SOUTH JORDAN CITY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 15, 2011
Present: Mayor Kent Money, Council Member Brian Butters, Council Member Kathie Johnson, Council Member Larry Short, Council Member Aleta Taylor, City Manager John Geilmann, City Attorney Rob Wall, Police Sergeant Dan Starks, Director of Business Services Jon Day, City Council Secretary MaryAnn Dean
Absent: Council Member Leona Winger
Others: Dale Evans, John Evans, Philip Webb, Donald Rout, Pam Sherburne, Lucy Grookston, Greg and Cindy Glover, James A. Grookston, Dean Pettit, Paul Stringham, Kendall Brown, Troop 1161, Jack Marsh, LR Esmay, Tyler Esmay, Mark Seethaler, Chuck Newton, Chris Adams, Daniel McKeon, Mike Flood
6:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
I. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Welcome and Roll Call
Mayor Money welcomed everyone present. Council Member Winger was excused.
He recognized some scouts present. Scout Troops 1568, 1479, 1161, and a Troop (number not identified) were introduced.
B. Opening Ceremony
1. Invocation
Council Member Short offered the invocation.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Kaleb Lundberg, scout, led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Money recognized Council Members Elect Mark Seethaler for District 1, Chuck Newton (not present) for District 2, and Steve Barnes (not present) for District 4.
C. Motion to Approve Amended Agenda Items, If Any
CM Geilmann said the agenda needs to be amended to add a closed meeting as item XI. to discuss the character and professional competence of an individual.
Council Member Butters made a motion to amend the agenda, as noted. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
D. Minute Approval
1. October 18, 2011 Regular Meeting
2. November 1, 2011 Work Session
3. November 1, 2011 Regular Meeting
Council Member Butters made a correction to the November 1, 2011 Regular meeting minutes.
Council Member Butters made a motion to approve the October 18, 2011 Regular Meeting, November 1, 2011 Work Session, and November 1, 2011 Regular Meeting minutes, with the noted change. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
II. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS
None.
III. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT
A. PACDB Update – By Amanda Robinson
Ms. Robinson said she is the new chair. They received $12,000 in a Zoo, Arts, and Parks grant. She noted the annual gingerbread contest currently going on at the Gale Center. There is also a tree sculpture made out of candy. She noted some classes being offered at the Community Center. She said Council Member Butters will be presenting the excellence in the arts community award at the Sounds of the Season concert. She discussed their partnership with Daybreak.
IV. CITIZEN COMMENT
Clark Stringham, owns the McDonald’s at The District. He said he received a notice last Friday that he was in violation of the code regarding Project Cardiac React. He said he has no problem with the program, but does have a problem with how he was treated by the employee. CM Geilmann said he and Fire Chief Evans would follow up.
Mayor Money said the Project Cardiac React program is important. He said he was sorry that Mr. Stringham felt he was mistreated.
V. SUMMARY ACTION CALENDAR
A. Resolution R2011-44, Approving a Public Arts and Cultural Development Board Arts Grant for $8,000 to a Worldwide Association of Performing Arts to Fund International Days 2012. (By Community Service Director, Don Tingey)
Council Member Short made a motion to approve Resolution R2011-44. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. Roll call vote. The vote was 4-0 in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
VI. SUMMARY ACTION ITEMS HELD OVER
None.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS
A.1. PUBLIC HEARING – Ordinance 2011-03, An Ordinance Enacting Section 17.73 Village Mixed Residential (VMR) Zone to the Planning and Land Use Code (Title 17) of the South Jordan Municipal Code. (Presented By Community Development Director Shaw)
Community Development Director Shaw reviewed the background information on this item.
Council Member Taylor asked if there is a key defining “Village Style Design” and “Barrack Style Design”. Community Development Director Shaw said the standards in the zone mimic the Wasatch Choices 2040 plan. He said it is a broad definition. He said it will be part of the development plan to submit that.
Mayor Money opened the public hearing.
Dale Evans, 3247 Millville St., said she feels the zone is unnecessary and a blank check for developers, even though the plan is only to put this zone on a couple of properties. Mayor Money noted that there is a minimum size that the property has to meet in order to be allowed this zone.
Ms. Evans said ever since site plans are not approved by the City Council, there is a disconnect between the Planning Commission and the City Council. She feels that it also limits citizen’s rights. She feels the current system allows for input. They need accountability with the developers and planners so development agreements are not changed or forgotten about. Many people move here from other cities to get away from multi use and multi family homes. They paid a premium for that. When South Jordan changes and becomes like every other city, their property values will be the same as every other city.
