CITY OF SOUTH JORDAN
PLANNING COMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
November 22, 2011
Present: Chairman Clark Mabey, Commissioner Linda Auger, Commissioner David Wood, Commissioner Russ Naylor, Commissioner Alex Winder, Commissioner Beverly Evans, Community Development Director George Shaw, City Planner Greg Schindler, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose, Deputy City Engineer Jeremy Nielson, Deputy City Recorder Cindy Valdez.
Absent: Commissioner Paul Pugmire
Others: Justin McKinnon, Ted Brinton, Rulon M. Dutson, Jana Brinton, Ken Larsen, De Ann Lloyd, Steven Smith, Carol Smith, Mark Bennett, Fred Philpot, Katherine Wiese, Joe Vinsubus, Mindy Hunsaker, Brett Lindsey, Michael Reading, Scott Kalipetsis, Ruth Kalipetsis.
6:30 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
I. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Welcome and Roll Call
Chairman Clark Mabey opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. He also noted that all Commissioners are present except Commissioner Paul Pugmire, he will be absent from tonight’s meeting.
B. Motion to Approve Agenda
Commissioner Linda Auger made a motion to approve the November 22, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner David Wood seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6-0 in favor with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
C. Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting held on October 25, 2011
Commissioner Russ Naylor made a motion to approve October 25, 2011 meeting minutes with changes. Commissioner Linda Auger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6-0 in favor with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
II. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND OTHER BUSINESS
A. Calendaring Items
City Planner Greg Schindler said your next scheduled meeting is December 13th and the last meeting of the month is scheduled for December 27th. At this time we do not have anything scheduled for that meeting, so we need to decide tonight if you want to cancel the meeting. It is scheduled for the day after the Christmas Holiday. Generally in the past the Commission has cancelled that meeting because it falls in the middle of the holiday. It is up to the Commission, but if you are going to cancel the meeting we need to vote on it tonight, it will be too late to do it at the next meeting because of noticing.
Commissioner Linda Auger motioned to cancel the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 27, 2011 since there are no items pending on the calendar. Commissioner Beverly Evans seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously Vote was unanimous in favor with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
B. Comments from Planning Commission Members
Commissioner Linda Auger said I will be absent from the December 13th meeting. I have a church obligation that same night.
C. Staff Business
City Planner Greg Schindler said I would like to make everyone aware that there are three of the Commissioners that their terms expire at the end of this year; Commissioner Wood, Commissioner Pugmire and Commissioner Evans. Commissioner Evans has expressed a wish to be re-appointed and the Council will look at that. We do have a concern that if the Council does not make those appointments on their January 3rd meeting, all three commissioners will still need to stay on the Commission until those re-appointments are made, so your terms do not expire until the re-appointments are made.
D. New Business
None
III. CITIZEN COMMENT
Chairman Mabey opened the Citizen Comment period. There were none. He closed the Citizen Comment period.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL **ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ITEMS
**Administrative Action = Less Discretion, Substantial Evidence (Objective Standard)
A.1. Issue: SAVERS – AMENDING CITY TOWNE CENTER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
Address: 10551 South Redwood Road
File No: SP-Amend-2011.33
Applicant: Rusty Bollow
Planner Brad Sanderson reviewed background information on this item.
Rusty Bollow, 6915 Immigration Road Salt Lake City, Utah – said I think Planner Brad Sanderson did a very thorough job explaining what this is going to look like. We have taken extreme care to keep things looking like they already do. Robert’s has expressed interest with the owner to move out, and has requested to be released from their lease. We have talked to Savers about moving into the space, and so essentially there will be no gap in vacancy, which is much better situation than having a vacant store. Again, I would like to express that fact that we have taken a lot of care from the instruction of the Architectural Review Committee to keep the façade of the building looking as much as possible as it does right now.
Chairman Clark Mabey said I see cars going through the building with exhaust, how are you going to handle the ventilation, especially if you have neighbors to the side of you who may also get those fumes
Mr. Bollow said a solid wall will be built on the south side of the Remax building, and the wall will be enforced between the old Robert’s space, and what will now be the Saver’s space. There will also be an exhaust handling system that will need to be approved by the City. We are in the process of submitting plans to the Architectural Engineering, as well as Fire Safety.
Chairman Clark Mabey said one of our Planning Commissioners operates out of the Remax building, and I am sure he has more concerns about the fumes than I do.
Mr. Bollow said there will be a solid wall constructed with an exhaust handling system. The regulations towards exhaust are extremely stringent, and so therefore we don’t anticipate there being any issues what so ever. Savers will have a set of double doors inside of the tunnel, so when you drive in, someone will come out and greet you, take the things out of your car, and take them inside. It will be a much more efficient operation than we had originally proposed.
