or locate a beehive on any property in a way that threatens public health or safety, or creates a nuisance. In a residential area, an apiary is not to exceed three stacks of five boxes each or an equivalent capacity.

4.12.2. A hive shall be placed on property so the general flight pattern of bees is in a direction that will deter bee contact with humans and domesticated animals on adjacent property or areas of public access.

4.12.3. A hive shall be supplied with adequate accessible fresh water continuously between March 1 and October 31 of each year. The water shall be in a location minimizing the nuisance created by bees seeking water on neighboring property.

4.12.4. A hive shall be located so the bees’ flight pattern is six feet or more above frequently used areas of public access.

4.12.5. A person shall not locate or allow a hive on property owned or occupied by another person without first obtaining written permission from the owner or occupant.

As the SLVHD regulations had already been adopted by the City, the requirements for honeybee management were currently in effect; however, there were no specific provisions in City Code that specifically allowed the keeping of bees in the non-agricultural areas of the City as the code was permissive (13-2-1K). For this reason, staff was suggesting that a new Section 6, be added to the Animal Control Section of City Code formally stating that beekeeping was allowed in the City subject to meeting SLVHD requirements.


6-3H-1: HONEYBEE MANAGEMENT: The keeping of honeybees is allowed in all zoning districts within the City of West Jordan subject to compliance with the Salt Lake Valley Health Department, General Sanitation Regulation requirements, Section 4.12, or its successor relating to honeybee management.

As it was important to maintain the safety of residents, and the county requirements did not address hive placement or registration with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food Process, staff was also suggesting that the following additional requirements be added to Section 6:

6-3H2: BEEKEEPER REGISTRATION: Each beekeeper shall be registered with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food Process and hives shall be operated and maintained as provided in the Utah Bee Inspection Act set forth in Title 4, Chapter 11 of the Utah Code, as amended. (Ord. 12-20, 00-00-2012) 6-3H-3: HIVES ON LOTS: On lots less than 20,000 square feet, hives shall be located no less than 5’ from any property line. Hives located between five feet (5’) and fifteen feet (15’) from any property line shall be surrounded by a six foot (6’) flyway consisting of a fence, wall or dense foliage.

On all lots, if the apiary is located in an area that borders a public walk or street, the area shall be separated from the public walk or street by a fence or wall in compliance with Title 13. In conclusion, he said adopting a beekeeping ordinance with the standards imposed would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the City. Staff recommended that the Council accept the findings contained in the staff report concerning beekeeping in the City and approve the proposed Text Amendments to the City Code; Title 6, Animal Control. Councilmember McConnehey expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on the newly proposed beekeeping ordinance, and stated he could not be happier.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 MOTION: Councilmember Stoker moved to adopt Ordinance 12-20,

miscellaneous amendments to Title 6 of the West Jordan Municipal Code to allow beekeeping in the City. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Killpack.

A roll call vote was taken Councilmember Hansen Yes Councilmember Killpack Yes Councilmember McConnehey Yes Councilmember Nichols Absent Councilmember Southworth Yes Councilmember Stoker Yes Mayor Johnson Yes The motion passed 6-0.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING 4000 WEST ACCESS AND SAFETY CONCERNS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Mayor Johnson indicated she had put the subject item on the Agenda due to comments she had received from members of the community who were concerned about the construction on 4000 West. She introduced Brad Barker, on behalf of the concerned citizens (petition submitted), to address the Council. Brad Barker, West Jordan resident, indicated he resided on the east side of 4000 West at 8250 South, which was right in the middle of the construction project. He understood that the road needed to be replaced, but he did not understand the approach in which it was being done. He addressed his frustrations with the project, which were primarily safety issues, including: 1) a one-way road verses a two-way road; 2) the placement of the stop lights; 3) there were spaces of many days that no work was being done on the project; 4) the double parking of the contractor’s truck was obstructing the view of signage for drivers; 5) unmanaged access ways onto 4000 West, and 6) the lack of communication to the residents relating to the project. Mayor Johnson informed all in attendance that there was another public meeting scheduled for the next day, September 27, at 7:00 p.m. at Fire Station #53 (7602 South Jordan Landing Boulevard). MOTION: Councilmember Southworth moved to suspend the rules to allow for

further public comment. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Killpack and passed 6-0 in favor.

Mayor Johnson indicated the public would have the opportunity to address the Council following Dave Murphy’s comments.

City Council Meeting Minutes September 26, 2012 Dave Murphy, Capital Projects manager, provided an overview of the 4000 West Utility and Roadway Project:

Background Construction Update Delays Traffic Control Public Input

The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions including: 1) if the dry utility companies were contacted prior to the project going out to bid, and 2) flaggers would be placed at Villa West access (8400 South 4000 West), which would be a two-day operation. Melvin Lambson, West Jordan resident, was frustrated that an alternate traffic plan was not formulated prior to the beginning of the 4000 West Roadway project. Wendy Reed, West Jordan resident, indicated that her road (Susan Way) seemed to be the “cut through” location of choice during the project. She requested that a ‘Dead End’ sign be set up at the entrance of her road. Richard Davis summarized staff’s plan for the project would be to acquire feedback from the two public meetings, meet again and develop a course of action, and present it to the Council via email. IX. REMARKS There were no remarks. X. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Southworth moved to adjourn the City Council

meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Killpack and passed 6-0 in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. The content of the minutes is not intended, nor are they submitted, as a verbatim transcription of the meeting. These minutes are a brief overview of what occurred at the meeting. MELISSA K. JOHNSON Mayor ATTEST: MELANIE S. BRIGGS, MMC City Clerk Approved this 24th day of October 2012

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY · PDF fileMayor Johnson indicated Mayor Peter...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY · PDF fileMayor Johnson indicated Mayor Peter...