AGENDA

CITY OF SOUTH JORDAN

PLANNING COMISSION MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

August 25, 2009

Present: Chairman Linda Auger, Commissioner Kevin Tominey, Commissioner Paul Pugmire, Commissioner Beverly Evans, Commissioner David Wood, City Planner Greg Schindler, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose, Assistant City Engineer Shane Greenwood, Planner Brad Sanderson, City Recorder Anna West.

Others: Jim & Gayleen Bryan, Julie Peterson, Steve … Glen Pettit, Ryon Pettit, Mike Richardson, Nefi Garcia, Dan & Peggy Ingersoll, Paul Flynn, Brett Rosen, Susan Egbert, Randy Rushton, Lynda Rushton.

6:30 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING

I. GENERAL BUSINESS

A. Welcome and Roll Call

Chair Linda Auger welcomed everyone attending. She said Commissioner Tominey called her earlier in the week and said he might be late and Commissioner Paul Pugmire said he may not be here.

B. Motion to Approve Agenda

Commissioner Beverly Evans made a motion to approve the August 25, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner David Wood seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor. Commissioners Tominey and Pugmire were not present.

C. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting held on August 11, 2009

Commissioner David Wood made a motion to approve the August 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes with corrections. Commissioner Beverly Evans seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor. Commissioners Tominey and Pugmire were not present.

II. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND OTHER BUSINESS

A. CALENDARING ITEMS

None

B. COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair Linda Auger said the City of South Jordan put on an Old Fashioned Picnic on Saturday and was very enjoyable despite the heat that day.

C. STAFF BUSINESS.

None

D. NEW BUSINESS

None

III. CITIZEN COMMENT

None

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL **ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ITEMS

**Administrative Action = Less Discretion, Substantial Evidence (Objective Standard)

A.1. File # CUP-2009.15, Conditional Use Permit Application to Construct a 100’ monopole and related telecommunication facility on property located at 9811 South 4800 West within the Glenmoor Golf Course, Nefi Garcia (applicant).

Planner Brad Sanderson reviewed background information on this item. On October 28, 2008 the City’s Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit application for T-Mobile, (a different applicant), allowing the existing monopole at the Glenmoor Golf Course to be upsized from a 70’ foot pole to a 100’ foot pole; however, for unknown reasons, T-Mobile never upsized the pole.

Verizon Wireless has since acquired the rights to the Glenmoor Golf Course Facility and is now in the process of proposing to once again further expand the site as well as add new ground equipment including a masonry building that will house the equipment. The pole height is again proposed at 100’feet tall. Verizon Wireless has agreed to reduce the antenna array distance from an 8’ diameter to a 4’ diameter.

Because the application was submitted prior to the approved August 4, 2009 text amendment to the wireless communication ordinance, this application is being reviewed and held to the older monopole and wireless communication standards. As a result, the applicant is still required to install a 6’ decorative masonry wall with landscaping around the perimeter as stated within Section 17.112.040 of the Zoning Code, otherwise, the applicant may also have to flush mount the antennas and other pole equipment as well.

Commissioner Kevin Tominey arrived at this time.

Based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Glenmoor Golf Course wireless communication facility, increasing the monopole height from 70’ to 100’ feet, File number CUP-2009.15 with the listed conditions and/or requirements.

1. All South Jordan City Planning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, and other City Service Department requirements are met.

2. That the existing monopole be removed within 6 months of the construction of the new pole.

3. That the applicant provides a $10,000 cash security fund or letter of credit to be established for future landscaping around the site or for the removal of the pole and related facility as suggested within Section 17.112 letter “H” of the Wireless Communication Zoning Ordinance.

4. That there is to be a minimum 6’ solid decorative masonry or precast wall surrounding the facility with a solid steel gate of which, the design and color are to be approved by staff.

5. That the applicant install trees, shrubs and other landscaping materials for additional screening, all of which are to be submitted to and approved by Staff, or that the applicant provides a landscape design and bond in lieu of the additional screening upon the completion of the 4800 West installation.

Planner Sanderson read aloud an email he received from Annette Jolley (Attachment A) asking that he read her comments at the Planning meeting because she was not able to attend.

Chair Auger asked Commissioners if they have questions for Planner Sanderson before talking to the applicant.