Commissioner Linda Auger said this is going to be on the west side of the building, which is basically the front of the building, what are you going to do if you get 4 or 5 cars lined up and it blocks traffic? That does seem to be the main thorough fair going back and forth from north to south along that area, and if your people come and there are 4 or 5 cars are already lined up, you are going to block traffic.
Mr. Bollow said we do have some traffic control devices that we have proposed, which were recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Committee, due to the fact that we did address that issue as best as possible. We can fit three cars within the building, and the amount of drops that will occur based upon the discussion with the Planning Commission, as well as Savers, we don’t anticipate that being a situation. This is a 28,000 square foot usable space, and with that size of store we do not anticipate the traffic flow to be that intense.
Commissioner Linda Auger said if you don’t think the traffic flow will be that intense, then why are you doing such big changes? Why can’t they just go around the back? I read the letter from the Manager Trustee of this area, and if you don’t think there is going to be that much traffic, why all of the changes? Why go through all that, just have the people drive around the building and drop off in the back.
Mr. Bollow said there will be traffic. The drop area is extremely critical and it needs to be as user friendly and visible as possible. The reason being, Savers is partners with an organization called Big Brothers, Big Sisters here in Utah. When Big Brothers, Big Sisters comes to your house and collects your things, you think those things are for the kids, but actually they are not. What they do is sell those goods to Savers, and Savers pays Big Brothers, Big Sisters. They utilize the money they receive in order to benefit the programs they offer. It’s not on a per poundage basis. The way it works out it is about $8.00 per pound of goods. Savers operates on a pretty tight margin, it is not a huge profitable business. The amount of expense that it cost them to process clothing in a drop situation is about $2.00 per pound. The reason is all they have to do is sort it and clean it. Savers are also responsible for recycling over 200,000 tons of goods per year through their facilities, which stays out of the landfills. That is neither here nor there in regards to this, but that is why it is so critical. They do operate on extremely tight margins, and it is a much cheaper way for them to get goods in their stores.
Commissioner Linda Auger asked Mr. Bollow, do you have handicap parking in the front of the store? You are removing three stalls, so I am kind of concerned about the number of handicap parking you will have.
Mr. Bollow said we will not be removing the handicap parking. We did a parking count in that lot itself, and it is actually over parked by about eleven stalls and you require one stall for every 200ft of store space.
Commissioner David Wood said actually, I think this is a pretty creative solution. Although, I echo the sentiments of Commissioner Auger, I think the impact on the visual of this building is really unfortunate. This is really a flag ship for our City. It’s the commercial that is adjacent to City Hall and a lot of our public space, and it is just not an optimal way to look at a building, and I think probably you appreciate that.
Mr. Bollow said, what I would say to that is again we have worked with the architectural committee to do everything we can to minimize the impact. The door in the front is going to be on a sensor system and will be closed and open only when a vehicle is there, the door will also have a glazed aluminum glass that will match what is already existing,; you will be able to tell the difference but that is one of the things that we went back and forth on in trying to make everyone happy. The fact is that we are in tough economic times and Roberts wants to vacate the space, but they still have a lease for a very short period of time. Whether they remain in business or not, who is too know. Regardless, in 2 years they will vacate the space and if we are still in the economy that we are in now, there is a potential of having a vacant store space for quite a long time, which is not efficient to the owner, City or anyone else. We were able to structure a deal between Savers and the owners, which has taken quite a bit of time. We actually do have a signed lease documents pending certain approvals, so the deal is ready to move forward and we think it will be a win, win for everyone. We do understand. That’s why we have taken the time and effort to really go through a number of different scenarios and come up with the best possible way to make this work.
Commissioner David Wood asked Mr. Bollow, did you entertain any scenario where you had a drop off point that perhaps was not even adjacent to your building?
Mr. Bollow said as a matter of fact we did. Savers has something like 270 stores across the United States, Canada and Australia so, they are a very reputable retailer. In all those locations they have never done anything like that, and they were afraid that efficiencies would play into it, particularly with our winter weather. We actually looked at a vacant corner space nearby, but our big push was signage along 10400 and a few other places, but it wasn’t a functional aspect for them.
Commissioner Wood said is this going to look like a garage door?
Mr. Bollow said It will be a garage door, but we will do everything we can to make it look as less intrusive as possible.
Chairman Clark Mabey opened the Public Hearing to comments.
