CITY OF SOUTH JORDAN

PLANNING COMISSION MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

September 22, 2009

 

Present:         Chairman Linda Auger, Commissioner Kevin Tominey, Commissioner Paul Pugmire, Commissioner David Wood, Community Development Director George Shaw, City Planner Greg Schindler, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose, Assistant City Engineer Shane Greenwood, City Recorder Anna West.

 

Absent:           Commissioner Beverly Evans

 

Others:           Susan Egbert, Tony Chavez, RL Yergensen, Kevin Peterson, Jacob Peterson, Gene/Chris Ashdown

 

 

6:30 P.M.

 

REGULAR MEETING

        

I.   GENERAL BUSINESS

 

A.     Welcome and Roll Call

 

Chair Linda Auger welcomed everyone attending and noted that Commissioner Evans is out of town and will not be here tonight. She said we will start the meeting and hope that Commissioner Wood arrives shortly.

 

B.     Motion to Approve Agenda

 

Commissioner Kevin Tominey made a motion to approve the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Paul Pugmire seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Evans absent and Commissioner David Wood not present.

 

Commissioner David Wood arrived at this time.

 

C.     Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting held on September 8, 2009

 

Commissioner Paul Pugmire made a motion to approve the September 8, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes as printed. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Evans absent.

 

 

 

II.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND OTHER BUSINESS

 

A.     CALENDARING ITEMS

 

Community Development Director George Shaw reminded everyone of the upcoming Vision Planning Meeting scheduled for October 14, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. and it will be over at the Municipal Services Building (Public Works).

 

B.      COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

 

None

 

C.     STAFF BUSINESS.

 

Community Development Director George Shaw said each of you has been given a copy of the Wasatch Choices Printout. He said this presentation was made a little over a year ago and the Commission was in support of the concepts behind the recommendation from Vision Utah and Wasatch Regional Council. They are asking that the Planning Commission and City Council members review these materials. We thought this had been done, however, we found that  there was never any formal action taken on it. The resolution is scheduled to go before Council for approval at the October 6, 2009 meeting in support of these principles.

 

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 # SUB-2009.17, Preliminary Plat Application for an Amended West River Estates Subdivision Plat “B”, Kevin Peterson (applicant).

 

City Planner Greg Schindler reviewed background information on this item. He said this application was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission about 25 months ago, however, it has since expired and the applicant has re-applied for a new preliminary plat approval. There have been a few changes made to the plat as well since the approval. The applicant is proposing to amend lots 1 and 2 of the West River Estates Plat “B” subdivision and is proposing to add 17 new lots to this plat. The new lots are created from the vacant land located to the east of the subdivision and immediately to the west of the river. The aforementioned lots 1 and 2 are reduced in size to about 0.4 acres. The new lots range in size from 0.33 acres to 1.75 acres. The largest lots are located at the east end of the proposed subdivision next to the Jordan River and the trail.

 

Staff Findings:

·         The proposed subdivision meets the density and all other pertinent requirements of the R-1.8 zone.

·         The proposed subdivision will be developed in phases. Phase I will include only lots 1 and 2. All other lots will be developed as part of the future phases.

·         The proposal will add around 10.7 acres and 17 new lots to the original West River Estates Plat “B”.

 

Based on the findings and conclusions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take comments at the public hearing and approve the preliminary plat subdivision application subject to conditions listed.

 

Chair Linda Auger asked if the applicant was present, and noted that he is present.

 

Kevin Peterson, 9671 S. Chavez Drive, SJC –  I have nothing new to add at this time.

 

Commissioner David Wood asked for clarification of what the “meander corridor boundary” is.

 

Director George Shaw said it is the actual change in the course of the Jordan River.

 

Commissioner Wood asked about “cross hatching” on the map and what the purpose is to show it that way.

 

City Planner Schindler said that is the buildable lot area where they would be able to construct. It meets all of the setbacks and is outside the meander corridor flood plane area. A house or dwelling  can be built on those lots anywhere in the cross hatching areas.

 

Commissioner Wood asked if the lots next to the river that have a substantial amount of land between the buildable area and the edge of the lot itself is not buildable. Planner Schindler said no, it is not buildable for homes.

 

Chair Linda Auger opened the Public Hearing to comments.

 

Lynn Zingleman, 9658 South Jordan Way, SJC – He said there are dozens of dump trucks full of gravel and dirt that are speeding down Chavez Drive and they leave debris all along the road. This is a residential area. My main concern is the Jordan River area. Everybody wants to develop along the river bottom area and soon there will not be much left. This is a beautiful area that is why residential developers and commercial developers want to develop it. Soon it will just be a canal with a little walkway next to it and a few feet of green grass and weeds. He discussed an article in the newspaper about the Jordan River and how they are trying to save open space for it. He said one of my biggest concerns is how different cities just rubber stamp everything a developer throws in front of them. I think the setbacks should be a lot more that it is right now. Please try to preserve as much as you can.