Nefi Garcia, 380 W Lawndale, SLC (applicant) – I have a couple questions for staff. It talks about 4800 West cutting through eventually. Is there a timeline for when 4800 West will come through that section?

Chair Linda Auger said we do not know at this time.

Mr. Garcia said the report talks about a masonry wall for screening and that trees may be required for additional screening. I am wondering if trees are actually needed.

Planner Brad Sanderson said the applicant is correct. The ordinance says “may be required” – this is something that the Planning Commission ultimately would decide. Condition # 5, states that they can “either” put the screening up now or they can bond in lieu of the additional screening upon completion of the 4800 West installation.

Mr. Garcia said we can go ahead and install the landscaping now. I just wanted to find out exactly where to place it. Can we just put landscaping in front of the public viewpoint on the west side rather than on the south or east side?

Planner Sanderson said that would be appropriate as long as the Planning Commissioners are in agreement.

Mr. Garcia said I did try to call Ms. Jolley on her cell number but was not able to reach her.

Chair Linda Auger opened the Public Hearing to comments. There were none. She closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner David Wood said I am finding it inconsistent to require landscaping around the lower part of this and still allow a really ugly pole to be set up like that. What is the zoning immediately west and northwest of this site?

Planner Sanderson said it is an agriculture zone; either A-1 or A-5.

Commissioner Wood asked if this will continue to be an agriculture zone in our revised land use plan.

Planner Sanderson said I believe that is the intent to keep it agricultural, designated open space.

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose addressed Commissioner Wood’s concerns. He said the landscaping is meant to deter from the pole.

Commissioner Wood asked if there is any way we can require some kind of stealth on this application.

Assistant City Attorney Loose said, as a conditional use, if there is some kind of detrimental effect that it brings that you can get a condition stealth application upon, then yes, but you would have to make the findings on that. Under our new ordinance, under the Council’s legislative discretion, they decided that poles will be stealth in the future.

Commissioner Wood said I would make a case for detrimental effect on this. These poles are just really atrocious looking and if we could agree in our ordinance that no poles go up in the City of South Jordan without some sort of mediation of the ugliness, I think would be a positive thing. We have heard these arguments many times regarding the loss of property values, loss of line of sight to mountains.

Chair Auger said I understand the ugliness of them; however, we have nothing different now than what we would have had a year ago.

Commissioner Wood said the most sound argument we can make is that our new land use strategic plan incorporates this and to be consistent with our new plan, we would like to retroactively go back and reconsider any argument that was made contrary to the prior time and remake it now to require it. My view is to put a condition on the approval that requires a stealth technology, and it would be nice to get the applicant to agree to that in this meeting. He asked Mr. Garcia if Verizon would consider going to the expense of putting in some sort of stealth on this making it a clock tower or bell tower; something different than what it would otherwise be.

Mr. Garcia said there are two issues that we have here. No. 1 – Verizon is going to be a tenant on that tower. Verizon does not own the tower, so that would be something for the landlord to decide. From Verizon’s point of view, Verizon would not support that. They would want to go with what is currently there and put the extension on that.

Commissioner Wood asked if the owner could impose that on Verizon if they wanted to.

Mr. Garcia said the owner would have to come to Planning Commission to request it.

Assistant Attorney Loose said from a contractual standpoint, the landlord can require what they want out of the contract. Whether the tenant agrees to it or not is a different story.

Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Garcia what the difference in cost would be to make this a typical stealth application.

Mr. Garcia said because the existing facility would have to be rebuilt, you are looking at least $150 to $175,000 to change the structure out. If it is going to be done, it has to be done right. Sometimes a stealth application will bring a more visual impact. I am cautious about doing stealth because it is so much more of a visual impact.

Planner Sanderson said what was previously approved with the T-Mobile application was they were doing a full array. They were basically hanging the antennas off the top of the pole. Verizon has agreed to keep within 4-6 feet of the pole so there is not so much mass. They can build it to flush mount the antennas so it has that narrow single pole instead of the larger stealth.

Mr. Garcia said yes that is possible to do the slim line pole like the one we did just down the road and we are willing to do that.

Commissioner Wood asked if the towers have to be metallic or can they be painted?

Mr. Garcia said yes, they can be painted any color, but they usually end up looking worse.

Commissioner Tominey asked when this application was actually submitted.