Council Member Johnson said they can always appeal a decision to the City Council. The Planning Commission is following the guidelines handed to them. That is why they separate it, so they can hear those appeals.
Community Development Director Shaw said it may seem like there is less public input but, in reality, it enhances the amount of public input. When zoning is attached to a property, the City Council has granted the Planning Commission the right to review and process that application. This new zone has a different set up. They receive a development plan up front and receive input from the neighbors up front. This gives the City and developers flexibility. These applications are more scrutinized than most that come through the city.
Council Member Short said he likes that they receive input from the residents up front. It will make the developments more conducive to the neighborhood. Development agreements can go along with the plans. They don’t want the agreements forgotten about.
Council Member Taylor said this gives them the opportunity to customize the development to the needs of that neighborhood. They will have the ability to put similar uses next to each other. Community Development Director Shaw said the Ordinance requires a minimum of 4 acres to qualify for this zone. It won’t be an infill zone. There are not many larger parcels left in the city.
Council Member Taylor asked if all larger parcels (more than 4 acres) will be required to change their zoning if this passes? Community Development Director Shaw said no. It would require a land use change and a development plan approval.
Council Member Butters asked if it would be a good idea to do a development agreement with each VMR proposal? Community Development Director Shaw said it depends on what is abutting the property, or if there are infrastructure concerns. He said the City will be protected either way.
Council Member Taylor asked if they are not following through on development agreements? Community Development Director Shaw said those agreements don’t last forever. If the property is not developed, the property owner should have the right to look a something different.
Mayor Money closed the public hearing.
A.2. Potential Action Item – (See VII. A.1.)
Council Member Short made a motion to approve Ordinance 2011-03. Council Member Butters seconded the motion. Roll call vote. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
B.1. PUBLIC HEARING – Resolution R2011-41, Approving the Amendment to the Future Land Use Plan Map (Application LUA-2011.04) From Low Density Residential and Commercial to Medium Density Residential and Resolution R2011-48 Authorizing the Development Agreement and Adopt Rezone Ordinance 2011-08-Z, Rezone Application REZ-2011.09. Approving the Amendment to the Zoning Map from R-M-4 to R-M-7 on Property Located at 3200 West South Jordan Parkway. Steve Broadbent/Whitmark Development (Applicant) (Presented By City Planner Greg Schindler)
City Planner Schindler reviewed the background information on this item.
Mayor Money asked if there is anything they can do to keep this from turning into apartments? Planner Schindler said no. They are looking at a new development agreement and the developer wants to do senior housing.
Council Member Johnson asked if there is any fencing requirement along the boundary to the south? Planner Schindler said a 6 ft. masonry wall would be required around the entire project, including 3200 West. It will be set back 20 ft. because of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District aqueduct. The HOA will be required to maintain the 20 ft. as well as the public park strips.
The City Council discussed a previous development where they could not prevent apartments from being developed. City Attorney Wall said in that case, the land use and zoning were done. The developer had vested rights. He said any issues that the City Council wants addressed must be done prior to the land use and zone change. They discussed development agreements. City Attorney Wall said the development agreement is recorded and runs with the land. He noted a 10 year time limit. Council Member Short asked if that time limit can be extended? City Attorney Wall said yes. It was noted that there is an existing agreement, still in effect, on the property in question.
Council Member Butters asked upon recording the new development agreement, does it supersede prior obligations? City Attorney Wall said yes, if approved by the City Council. Council Member Johnson said they can’t require certain things from the developers, but the developers can volunteer certain things as part of the negotiation process.
Council Member Butters asked what, if anything, can be added to ensure that this is an owner occupied project? City Attorney Wall said staff will have to sit down with the developer to figure out how to structure that. It should be negotiated before a land use or zone change is done. Council Member Johnson said they can’t require it, but it can be offered by the developer.
Mayor Money opened the public hearing.
Dale Evans, 3247 Millville, said some of the property is the same that they battled over in 2005. The proposal at that time is the same as it is now. It was supposed to be senior housing. It was all denied, and then there was a meeting with no public input, and the R-M-4 was approved with a development agreement that was supposed to make the property like R-4. At that time, the property included property in the Harvest Crossing Development. If that property is taken out, does the existing Harvest Crossing still meet their requirements for open space, etc? What prevents changes of plans or forgetting development agreements? If the development agreement is on the property, and the property is sold, it is still unclear as to what happens at that point.