Brett Lindsey, 1807 Orchard View Drive – I live in the Peach Blossom neighborhood located to the north of the Post Office. This is our first appearing of the Savers proposal, and we are taken back a little bit. I want to say that I am not in favor of the proposal. I am sorry I hope it doesn’t come across as anything personal, but I don’t think it fits in with everything else South Jordan is trying to be, especially in this shopping center.
Chairman Clark Mabey closed the Public Hearing.
Assistant Attorney Ryan Loose said the conditional use in the zone is for second hand good retailing. They already have the conditional use with certain conditions that you placed upon it last time. The main reason this came back, is because they are changing their site plan more than a minor amendment, which staff can approve. The conditional use can be revisited for conditions due to aesthetics and there are detrimental effects that you have are on your list. It is not necessarily the drive thru that is the problem it is the aesthetics and the detrimental effects of the use of a second hand retailing, and their proposal on how to accomplish that use. Just understand the bays themselves are not on our list of what is conditional.
Commissioner Linda Auger said this is the third time we have seen this proposal. I don’t like it when people have a proposal before us and they come in saying: “if you don’t let us have what we want, then maybe we won’t be here” to me that is a threat and I don’t appreciate that. However, with that being said, I can understand the residents concern about second hand clothing. I have been into a Savers and I have seen some that are very nice. The whole aspect of a garage door and the aesthetics is a concern for me. If there is not going to be a lot of traffic, I don’t quite see the need for it. I don’t understand why they can’t just drive around the back. If I am going to donate clothes to someone, I am going to take it wherever I need to take it. I want Savers to either come into the City, or not come into the City, one way or the other.
Chairman Clark Mabey said if I remember right the conditional use that has been approved has a drop off in the front.
Commissioner Linda Auger said I know that, but Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose said we can re-look at the conditional use base on aesthetics. I just find having a garage door in the front of the building not very appealing.
Commissioner Russ Naylor said I personally had a little difficulty with the idea of people just pulling up in front of the store. I think it is a much more efficient plan to allow people to pull into a bay. They are clear back in the center space where the doors are that connected with the store, so they can get quite a few cars lined up within that bay, which will prevent backup out in the traffic lane. This was one of our main concerns when we saw the original application. There is still quite a bit of room past the door so that the attendant could have them pull forward to the far eastern door if they get stacked up a little bit. I do share the concerns about the general change of the look, because as nice as a full glass aluminum section door looks, it still is substantially different in appearance than the store front. Just as a general comment, this is our premier shopping center and it is in the center of our community. The idea that Roberts would go out and we would end up with a second hand clothing store, I guess it wouldn’t have been our first choice, that being said, under the guidelines that have been established for granting conditional use permits, there is not any reasonable justification that we could not approve a conditional use permit. All that being said, I do think this is a positive change to what we approved several months ago, so I would be supporting their application.
Commissioner David Wood said I am going to differ with my college on this one. . I don’t think this is a positive change. I think the idea of a pull through in a major retail center like this is not a good idea. I think the pull up and the drop off is much more intrusive, much more aesthetically pleasing, and I think if we have the opportunity to re-visit the conditional use based on aesthetics, this is where we would do that. I welcome Savers in to the City, and I think they serve a good function, but I think this location is problematic for that personally, I am really struggling with this proposal and I am inclined to not go forth for that reason. The other point about the garage door, it is just not a great thing to have on that, but it can always be reversed. I am just really struggling with this. I know there is going to be flowers planted in the front, and they are going to make it as nice as possible, but conceptually a pull thru on this is just really difficult, so I am leaning against this.
Commissioner Beverly Evan said one of the challenges in that area is traffic. There are times I have been in that area shopping and the traffic is dangerous, especially for a handicap person. You can barely get in and out of there, it is almost impossible for someone in a wheelchair. I think it could really be a safety issue.
Commissioner Alex Winder said I also have some concerns with the aesthetics of the building. I work in the Remax building and traffic is really bad in that area; I know because I work there every day. There are parking issues, there are already not enough parking spaces and the traffic is always backed up.
Chairman Clark Mabey said I know before we addressed the aesthetics of how it would fit in, and how we would make it work. I wasn’t real pleased with the drop off, but we were assured of the way they do things, and the systems they use, that it would still look good, and the store fronts would look well and maintained. With that I felt that it was fine, I thought this was a creative solution, but I had concerns on how I thought it would look. I don’t know about the efficiency stand point, but I believe it is probably better than from a shopping stand point; I just don’t think I would like to see a garage door. I do have a question for Mr. Bollow. Was there something with the front drop off when it was approved before that was not working well, or just after thinking about it for a while you thought this would fit in better?