Planner Sanderson said June 17, 2009 is the application date; however, there was never a notice of pending ordinance send out letting them know the ordinance was about to change.

Commissioner Tominey asked Mr. Garcia how much it will cost to build the building.

Mr. Garcia said it is a pre-fab building and will cost $20-30,000 just for the building itself. The wall will cost around $10,000 for 160 feet.

Chair Linda Auger asked if the Commissioners are ready for discussion or a motion.

Commissioner Tominey said we approved this for T-Mobile almost a year ago, and we have had a lot of discussion on these types of items since then. I wish we had done a notice of pending change so we would not have to make this hurdle now. We are talking about the difference between a 70’ and 100’ foot pole. I don’t like having the antenna arrays 8’ feet off. I’d like to have them do a flush mount, which it sounded like Mr. Garcia was willing to do, and do a double stack instead of a single.

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose said a year ago you approved something that sounded like something more intrusive than this application before you now. Yes, things have changed somewhat since then. As far as holding the applicant to the new ordinance, we can’t do that because we did not issue a notice of pending ordinance to trigger it. As it sounds now with what you have in front of you, it looks like they are willing to do a flush mount, if that satisfies your concerns to detrimental effects, then it would be a mitigating condition.

Commissioner Wood said I am concerned about what may come up regarding the zoning in the future. What is the likelihood that the agriculture zoning may be changed?

City Planner Greg Schindler said that will depend. What the General Plan update tells us right now is the current plan for everything west of 4800 West and South of the Woodranch Subdivision is planned to be left as open space. It is owned by Salt Lake County and that is where they plan to put their regional park.

Commissioner Tominey said I would love to explore what the costs would be for doing the flush mount, double stack etc. for doing a stealth application. And do we have the ability to make the wall and the building go away because it would theoretically be a stealth application.

Commissioner Wood said I do want to consider the stealth application. I am concerned that there are no citizens from that community to speak out on this.

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose said that the applicant already mentioned that the City would need to get the landlord involved in order to consider this type of application.

Chair Linda Auger invited Mr. Garcia back up to address the Commissioners. She asked Mr. Garcia, “do you understand what Commissioner Tominey is asking for?”

Mr. Garcia said yes. I think that Verizon wants a wall around our structure for security, so there will not be any cost savings there. We are still going to need our building, whether it is going to be pre-fab or whatever, there will still be cost associated with that.

Commissioner Tominey asked Mr. Garcia “you don’t think you could reasonably look at a stealth structure that would house all that stuff in it and eliminate the need for another building.”

Mr. Garcia said we are looking for a decision tonight based on the application at hand. The property is permitted to not do a stealth facility.

.2. Potential Action Item – (See IV. A.1.)

Commissioner Kevin Tominey motioned to approve File # CUP-2009.15, Conditional Use Permit Application to Construct a 100’ monopole and related telecommunication facility on property located at 9811 South 4800 West within the Glenmoor Golf Course, Nefi Garcia (applicant), adding a 6^th Condition that the antenna arrays be flush mounted and not to exceed 18” from the pole. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. Roll call vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Pugmire not present.

B.1. File # CUP-2009.12, Conditional Use Permit Application proposing to amend the architectural standards of the RM zone for the Autumn Leaf PUD, generally located at 3800 West South along Rushton View Drive, Micah Peters, (applicant).

Planner Brad Sanderson reviewed the background information on this item. The Autumn Leaf PUD, consisting of 37 residential lots, was approved on July 7, 2006 by the City’s Planning Commission with the minimum architectural standards set forth within the RM Zone.

Micah Peters, on behalf of Richmond American homes and KGL Corporation, is proposing to amend the architecture standards of all 37 lots within the Autumn Leaf PUD as allowed within the RM Zone, if the architecture clearly surpasses and is unique to other dwellings within neighboring developments as determined by the Planning Commission.

The major factor driving the applicant’s request is that the lots within the Autumn Leaf PUD were approved with lot widths of 50’, with 5’ side yard setbacks, and no rear or side yard alley access like similarly sized lots within Daybreak. With the City’s standard 22’ x 22’ minimum garage size requirement, more than 50% of the façade of the homes that will be constructed on the 40’ wide building envelope will be garage doors.