Ms. Evans said she would like to see the requirements for the development in the zoning. She would like this to be a single family development. She would prefer not to rely on a development agreement or the future HOA. She would like to find a way to have it in the zoning so it is seen. When this application went to the Planning Commission in September, the Planning Commission didn’t understand that it was R-M-4 or that it had a development agreement. She said a developer’s desire for a high profit margin does not trump the citizen’s rights.
Chuck Newton, 3236 Cameron Park Ct., said there has been some unhappiness on how that area on the northwest corner ended up being developed. He said there is a concern regarding the curb and gutter not being put in on the east side of 3200 West. They were promised things by the developer that didn’t happen. The pool area became a retention pond with playground equipment. He said he wants to see some protections in place so they don’t have a repeat of these issues on this property.
Jack Marsh, 3252 Lewiston, said his property is adjacent to the subject property. He moved to this location in 2002. The property in question has had various proposals. His biggest concern is either commercial or large office buildings going on this property. If this developer holds to the restrictions that they claim, he believes it will be a good project. The property is currently an eyesore. Part of him likes the open space; the other part fears what could be developed. He said the proposed housing is said to be single family, single level, senior housing. He said they should give the developer a chance to build something beneficial on the land. He said he is okay with the higher density if it is owner occupied single family senior housing. He does not want apartments. Even if they built just single family homes, it doesn’t mean that will always be better because you never know who the neighbors will be. He said he is in favor of the proposal and his adjacent neighbors are also happy with Whitmark’s proposal.
John Evans, 3247 Millville, said right now, you can’t turn left off Willow Valley. People in that area go to 3200 West or drive through Jones Meadows. That is one concern.
Don Rout, 10549 S. Willow Valley Rd., said he is concerned if they can’t guarantee owner occupied housing. The idea of senior housing is a good idea. He is also concerned about the idea of building 76 additional homes. There are plenty of homes for sale now that are not selling. How do they know the project will be completed? How do they know if the construction site won’t be left partially finished? He said a field is better and safer than a partially finished construction site. What guarantees do they have that the developer will finish what they start?
Paul Stringham, 2535 Valley View Ave., said he works with Peterson Development. He said Whitmark Development has experience with this type of project. They know what they are doing. There are no guarantees in life. This project has a commitment for financing and a developer who understands the product. The demographics fit. It was noted that the application is for single level, single family housing, with 4 units to a pod.
Council Member Taylor asked if Whitmark has built in South Jordan? Mr. Stringham said he doesn’t think so. This development is protected by CC&R’s. Never have they discussed apartments for this location. It won’t be apartments; it will be a senior facility. He said both the Planning Commission and the City knew about the existing development agreement. He said business models change. Peterson Development has millions sunk into South Jordan to try to keep things moving. All they can do is comply with the development agreement. If there is something that they are not complying with, they will make it better. It was noted that this proposal would be the 2nd phase of the Peterson Development. Mr. Stringham said the market is not ripe for single family homes.
Mr. Stringham discussed the club house. He said an HOA can work well. They want this to be a nice product for the city.
Kathy Heard, 10549 S. said they still haven’t addressed the developer saying they can sell 76 units. There are many houses for sale on Willow Valley. She is concerned that they are going to build a few units and then leave. It is hard to sell houses in the area. They were told by the developer that a park and a playground would be developed on land that is part of this proposal.
Council Member Short said the only park he ever heard of was across Willow Valley, if the developer got some concessions.
Eric Peterson, Peterson Development, 225 S. 200 E., said this is a different product type. It is a senior facility. There is a need for it. It is hard to sell homes right now. This is a different niche. There is a mix of neighbors to the north. He said they have roots in South Jordan. They have to make changes, as the economy dictates. There is not enough density proposed for apartments. Apartments have never been part of the discussion. He said he does not see what is objectionable about the proposal. He noted that staff and the Planning Commission are in favor of the proposal. The owners of the property are ready to move forward.
Mayor Money closed the public hearing.
Philip Webb, Whitmark Development, said the proposal is a great product that is needed in the city. It is great for this location. They are proposing an age restricted community, 55 years and older. That is being done through the HOA. It was noted that even with that stipulation, 20 percent of the residents can be younger than 55 to allow for a spouse, for example. There is a need for this type of product. It is priced at the right point ($259,000 per unit). They feel the homes will move quickly. They have limited the height of the units at 30 ft., 35 ft. for the club house. A normal residential unit is allowed a 35 ft. roof pitch. He said their financing is contingent upon having a senior housing product.