Mr. Bollow said it was for all of those reasons. I do want to say I apologize if you thought I was threating you earlier, I just want to comment on that quickly. There is no threat; it is just that Savers does operate 270 locations and they have figured out a way that works, and doesn’t work. So if things don’t work the way they need them to work based on the projection for sales, then they can’t move forward. After we got the initial approval we looked at the issues that the committee originally had about stuff being left in front. We got together with the owners to see how we could remedy this and make it even a cleaner use. After savers did this, they completed an analysis of the difference between stores that have pull through drops, and stores that do not, and the difference in the amount of product received because of the ease of the customer to pull through and not have to get out of their car. Like I said before, times are tough and Savers is actually thriving right now because the economy is tough.
Rob Thompson, – Owner of Savers in the South Jordan Towne Center and Market Place – We share your aesthetic concerns and you can see that in the way we have demonstrated and cared for the shopping center. We came in after we bought the shopping center in 2007 and took care of all the parking issues. We have worked very hard at maintaining a very good occupancy. We have been great partners, we very much appreciate the City of South Jordan and all the things you have done to make the main entry to your City Hall and our shopping center very attractive, and it has been very successful through our partnership. We share your concerns about the aesthetics, and we have worked very hard with the architect to come up with what we thought was the best solution. One of the things that we were concerned about was people dropping things in the front of the store. We did not want that for the look of the center because we take great pride in the shopping center, as do you all. As you consider this, we believe very much that Savers will be a positive addition. Before we got very far down the road with Savers, I went and toured the store and looked at the merchandise and concluded that it would be a net positive for the retailers here. We are sad to see Roberts go, none of that is our doing. They are closing all of their stores in the valley, and are leaving the retail business altogether as their leases expire. To the extent that you have concerns, if we can find a new way to address those we will. We don’t want this to be a detriment to the rest of the shopping center. We have a lot of money invested here and we want this to add to this town, restaurants, and all of the shoppers that come. In regards to the traffic, we have a lot of parking spaces out front. When we talked to Savers and sat in front of the store for an hour watching people do drop off to see how many people come and go, you get one, two, and occasionally three. In total right now, you can put three cars in the tunnel and one outside, which has no impact on traffic. I would assume on an odd occasion there may be one or two extra cars on a Saturday afternoon or something, but the vast majority of the time that I sat at Savers and watched the drop off it was very minimal.
Commissioner Alex Winder asked Mr. Thompson, can they reverse the traffic and have it come from the east side?
Mr. Thompson said Savers will not agree to that. We really thought the remote drop off out front by the urgent care was going to be perfect, I even offered to buy them two golf carts to go back and forth, but they would have nothing to do with it. Everything you have discussed we have talked about in our offices, and this is what they will do, and we have our heart and soul in it to make it great.
A.2. Potential Action Item – (See IV. A.1.)
Commissioner Russ Naylor Motioned to Approve File # SP 2011.33 Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Amendment with the two changes made by staff. Chairman Clark Mabey seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was 3 for approval and 3 against, with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
Commissioner Linda Auger said these guys came before us and we tried to talk to them about putting the drop in the back, and it was no they couldn’t do it, it just wouldn’t work it had be a front drop off, and so we went ahead with a front drop off and now that’s not good enough. They want this appearance in a little mall, a little shopping area with a huge big door. Mr. Thompson just got through saying that the most they have is three to four people dropping off in an hour. That to me does not justify the changing of the front of that building to be that drastic different, if they had a constant stream of people that would be different, but not for just three or four people. I just don’t think we should approve something that is so aesthetically different from what is already there just to accommodate a few cars per hour.
Commissioner Beverly Evans said I am going to speak from personal experience. I am in a wheelchair and I will tell you that this is one of the most dangerous sections that I have ever had to get in and out of at a store. There is not enough adequate wheelchair handicap access in that area. When I shop there, often times I am clear down the street trying to find an entrance on the cement for a wheelchair and I usually have to go clear to the end. I have had a couple of close calls in that area, and that is my concern. You have to be sensitive to the fact that not everybody is mobile and has to adjust to that. That has been a dangerous parking space for me. I go into Roberts quite often and when people back out of a parking space they do not see someone in a wheelchair, it is very dangerous in that area. If you address that problem then I probably won’t have an issue with it.
Commissioner Beverly Evans motioned to Approve File # SP 2011.33 Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Amendment with additional handicap access curb cuts as determined between applicant and staff. Commissioner Russ Naylor seconded the motion.