The standards listed for PUD’s and Condominiums, as listed within Section 17.48.180 Letter “E” of the RM Zone states “Architectural standards of this chapter for dwellings in the R-M Zone may be altered in PUD’s and condominium projects provided that the proposed architecture style and design of the dwellings clearly surpasses and is unique to that of other dwellings in neighboring residential developments.

In exchange for garage width reduction, the applicant is proposing to provide a minimum of two 1 ½” caliper trees, of a species to be selected by staff, to be installed within the park strip area of each residential lot.

Additionally, all houses shall have a minimum front porch size of 24 square feet, with an additional on times (1x) the perimeter of the exterior to be covered with brick, stone and /or colored fiber cement siding or masonry board in addition to the minimum two feet time, (2x) the perimeter in brick and/or stone requirement. Any house with a front porch of 90 square feet or larger, will have a minimum half a foot times (.5x), the perimeter in addition to the required two feet times (2x) the perimeter.

Planner Sanderson said just as a note, this is a private gated community. The roads are all private.

Based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit Application, to amend the approved architectural standards of the R-M zone for the Autumn Leaf PUD with the following conditions and/or requirements:

1. That all houses with front porch sizes of less than 90 square feet shall be constructed with a minimum one foot times (1x) the perimeter in brick, stone, and/or hardi-plank masonry board in addition to the required two feet times (2x) the perimeter in brick and/or stone for a total of three feet (3x) the perimeter.

2. That all houses with front porch sizes greater than 90 square feet shall be constructed with a minimum half a foot times (.5x) the perimeter in brick, stone, and/or fiber cement siding or masonry board in addition to the required two times (2x) the perimeter in brick and/or stone for a total of two and half feet times (2.5x) the perimeter.

3. That all houses shall have front porches with a minimum size of 24 square feet.

4. That the garages have a minimum width of 20’ and minimum depth of 22’ as measured from inside of wall to inside of wall.

5. That the front yard be landscaped with evergreen trees, bushes, grass, and other plant material by the applicant/developer with a minimum of two, 1 ½” caliper, medium to large trees, of a species determined by staff, to be installed within six feet (6’) of the curb or sidewalk where one is present.

6. All South Jordan City Planning, Engineering, Public Safety, Parks and Recreation and other City Department requirements are met.

Commissioner Wood asked for clarification on Conditions #1 and #2.

City Planner Greg Schindler said it is 2 feet times the footage of the perimeter. This is required on the outside of the homes.

Commissioner Tominey asked how small the garage doors are being reduced to.

Planner Sanderson said the applicants are proposing to go from 22’ feet wide to 20’ feet wide. That would mean the garage door would end up being about 16 ft. wide.

Micah Peters – VP for Richmond American Homes - 732 E. Northcrest Drive, SLC – We were just about to purchase this property when we realized that 22 of the 37 lots would not accommodate our homes and were almost unbuildable. Mr. Peters said he would like to ask staff a question. On condition #4 you state that the garage measurements go from inside wall to inside wall. The current ordinance I believe states that it is measured from outside wall to outside wall. If that is what is passed tonight then 2/3 of our proposed architecture is not going to fit.

Planner Sanderson said our current ordinance does not specify from where to where. If we need to make an adjustment on this, let me know. If we change it to 21’ feet inside, does that work for you?

Mr. Peters said this is a detail that we are very conscious about. Yes, the 21’ feet will work fine.

Planner Sanderson said I also need to make a correction on item #1. It specifies hardi-plank masonry board and that is a specific brand. We need to change that to read “fiber cement board.”

City Planner Schindler asked Mr. Peters if the other measurement on #4 for the width also works for this application.

Mr. Peters said we could go down to 19’ on the width on item #4.

Chair Linda Auger Opened the Public Hearing to comments. There were none. She closed the Public Hearing.

B.2. Potential Action Item – (See IV. B.1.)

Commissioner Tominey motioned to approve File # CUP-2009.12, Conditional Use Permit Application proposing to amend the architectural standards of the RM zone for the Autumn Leaf PUD, generally located at 3800 West South along Rushton View Drive, Micah Peters, (applicant), with corrections to condition #1: instead of using the hardi-plank masonry board to read fiber cement board, and condition #4 changing the minimum width from 20’ to 19’ and minimum depth from 22’ to 21’. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Roll call vote was unanimous in favor. Commissioner Pugmire not present.