Mayor Money asked what about open space? He was told the developers would be following the R-M-7 zone, which requires 16 percent open space. The proposed club house is included in the open space. Mayor Money asked about the width of the streets? Planner Schindler said it has to meet all Fire Department requirements. Council Member Taylor asked where will visitors park? She was told that there would be a few extra parking spaces at the club house. There would also be room to park along the streets. Each unit would have driveways that could fit 2 cars. Each unit also has a 2 car garage.
Council Member Johnson asked if language will be added in the development agreement about the age restriction? City Attorney Wall said the City can’t mandate that, but the applicant said he would put it in the CC&R’s. City Attorney Wall said the development agreement should call for the restriction to be in the CC&R’s. Mayor Money said everything they want to see happen needs to be in the development agreement.
The applicant reiterated that the proposal is a low impact community and is low impact on schools. The density is just over 6 units per acre.
City Planner Schindler said the code states that the width of a private street should be 32 ft., curb to curb, just like the public street. Parkstrips and sidewalks are not required.
Mayor Money asked if this is approved, how do they know that it will be built and the developer won’t just walk away? City Planner Schindler said it is the same as with any development. Mayor Money said they should ask all developers to present their financial backing to the City when it’s a PUD.
Mr. Webb said he is familiar with other projects that have gone under. Those have been larger projects. This is only 10 acres, and is very manageable.
Council Member Short asked where do they address the concern of the rental of this project? Mayor Money said if they put it in the HOA, and they have a strong HOA, it can correct that problem. Council Member Short asked where do they address it now? Mayor Money said in the development agreement. City Attorney Wall said the best way to do it is to require that it be put in the CC&R’s that the units be owner occupied and to require a very high threshold, like a unanimous vote, of all of the residents to allow any rental units. Council Member Short said he is not concerned about people renting out their units, he is concerned about the project becoming an apartment project.
Mayor Money said he owns a condo in an association in St. George. He said that association voted to accept the change to only allow 10 percent of the units to be rented.
Mr. Webb said the residents will self police the issue.
Council Member Butters said the City does not enforce the CC&R’s. Mayor Money concurred but said he doesn’t know why they can’t make the CC&R’s part of the development agreement. He said they can enforce the development agreement. City Attorney Wall said they can do that, if the applicant agrees to include the CC&R’s in the development agreement.
City Attorney Wall recommended that the development agreement be approved before they even consider the land use or zone change.
Council Member Johnson said the zone change would be contingent upon the development agreement. Mayor Money said if they do this, they need to take every precaution that they can to provide to the residents the promises that have been made.
B.2. Potential Action Item – (See VII. B.1.) R2011-41 Land Use Amendment
B.3. Potential Action Item – (See VII. B.1.) R2011-48 Approve Development Agreement
B.4. Potential Action Item – (See VII. B.1.) 2011-08-Z Amend Zoning Map
Council Member Butters made a motion to table item VII. B.1. until they have a satisfactory development agreement. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion.
Mayor Money said they need to understand the development agreement before any zoning is changed.
Council Member Short asked if they want to include in the motion the stipulation about the age restriction and that the units be one story. Council Member Taylor said they also need to stipulate the width of the roads.
Mayor Money said City Attorney Wall should draft the development agreement, along with the developer, based on the comments made tonight.
The City Council reiterated that the widths of the streets should meet city standards.
Roll call vote. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
Council Member Johnson requested that this item be on the next City Council agenda. The City Council concurred.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ITEMS
None.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
A.1. Street Connection and Cul-de-sac Radius Appeal #AP-2007.06, Appeal to Title 16.04.120 Pertaining to Orderly Development, title 16.04.180 Subsection “D” Pertaining to Stub Streets, title 16.04.260 Pertaining to Public Improvement on Property Generally Located at 9956 South 1300 West; John Sasine (Applicant). (Presented By Community Development Director Shaw).
A.2. Potential Action Item – (See IX. A.1.)
Community Development Director Shaw said the applicant has requested that item A.1. and A.2. be tabled.
B.1. Sign Appeal File AP-2011.05 – Appeal of Section 16.36 of the South Jordan Municipal Code Pertaining to Signs Within the PC Zone and the University of Utah Healthcare Campus Located at 1526 W. Daybreak Parkway; Kennecott Land (Applicant).
Planner Schindler reviewed the background information on this item. He said this appeal will affect this sign and this site only. He showed a picture of what the proposed sign will look like.
B.2. Potential Action Item – (See IX. B.1.)