Commissioner David Wood said I think it is problematic to run motions on the fly like this. I think if we are going to make a change like this, something this significant to the heart of the City, we want it to be thought out, reviewed, and something we can see visually, rather than passing something we shouldn’t. I would rather see something concrete on paper, and how it is going to look, something that everyone has agreed to as being appropriate. For that reason I would vote against this amendment, not that it is not a good idea, it just think it needs to be structured properly for the Council to consider fully.
Commissioner Linda Auger said I agree with Commissioner Wood, before I would ever change my mind on this I would like to see what the proposed changes are going to be.
Commissioner Beverly Evans withdrew her motion and motioned to table this item and come back to the next Planning Commission meeting when staff has had time discuss safety changes with the applicant. Commissioner Russ Naylor seconded the motion. Roll call vote was unanimous 6-0 in favor, with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
B.1. Issue: RIVERPARK RETAIL ONE BUILDING ONE
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Address: 10621 South River Front Parkway
File No: SP-2011.31
Applicant: Justin McKinnon, RiverPark Development
City Planner Greg Schindler reviewed background information on this item.
Commissioner David Wood asked if there is only one entrance to this entire section of this development on the south side.
City Planner Greg Schindler said this is the only entrance.
Commissioner David Wood said what about traffic, do we know of any issues?
City Planner Greg Schindler said we haven’t had any issues with the amount of retail that is in there, or with offices that are fully occupied.
Justin McKinnon, 10701 S Riverfront Parkway #135 South Jordan, Utah – said I don’t have anything to add I am just available to answer any questions.
Chairman Clark Mabey opened the Public Hearing to comments. There were none. He closed the Public Hearing.
B.2. Potential Action Item – (See IV. B.1.)
Commissioner Linda Auger Motioned to Approve the Site Plan Application for Construction of Retail Building on property located at 10611 South River Front Parkway with the one requirement by staff. Commissioner David Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was unanimous 6-0 in favor, with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
City Commerce Director, Brian Preece, said if I seem a little distracted it is because we just got a press release that Mayor Money has resigned. He has accepted a new job assignment in New Zealand.
Brian Preece reviewed background information on this item.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POTENTIAL *LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS
*Legislative Action = More Discretion, Reasonably Debatable (Subjective Standard)
C.1. Issue: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PRESENTATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
Fred Fillpot, with Lewis Young, Robertson and Burningham - I have my phone on and it may go off while I am here. My wife is pregnant and could deliver relatively quickly, so I will have to leave. We met with several of the developers this week and went through the process regarding the economic strategy for the City. I presented an illustration that was a drawing of our family by my 4 year old son. It was a portrait of our family with 4 heads, and 3 really long legs sticking out of those heads, so from his prospective our family was all legs and a little head on top. The reason that I share this is for the purpose to framing, or illustrating economic strategy, and to provide the prospective for the City on how to look at economic growth and development with the municipality within the City boundaries. I thought I would share some of the highlights of this plan, and then take any questions and feedback. The overall purpose of this document is to serve as a guide regarding planning, and decisions for economic strategy and growth in the City. First we will be establishing a strategic vision centered on set goals and objectives. As I go through this, I thought we could turn to some of the pages in this document. I think all of you have a copy of the Strategic Plan. For example how we use this for strategic planning and establishment of goals is, if you look in section (2.) there are clarified goals and strategies outlined in this document regarding strategic planning. The first part of that section addresses some of the general strategies; it is the focus points that economic centers should center on. The first thing should be promoting transportation improvements and some of the elements the City should focus on regarding transportation, looking at regional retail perspective, fostering neighborhood and community growth, and etc. It goes through some of the overall strategies that the City should focus on when promoting economic growth, as part of this section there is the actual economic goals that are outlined, that would be part of the General Plan as well. Some of these focus on land use and so the applicability for this body here. For example, some of the decisions that will be contemplated this evening involve economic strategy and growth. The River Park Corporate Center and Retail Development for example, is a focus area in this economic strategic plan. This document also serves as an informative document. There is quite a bit of information as you can see with 100 plus pages there is quite a bit to read through. If you turn to page 18, this highlights some of that information, all of the demographic data that we collected analyzed and summarized. The focus of that section is really highlighting the positive elements and strengths of the City as a robust community with high incomes, high education levels, large family sizes, high average home values, and so it is really to focus on that information that illustrates the strength of South Jordan. This document also serves as way to understand the general economic perspective or environment in South Jordan. Section (4.) addresses a lot of these general economic characteristics of the City, so looking at the national economy, state economy and how South Jordan’s economy plays into that, as well as looking at market share retail sales leakage. What that represent is the retail sales that are occurring within the community relative to what the state average looks