C.1. File # CUP-2009.14, Conditional Use Permit Application proposing to amend the front yard setback and architectural standards of the RM zone for South Jordan High Pointe Phases 3, 4, 5 and 6th generally located at 10800 South along 4000 West, Glen Pettit, (applicant).

Planner Brad Sanderson reviewed the background information on this item. South Jordan High Pointe was approved in 2005 and 2006 by the City’s Planning Commission and consists of seven phases with a combined total of 337 residential lots. Phase one has been recorded, with new homes currently under construction many of which are already built and some occupied. Phase two is also recorded but only consists of a single lot containing an LDS church. Phases three through seven have all received preliminary plat approval, however, only phases four and five have recorded. None of the lots with phases four and five contain any homes built or under construction. Phase seven received preliminary approval and is still owned and maintained by the original property owner, (the Rushton family), which also has yet to be recorded.

Glen Pettit, on behalf of Home Center Construction at High Pointe Phase 3,4,5, & 6, are currently in the process or has already acquired all 234 lots within phases 3-6 of the South Jordan High Pointe PUD, in which he is proposing to amend the architecture standards as well as the front yard setbacks by way of a conditional use permit.

Many of the lots are only 50’ wide, with 5’ side yard setbacks, and no rear or side yard access like similarly sized lots within Daybreak. With the City’s standard 22’ b 22’ minimum garage size requirement, more than 50% of the façade of the homes that will be constructed on the 40’ wide building envelope will be garage doors.

The standards for PUD’s and Condominiums, as listed within Section 17.48.180 Letter “E” of the RM Zone states, “Architectural standards of this chapter for dwellings in the R-M Zone may be altered in PUD’s and condominium projects provided that the proposed architectural style and design of the dwellings clearly surpass and is unique to that of other dwellings in neighboring residential developments.”

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit Application CUP-2009.14, to amend the originally approved front yard setback and architectural standards of the R-M Zone for phases, 3,4,5, & 6 of the South Jordan High Pointe with the following conditions and/or requirements:

1. That the minimum front yard setback be no less than 12’ to the house or living space and no less than 18’ to the garage as measured from the back of sidewalk or back of curb where there is no sidewalk.

2. That all houses be constructed with either three feet times (3x) the perimeter with brick and/or stone or a minimum one and a half times (1.5x) the perimeter in brick and/or stone and a minimum one and a half feet times (1.5x) the perimeter with colored fiber cement masonry material again, for a total of three feet times (3x) the perimeter.

3. That no two homes of the same elevation, style or façade colors are to be constructed within three lots on the same side of the street or two lots if across the same street.

4. That the garages have a minimum width of 20’ and a minimum depth of 22’ as measured from inside of wall to inside of wall.

6. All South Jordan City Planning, Engineering, Public Safety, Parks & Recreation and other City Department requirements are met.

Based on the conditions listed, I would make a note that we make the same adjustment on point #4 with regards to the garage width.

Commissioner Beverly Evans asked for clarification on the statement that the City is considering taking over maintenance of private streets.

City Planner Schindler said the applicant is also requesting that the City receive the private streets and make them public streets. This is going through a review in our Engineering Dept. and there has not been a decision made yet. The reason is due to the cost to the home owners association to maintain the private streets being fairly expensive. They are asking for the open space to be taken over by the City and if that happens, there would not be a need for a home owners association.

Commissioner Kevin Tominey said I just want to be clear on what we are giving and what we are getting on this. If I am reading this correctly, we are allowing the garages to be two feet closer and we are going to take it down from two times the perimeter to one and one half times, but then adding in one and one half time brick or stone, plus one and one half times fiber cement board. And they would be adding two trees.

Planner Sanderson said yes, that is correct.

Commissioner Tominey asked if we require trees by ordinance.

Planner Sanderson said no, we do not require trees in our ordinance. Trees are only required on collector streets.

Glen Pettit, 2264 W. 9170 S. – said we are not here tonight to vote on the PUD. We are just hoping that we can create some success that we can all be proud of. We picked this up from an FDIC sale and are hoping to create something positive.

Chair Linda Auger opened the Public Hearing.