Council Member Taylor made a motion to approve Appeal AP-2011.05. Council Member Butters seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
C.1. Resolution R2011-46, Authorizing the South Jordan City Manager to Sign a Development Agreement Between the City of South Jordan and Hawkins Capital LLC, Amending a Pending Development Agreement Pertaining to Original File No. LUA 2009.02 Proposal to Amend the City’s Future Land Use Map and REZ 2009.01, Proposal to Rezone Property from R-2.5, Single Family Residential to R-3 Single Family Residential, Generally Located at 1202 West 10175 South Along Mabey Lane. (By Community Development Director Shaw).
Community Development Director Shaw reviewed the background information on this item. He said the proposal is to combine the open space in the development with storm water facilities. He said there will likely be a temporary retention pond needed. Eventually, they hope that the retention pond area will be combined with a larger area of open space when the adjoining properties are developed.
Council Member Johnson asked if that means that at some time the property could be sold or traded? Community Development Director Shaw said yes, potentially. Council Member Johnson said they need to make sure that it’s very clear to future residents or at least the surrounding lots that it is a possibility so the City is not accused of selling off “their park”. Community Development Director Shaw said they could designate that on the plat.
C.2. Potential Action Item – (See IX. C1.)
Council Member Johnson made a motion to approve Resolution R2011-46, with the addition that verbiage be made on the deed or some documentation that the future property owners are fully aware that there is no guarantee that the temporary retention pond will be a park. Council Member Butters seconded the motion. Roll call vote. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND OTHER BUSINESS
A. CALENDARING ITEMS
Council Member Short said Beauty and the Beast is currently running at Bingham High School.
B. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Council Member Taylor said a resident expressed concern that if the City is going to maintain parkstrips, the employees should be trained to do it right. The resident claims that the employees are using edgers to mow on small sections. They are killing the turf and cutting into the bark of the tree.
Council Member Taylor said another resident mentioned that the trail is fenced off by the Jordan River and indicated that it is being re-vegetated. She said they need a discussion about the trail system and what they are going to do with it. Community Services Director Tingey said the plan is to have a single track in place when the vegetation is set.
Council Member Butters referred to a letter sent to him from the Salt Lake Homebuilders Association complimenting some City employees (Attachment A).
Community Development Director Shaw said there is no other city or county in the valley that have building permit numbers even close to South Jordan. Most are under 100 permits for the year. South Jordan had over 500 in 2010; they will have even more in 2011. He said they had 23 percent of the residential units in the valley and 9 percent in the entire Wasatch Front.
Council Member Taylor said another citizen expressed concern about large trucks parking between Bangerter and Country Crossing. CM Geilmann said they are parking on private property. The owners need to put up no trespassing signs so the city can enforce it.
C. CITY MANAGER BUSINESS
Finance Director Sunil Naidu said they are to a point where they are ready to sell the refund bond. As of today, the interest rate is 2.97. If they were to refund the money today, it would save the city $490,000 (net). He said based on their high rating, they were able to release the reserve, which is $726,000. They can use that reserve to pay down the bond. That will increase the savings another 60,000-70,000. He said they can also use the reserve for some capital expenditures at the recreation center. That is staff’s recommendation. The expense for the capital expenditures is $654,770. If they do the capital projects at the recreation center, that will equal a yearly savings in utility costs at $47,000 a year.
Mayor Money asked if they accept the 2.9 percent interest rate, or wait and see if the rates soften a little toward the end of the year? The City Council felt that it was advantageous to take the 2.9 percent interest rate.
Finance Director Naidu asked how they want to use the debt service reserve.
Council Member Johnson said whatever way they come out ahead. Council Elect Seethaler said he feels they should pay the debt service down. Council Member Taylor agreed.
Mayor Money asked if there are any other resources to fix the recreation center? CM Geilmann said to fund it, they would have to cut personnel or cut projects.
Council Elect Newton said they should use the reserves for the capital expenditures at the recreation facility. Council Member Short and Council Member Butters agreed.
Finance Director Sunil said they feel that this is the best source of money to utilize for the recreation center.
Mayor Money asked how critical are the items to be fixed at the recreation center? CM Geilmann said the lighting system and HVAC systems need to be updated. He reiterated that staff’s recommendation is to use the money for expenses in the recreation center.
Mayor Money agreed that it is a good use for the money, if they get an 8 percent return. The City Council concurred.
D. NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Butters made a motion to adjourn the regular City Council meeting and go into a closed meeting to discuss the character, professional competence, or mental health of an individual. Council Member Short seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor, with Council Member Winger absent.
This is a true and correct copy of the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting minutes, which were approved on December 6, 2011.
South Jordan City Recorder