like. If you were to capture 100 Percent of that state average, what should your sales be, then we compare to what is existing and see if it is efficient, or if there is room to grow. So there is a lot of information that frame the general economic environment for the City. The meat of the report really focuses on establishing economic districts within the community. As you know a commercial development tends to center around transportation nodes and population centers, so communities tend to have specific economic districts that will focus on different types of retail, and meeting the needs of the community. If you turn to the Executive Summary there is an illustration that shows the economic districts and on page 3 of the summary there is a map at the bottom that shows the economic districts that we focused on for this report. There are 6 economic district’s, from west to east you have the Daybreak Community, Harvest Village which is the intersection of Bangerter and South Jordan Parkway, The District is one of the major retail centers in the community, South Jordan Parkway that includes the Towne Center area, River Park office economic district and the I-15 corridor. This study highlights some of the characteristics of those districts. The retail sales that occur within each of those districts, and the percentage of total retail sales within the community. The I-15 corridor accounts for about 45 percent of all retail sales that occur within South Jordan City and the access that is along I-15. The District accounts for about 25 percent of the retail sales within the community, so this report really highlights all of the characteristics. As the City focuses on this economic strategy, the idea is to create a synergy between these districts because each one serves a unique purpose for the community. Recently the Wasatch choices for the 2040 plans were completed and I attended a discussion where Mayor Carroon and the Wasatch Regional Council presented some of the findings. They really highlighted the extreme growth that is going to occur along the Wasatch front with households, population and demographic changes. A lot of that is going to occur in the south portion of the valley, in the South Jordan area where there is available land and room to grow. Having an economic strategy and how we are going to move forward and address and plan for economic growth, will help take that demand and shape it in a positive way for the community. The overall purpose of this document is to be a guide and resource in the decision making process from the planning stages through the implementation as we look at these goals and objectives.
Commissioner Linda Auger said I live on the west side of South Jordan out by Bangerter Highway. We had an Albertsons in that strip mall, and now we have an empty lot. I myself, and many of my neighbors were all excited because we heard about Costco and the Super Walmart coming to that South Jordan area, and now it has been sitting there for quite a while. I understand that if I shop in South Jordan they get 50 percent of my sales tax, but it is easier to jump on Bangerter Highway and go to Riverton than it is to go all the way across 10600.
Mr. Preece said Costco basically told us that we needed to double the population size in Daybreak before they would be ready to come, and we are about 3/4 of the way there.
Commissioner Linda Auger asked what about the Walmart?
Mr. Preece said it is slated to start this spring.
Commissioner Linda Auger said I would like to compliment South Jordan on the District, I love that place, it is absolutely incredible. I know there is another retail place coming, and they have just recently put in the Sizzler restaurant, it is an amazing place.
Chairman Clark Mabey opened the Public Hearing to comments. There were none. He closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Clark Mabey said I was on the Planning Commission for 5years quite a while ago, so I saw a lot of what was going on in the City. This was quite some time before the City had its growth. I worked 4years or more with the Chamber of Commerce and was on their board, worked with the economic development of the Chamber of Commerce, and then came back to the Planning Commission the last couple of years. It has been fun to see a lot of the things that as a City I have been part for the last 11years finally written down and documented, that this is really what we are trying to do and that the economic growth has a plan, it is not just haphazardly happening.
Commissioner David Wood said I went over this on the weekend and I thought this was really a great piece of work. This was very interesting data. I have to think the information in the plan would be something of really critical nature for anybody considering doing business in the City, because the data and information is instructive and directive to anybody who comes into the City. I am surprised that it has been 13 years since we have done this. I would hope that the City would look at updating this every 5 years. This is a great piece of work.
Commissioner Beverly Evans said as we have the opportunity to work with other Municipalities, you see where they have not done this type of planning. There is a difference in how the communities have developed, and it takes a very stark turn when they haven’t paid attention to some of the things that are in this plan. I commend you on a great job done.
C.2. Potential Action Item – (See V. C.1.)
Commissioner Beverly Evans motioned to recommend to City Council the Approval of Resolution R-2011-43 adopting 2011 Economic Development Strategic Plan as the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. Commissioner Linda Auger seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was unanimous 6-0 in favor, with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
Brian Preece said I apologize for not introducing my Associate Director, Kelly Pfost, at the beginning. She is here with me tonight and we are now a department of two.
Assistant City Attorney Ryan Loose said I was just handed by City Manager John Geilmann the official press release concerning Mayor Money’s resignation if you would like me to read it. Assistant City Attorney Loose read the resignation letter aloud.
D.1. Issue: KLOTOVICH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE TO VILLAGE MIXED USE
REZONE FROM OFFICE SERVICE (O-S) AND AGRICULTURAL (A-5) TO VILLAGE MIXED USE (VMU), IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MDP).