Rulon Duston, Kennecott Land 4700 W Daybreak View. – I am not in support or in opposition to either of the developments being proposed here tonight. It is only that there are developers, who in this economy are doing everything they can to live up to the commitments that they made. I would suggest that you consider as part of your deliberations tonight, the things that you are giving up and the things you are gaining, and the comparison to other communities with other neighborhoods within your community that are making a go of it, and are living up to those commitments.

Lee Teerlink, 2984 Factor Place, SLC – I own four lots in this High Pointe project, I originally owned eight. Three and one half years ago our economy changed and drastically changed the economics, not only for me but for most of the people who live in this valley. I paid $640,000 for these four lots. Today, because of current conditions, the developer went bankrupt and abandoned the property and left an unsightly mess. These remaining four lots I have had on the market for $50,000 per lot and have not had a buyer today. That is a net loss of $440,000 to me and I am sure that other people in the area feel the same. This is a beautiful sight with beautiful views. My point is this, we finally have a developer that is willing to spend millions of dollars in this exact spot to help us clean up the weeds, to finish the properties that are there and make it look like a neighborhood that can be inhabited. By this activity we can finally see the appreciation of our homes and our properties. I have looked at the designs and they are different that what is there, but every neighborhood needs variances. I add my support to making the amendment.

Brett Rosen, 10937 Dune Grass Drive – As a resident of South Jordan High Pointe, it has been nothing but a headache since we have lived here the past year. We have been forced to pay HOA fees and get nothing in return. We did not get snow removal and weeds in the lot behind my house are still 6 feet tall. No matter how many times we try to work with the managing company that is working with the HOA we just can not get help. The CC & R’s are not being enforced. People are dumping here daily. I would love to see new homes go in here. My fear is that you are changing from one style and adding another that doesn’t mix. We just don’t want to see drastic changes in the architect.

Linda Rushton, 10807 S. Sienna Dune – we also own lots in High Pointe and in Autumn Leaf. I mainly wanted to see pictures of the homes being proposed here that we own lots in.

Commissioner Paul Pugmire arrived at the meeting.

Chair Linda Auger closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Linda Auger said I live in that area and it really does look terrible. I am tired of seeing the weeds and the trash. I don’t expect to se anything other than good quality homes go in here.

Mr. Pettit said we are actually taking the square foot size of the homes up to 2,600 sq. ft.

Chair Linda Auger asked Mr. Pettit if he is willing to go 19’ on the width and 21’ on the depth. Is that something you are willing to do?

Mr. Pettit said yes, I would like to make it the same.

Commissioner Evans asked Mr. Pettit how many homes he is looking at building.

Mr. Pettit said we applied for three permits 6 weeks ago to get a model home put up, but we have not seen them come back from the City. We would like to put up 10-12 models that are for sale. Right now there is nothing for sale.

Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Petit what are his plans to do with the structures that are in various phases of disrepair.

Mr. Pettit said there is only one that is partly finished, and that is owned by Zion’s Bank. The homes that Mr. Teerlink was talking about have been cleaned up and absorbed over the last two years.

Commissioner Tominey said what we are getting seems to be a pretty good trade.

Commissioner Wood said I am personally happy that there is someone that can make this project work.

C.2. Potential Action Item – (See IV. C.1.)

Commissioner David Wood motioned to approve File # CUP-2009.14, Conditional Use Permit Application proposing to amend the front yard setback and architectural standards of the RM zone for South Jordan High Pointe Phases 3, 4, 5 and 6th generally located at 10800 South along 4000 West, Glen Pettit, (applicant), with the amendment to condition #4 changing the minimum width from 20’ to 19’ and minimum depth from 22’ to 21’. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Roll call vote was unanimous in favor.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL *LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS

*Legislative Action = More Discretion, Reasonably Debatable (Subjective Standard)

D.1. File # LUA-2009.03 Future Land Use Amendment application, from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential and File # REZ-2009.03 Rezone application, from R-1.8 (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Single Family Residential) located at 2549 West 11400 South, approximately 1.21 acres, Dan Ingersoll (applicant).

City Planner Greg Schindler reviewed the background information on this item. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use designation and rezone the subject property in order to likely divide the property into three lots.