 

Chair Linda Auger closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Linda Auger asked Director Shaw if he would address the concerns of development of the river bottoms and what South Jordan is doing to preserve land there.

 

Director Shaw said it is certainly a valid concern and we do want to preserve as much as we can; however, as Mr. Zingleman mentioned, these areas are developable and we have ordinances that we have to follow. I don’t know the number of acres that the City has preserved, but there are significant areas along the corridor where the City has acquired developable ground and has made it open space. Property owners along there have the right to develop their land and as long as they are not developing in the flood plane, we can not restrict their development.

 

Chair Linda Auger asked what can be done about the big dump trucks traveling on Chavez.

 

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose said the best thing to do is get the license plate of the trucks and report it to the police.  I can also take this issue to Traffic Committee to see what can be done.

They also can report it to Code Enforcement, but calling the South Jordan Police Dept. is best.

 

Commissioner Kevin Tominey said I am recusing myself from this item because I have worked with Mr. Peterson previously and we do have a quorum present to vote without me.

 

Commissioner David Wood said I would like to confirm that the property immediately to the north and south are all zoned R-1.8 and could it be developed comparably as this property.

 

City Planner Schindler said yes. We do have a preliminary plat that we are working on for the property to the north. The property to the south we do no have anything on as yet.

 

Commissioner Wood asked if this application is consistent with our current land use. City Planner Schindler said yes, it is consistent with our current land use and with what we have been working on with the General Plan.

 

Mr. Zingleman – asked about the chain link fence that runs along there and gating. What is the purpose of the gate and who paid for it? Also, the gates are locked, shouldn’t they be open?

 

City Planner Schindler said some of the gates are for public access that will connect to Willow Trail road on up to the Jordan River Trail. The other gates would be for private property owners. Parcel A is a detention pond and is used as open space, so there will be a gate on that. The gates that are on private property should be locked and used only by the private property owners.

 

Mr. Peterson said the gate was paid for by Mr. Yergensen and the fencing was coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department. They allocated a certain cost per gate. Those were put in for the access to the river by the rear lots. On the north side there is a 20’ ft. wide corridor with a 10’ ft. asphalt trail way and landscape buffer on each side of the trail that connects down through the detention pond and to the trail way that will remain open. There is a large gate that will keep large motorized vehicles out; it will be maintained by the City. The retention pond is actually a park for the use of the people along the river. As far as the truck issue, there is a permit that Chris Lambert, the property owner to the south, has obtained with the City. It is called a Land Disturbance Permit. He has arranged to have trucks come in to provide material.  We are working with him because we feel it is advantageous to get things into place now to help accommodate our development and his development, before final asphalt and other things are put into the project. The truck route that comes off 1300 W. from Chavez Drive has been approved by the Engineering staff. I have personally told the truck drivers to drive slowly along there.

 

Commissioner Pugmire said I agree with the sentiments of Mr. Zingleman about preserving the river. I think that this one thing can be the thing that people living here in this valley 100 years from now, if we do it well, they will look back and think we have done the right thing. I have been involved on the Jordan River Blueprint and one of the things it has taught me is that there are places on the river where we can make really strong action to preserve the river and there are places along the river where we can not. Our current zoning and our current ordinances allow these uses and the land is not held by the City. As was noted, the City has purchased developable land for preservation and I hope that the City purchases more. We are bound by law to determine if this particular proposal fits our current law, and it does.

 

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

 

Commissioner Paul Pugmire motioned to approve File # SUB-2009.17, Preliminary Plat Application for an Amended West River Estates Subdivision Plat “B” Kevin Peterson (applicant). Commissioner David Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Beverly Evans absent.

 

V.   PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL *LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS

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

 

B.1.      An Ordinance amending Section 16.04.200 of the Development Code and Sections 17.24.150, 17.28.150, 17.32.150, 17.36.140, 17.40.140, 17.45.140, 17.46.140, and 17.48.140 of the Zoning Code pertaining to fencing.

 

Community Development Director George Shaw reviewed background information on this item. He said you have had this item before you previously a couple of times. This is on collector street fencing. It does not affect other front yard fencing. It only affects new fencing, not existing fencing. The current ordinance is not very flexible. It basically requires any front yard fencing on collector streets to be rod iron or similar products. The reason for this amendment is the changes that UDOT wants to make on 11400 South due to road grade changes between properties and the roadway. Where that occurs, they propose to fence certain sections and their proposed fencing they want to use is chain link. That is when we went back and started looking at the ordinance and found that the ordinance was very restrictive.  We didn’t want chain link, but the ordinance didn’t allow other types of fencing that would typically give the rural feel like split-rail fencing. The two key changes are 1) it would allow split-rail fencing, and 2) it would allow a combination of masonry and rod iron that would give a more permanent feel as well. Some of the residents concerns are that with the road being so busy, people could crash through the fence and damage their property. This only applies to collector streets and to someone that wants to put new fencing in. With UDOT coming in and doing their changes, they have agreed that instead of doing the chain link, they will do the split-rail fencing as an alternative.