Address: 10040 South Redwood Road
File No: LUA-2011.08 & REZ-2011.08
Applicant: Myron Joe Klotovich
City Planner Brad Sanderson reviewed background information on this item.
Chairman Clark Mabey said this is a fairly new development in the City Planning, in that, in the past if it was office, it came with rights that you could build something very large, and there was not a lot of flexibility to mix things together. This a fairly new way that the City has come up with to try and put in more of a mixed use that has more restrictions. Even though an office zone would allow something up to 6 stories tall as a whole parcel if they agreed to a master development agreement, it could be restricted to say you have to keep the office space down low, but mix in residential along the residential. I am like you, if I am in a residential, I want nothing but residential around me. If you are going to put something there, let’s try and put some restrictions on it so that it makes it more palatable for everybody, and yet can still accomplish the office and other things. This is really a new concept that we have just seen in the last few months. It is an interesting way that we are trying to address these infill zones, and yet protecting the people who are around it.
Commissioner David Wood asked Planner Sanderson, is it your understanding that this development will only proceed with the cooperation of the two families, and that it won’t proceed separately?
Planner Sanderson said it could proceed separately. The way the property lines are set up, it is three office buildings on the lower right hand corner, as well as these two residential units. Those all fall in the Kalipetsis property. They could phase it and maybe do the residential component first. It depends on traffic studies, access points, and other stuff like that. The other family could allow a road across their property without doing a rezone and any kind of land use changes that is definitely an option.
Commissioner Linda Auger said they don’t have a developer that is ready to build on this property at this time, so are they just waiting for us to see if we are going to do the land amendment, and do the rezoning, and then see if they can put it out there for a development company to come in and do what they want with it.
City Planner Brad Sanderson said that is what they have explained to us. The market may not be today, but that is their intent.
Myron Joe Klotivich 10040 S. 1700 W. South Jordan, Utah – said I would just like to touch on a few things. The upper right corner is pretty low density, and is almost one for one on those houses. Across the back of the canal it is low profile to try and keep an unobstructed view for those people out of respect for them, I am really just trying to be a good neighbor. The front is obviously a different scenario, the mixed use is a new concept to me, I am still learning. I have a really extraordinary architect. He is well thought of, and is really creative. When I first saw this drawing, it was a little bit shocking. The first thing I did is go and talk to the Kalipetis’s, and what they are saying is; they do not want to change their life style right now, they are later on in years, they have their family and grandchildren, and I respect that. I promised them that I would not do anything to them in a reasonable amount of time. I can’t say never, because I don’t know how long I am going to be around. I like the concept, the plan and the design. I am big on all of these things. I really like the District they have done a great job there. I really believe in planning and in design, but there is no hurry, this is not going to happen quickly; especially in this economic time. I would like to say something in closing. When McCarthur came years ago and they wanted to build a building on Redwood Road, it was very emotional. It was the first commercial building in the neighborhood and there were people that voiced very strong opinions, but what I told them, I would also like to say tonight with my heart, is that I am a local person, I own this place and I want to be a good neighbor, I am a realist and I know I am not going to make everyone happy, but I will do the best that I can for a long period of time.
Chairman Clark Mabey opened the Public Hearing to comments.
Scott Kalipetsis, 1527 E. Lakewood Dr. South Jordan, Utah – said Planner Brad Sanderson stated, and it also states in your background information, that our property is not included in this. However, in the MVP it is prominently included, with the main entrance basically cutting the property in half. I don’t know if the Council needs to see something different for their purposes. They are interested in seeing a design that does not include our property. That is my main point of emphasis.
Tom Warren, 10057 Silver Street Drive South Jordan, Utah – said my house is on the west side of this property on the other side of the canal. We bought this property because it has a very nice view of the mountains and of the temple, and we paid a premium for the lot. I am really supportive of what Mr. Klotovich is proposing to get rid of the possibility of big tall buildings. We built our house from our master bedroom, our other two bedrooms, our family room and our kitchen, so they all look at the mountain. We would sure like to keep it that way. The idea of having single family dwellings up toward the canal appeals to us. Our concern is, if you allow two story single family housing we will be looking into somebody’s bedroom. We would like it if you could specify that those houses be only one story homes.
Commissioner Wood said I should disclose that Tom Warren is my neighbor, and I am also a resident on the west side of the canal, just two houses to the north.