In December of 2001, the applicant submitted a concept plan application to divide this parcel into two lots under the current zoning of R-1.8. City Staff provided comments on his proposal and no further action was taken by the applicant until January 2004 when the application was re-activated. Again, the City’s Development Review Committee reviewed the proposal and provided additional comments. A preliminary subdivision application, the next step in the process, was never submitted.

The applicant has been made aware that should the Land Use Amendment and Rezoning be approved, and any large animal rights associated with the property will be forfeited.

Based on the Findings and Conclusions in the Staff Report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding Land Use Amendment Resolution No. R2009-27 amending the Future Land Use Plan Map and forward a recommendation regarding Rezone Ordinance 2009-03-Z changing the Zoning of property.

Chair Linda Auger invited the applicant up to address the Commissioners.

Dan Ingersol, 2497 West 11115 South (applicant) – I do not have anything new to add at this time.

Chair Linda Auger opened the Public Hearing.

Susan Egbert, 11323 S. 2700 W., - said I see no reason for the change to not be allowed.

Jim Bryan, 11431 S. 2510 W., - we are directly across the street from this property. We just wondered what the plan is. We would not want to see rental units going in but if they are for single family dwellings, we don’t have a problem with it.

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose reminded the Commissioners that they should not speculate what the plan is or what the lot sizes will be. Once you rezone the property, then they can do whatever is permitted for that use.

City Planner Schindler said it is proposed to zone it as R-3, which is for single family dwellings. Whether they are rentals or not, can not be controlled by the City in any way. They just can not be multiple-family attached housing units. The minimum lot size allowed is 10,000 sq. ft.

Chair Linda Auger closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Tominey asked to make a comment. The whole point of our Master Plan is that we lay out what is going to be and hopefully it creates an atmosphere where it is not adversarial with developers. We do our best home work to set the Master Plan and then we stick to the Master Plan. I think we would be setting precedence if we go outside of that. This is currently Master Planned at R-1.8. To change it, we would just be creating an island of R-3, which gives someone an argument down the road, if they can do it there then why can’t I do it.

Commissioner Wood said I agree with Commissioner Tominey. This creates a pocket and precedence. It invites future applications and would be difficult to enforce a Master Plan if we go this direction.

Chair Linda Auger said I personally do not see a problem in doing this in that area.

Commissioner Paul Pugmire asked what the minimum lot size in R-1.8.

City Planner Schindler said it is 1/3 acre, which is 14,560 sq. ft. Also, just be aware that if you do recommend approval on this application and the City Council follows your recommendation, then there would be little likelihood that you would be able to deny the rest of the properties to the west of this. We have discussed this at staff level too.

Assistant City Attorney Loose said under legislative discretion you don’t need a reason. You could say it does set a bad precedence.

Commissioner Pugmire asked what it the square footage of the current lot.

City Planner Schindler said the current lost is 1.21 acres. After UDOT acquires property it will be 1.18 acres.

Commissioner Pugmire said I would like to see the Master Plan go through public comment process first.

City Planner Schindler said public comment to the Master Plan is scheduled for sometime in November or December.

D.2. Potential Action Item – (See V. D.1.)

Commissioner Kevin Tominey made a motion of unfavorable recommendation to City Council regarding File # LUA-2009.03 Future Land Use Amendment application, from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential and File # REZ-2009.03 Rezone application, from R-1.8 (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Single Family Residential) located at 2549 West 11400 South, approximately 1.21 acres, Dan Ingersoll (applicant). Commissioner Beverly Evans seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was 4 to 1 in favor, with Commissioner Linda Auger voting no.

Commissioner Tominey said the reason for this recommendation is because it is not in our current Master Plan and it is not anticipated to change in our upcoming Master Plan. Even though it is just one lot, we need to be consistent and would set a very bad precedence if we are not consistent with what we do with our Master Plan.

Commissioner Pugmire said I would like the Council to be informed that I think this needs to wait until after the public comment period of the new Master Plan.

City Planner Schindler said I would like to let the applicant know that this will still go forward to City Council next week on September 1^st. They will review it and they will have the recommendation of the Planning Commission here tonight.

VI. OTHER BUSINESS

None

Commissioner Beverly Evans motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor.

ADJOURNMENT

The August 25, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Meeting Minutes prepared by City Recorder Anna West

This is a true and correct copy of the August 25, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes, which were approved on September 8, 2009.

South Jordan City Recorder