Commissioner Kevin Tominey asked about section 16.04.200(A) “A temporary six foot (6’) chain link or other similar (6’) safety fence shall be installed around construction sites.”  Are we doing that on every construction site including residential single family homes?

 

Director Shaw said no. That issue came up before and I thought we had changed the text. We may need to amend that to read “significant construction sites.”

 

Commissioner Kevin Tominey asked about section 16.04.200(C)(1)(A) Height; maximum of four feet (4’).”  Is that correct?

 

Director Shaw said that should read three feet (3’). We will also correct that. 

 

Commissioner Paul Pugmire said I just want you to know that I think you have done a pretty good job on a very difficult task. Legislating taste is much more difficult than legislating morality.

 

Chair Linda Auger opened the Public Hearing.

 

Susan Egbert, 11323 S 2700 W., SJC – asked if this is only for fences on the front or does it also apply to the side yards?

 

City Planner Schindler said the side and rear yard fencing for residential development currently is required to be solid masonry wall with a minimum of six feet (6’) tall. Your property is open field and you are not required to put any fencing around it if you don’t want to. If you were to develop it and you put in housing, if the houses were to back 11400 South or 2700 West, they would be required to have a masonry wall because there is no access allowed from those roads to the individual lots, unless they front face the roads.

 

Ms. Egbert said my question is specifically to a pasture with the road widening on 11400 S.  UDOT said they would put up a three rail white fence and that will not be sufficient to keep our animals in or people out.

 

Director Shaw said the three rail is what UDOT has proposed to do; if that does not work then we will have to do some double fencing for now while we try to work out some other option with UDOT. Scott Cooley is our Engineer coordinating work with UDOT on this and I will have him get in touch with you to resolve this issue.

 

Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose asked Ms. Egbert what kind of fencing she currently has. Ms. Egbert said it is six-strand barbwire. She said at this point we don’t know how far on 2700 W. our fence will be removed for the widening of 2700 West, so will this fall under the same issue for Scott Cooley to work on.

 

Director Shaw said yes. I will have him work with you on all of your fencing issues. I will talk to him tomorrow and give him your name.

 

Christine Ashdown, 2657 West 11400 South, SJC – We face 11400th and run parallel to the street. Our home is the second from the corner. We have been told by UDOT that a 3-tier fence will go in and we are in opposition to that. We will have two accesses to our home and a 3-rail fence is aesthetically pleasing but is not efficient. I spoke with Brad in your office and he said he was going to introduce three options of different fencing, like stone or rock. The chain link fence will not work. UDOT wants the 3-tier and we do not.  It just will not hold up against the snow.

 

Chair Linda Auger asked Mrs. Ashdown what type of fence they currently have.

 

Mrs. Ashdown said we do not currently have a fence but we want something other than the split rail. We will have 4 lanes of very busy traffic and that is double what we currently have. I want to know what the three types of fencing are that Brad was going to recommend. I need to keep intruders off our property; we have already had one intruder and we are concerned about our safety.

 

Commissioner Pugmire asked Mrs. Ashdown what kind of fence she would like installed. She said precast concrete or some kind of cement with rod iron combo so that an animal or child could not get through.

 

Gene Ashdown, 2657 W. 114000 S., SJC – asked about the rental home that is west of his home. The people there are disabled. They have Russian olive trees hanging over in our property and I was wondering if the City is the one we call about having it cut back.

 

Chair Linda Auger asked staff to address the Ashdown’s concerns.

 

Director Shaw said the fencing concerns are really UDOT’s and Scott Cooley will help them coordinate that. As far as the tree types of fencing options they are 1) all rod iron fencing, 2) split rail fencing, and 3) a combination of rod iron and masonry fencing. The masonry wall sounds like it would be the best for your advantage. This particular ordinance does not require UDOT to build that wall, so it is really a separate issue different than what we are looking at here tonight.

 

Commissioner Tominey explained to the Ashdown’s that we are here tonight voting on an ordinance that changes fencing in all of South Jordan, not just the 11400 South widening.

 

Chair Linda Auger closed the Public Hearing.

 

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

 

Commissioner Kevin Tominey motioned to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the amendments as discussed. Commissioner Paul Pugmire seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Evans absent.

 

VI.  OTHER BUSINESS

 

None

 

Director Shaw said this item is scheduled to go before the City Council October 6, 2009 for their final vote on what types of materials to use.

Commissioner David Wood motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Kevin Tominey seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor, with Commissioner Evans absent.

 

ADJOURNMENT      

 

 

The September 22, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

 

Meeting minutes were prepared by City Recorder, Anna West.

 

 

This is a true and correct copy of the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting minutes, which were approved on October 13, 2009.

                                               

South Jordan City Recorder