Deann Lloyd, 1884 W. Orchard View Circle South Jordan, Utah – said the only concern that I have is the traffic. Orchard View Ave Drive is the only in or out access for 55 homes in the Peach Blossom town homes subdivision. When we moved in 21 years ago we were promised that when 9800 S went through that would have an access out to 9800, now it is not happening. Merit Medical has bought all of that land and fenced it off, that is their right, they bought it. People say you have an emergency exit down there, but there is a big sign down there that says “Do Not Enter by Order of the South Jordan Police Department.” Even if we did enter, we couldn’t get out on to 9800 because Merit Medical has a fence up there. I don’t know what they intend to do, if they are going to develop it very soon, but it seems to me that legally South Jordan could have a problem with 55 residents, and not one home in there that has just one car. If we had an emergency, how would we get out? One time we had a medical helicopter that had to land in our circle to take out a baby that was dying. I have had incidents with two accidents out on Redwood Road, and I could not get out or in because the Police had shut us off. They told me to go to another entrance. There is no other entrance to my home, so they had to move all of the barricades so I could get home. It just seems to me to be a real safety issue. The school children have to be carpooled because they cannot get out and walk on the beautiful sidewalk. The poor families that live on that corner, have so much traffic on it, sometimes they cannot get out of their driveway.
Emily Lobos, 9983 S. Peach Park Cove South Jordan, Utah – said I am one of those poor families that live right on the corner. We have lived there 11 years and I cannot tell you how many accidents we have seen on that corner, although I am fine with the mixed use, I am absolutely against this plan. To have a road right there for more traffic to come in and out of, there are lots of kids. To have more traffic going in and out of that community would be totally catastrophic. There have been emergencies that we cannot get in or out as it is. It sound like you would do a traffic evaluation, so hopeful will show you that there should not be a road there.
Brett Lindsey, 1807 Orchard View Drive South Jordan, Utah – said I am the 3rd house in the row of homes that you see there. I also support Mr. Klovotich’s plan for a mixed use. I think it is much better than the alternative as you mentioned with the potential for high office buildings. What I do not support is using that as the master development plan, because I think it leaves to many variables. I have seen a more detailed plan, but I have been told that is the one they are trying to pass as the required master development plan. I would propose that we need to see something a little more in detail. I have had the chance to meet with Mr. Klotovich and he seems to be very sincere. I believe him; but even what he is saying has to be written to a certain extent. I would like to see the master development plan more aligned to the other slide that was shown, so we can see how much distance there is between those residential homes and the property line. I love how it is now and if we had our choice we would keep the land as it is for the view, but if I owned the land I would want to develop it. His family has lived there a long time, they have paid taxes and they have that right. We support him and appreciate him coming to us and keeping us in the loop. I propose that the master development plan be more detailed so we can specify how far those single family homes that he has proposed for that big circle are from the property line.
Michael Reading, 1787 W. Orchard View Drive South Jordan Utah – said I agree with Brett, I like the mixed use a lot better than the alternative. I do have concerns about the road entering there as well. I guess I would just like to second everything that has been said tonight.
Chairman Clark Mabey closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner David Wood said part of the limitations of our package was that we could not see the north side of the Peach Blossom development, so I was completely ignorant of the traffic issue. What are the options for traffic relief, including this idea?
City Planner Greg Schindler said if you are talking about the fact that there is only one way out for 55 residents, I don’t think we have a lot of options to do anything at this point. The road has been stubbed toward the north out of the subdivision toward 9800, but there is one property in the way that Merit Medical owns. If Merit Medical decides to develop that property, it is likely we would require that to be connected through, but if they are not developing it I don’t know what options that City would have.
Commissioner David Wood said are we talking about the property that has the pile of dirt on it? The owner has this property now to accommodate the dirt, have we talked to him about what he intends to do when the parking garage is done?
Planner Sanderson said that is a temporary site to hold that dirt. They excavated a substantial amount of dirt from that parking structure. It looks like one story from Redwood, but believe it or not, it is three, because it sits so far down in the ground. They are also building another phase that will have a very large building on it. That dirt will go away some day when they are finished, they are projecting to be done maybe next summer.
City Planner Greg Schindler said that subdivision was built many years ago, and it was stubbed because we thought the development was probably going to keep going north, but it never did. At this point when we have new subdivisions, currently we look at having at least two accesses, maybe more depending on the size of the subdivision. That is one reason why, with this development plan it does show two ways in and out. If this development occurs there will be a second access.
Planner Sanderson said furthermore, as it was mentioned a traffic study would need to be conducted before a site approval is done, and that may determine that they can’t use this as an access. There are a lot of things that need to be determined before anything proceeds beyond the rezone and land use change.
Commissioner Russ Naylor said when I looked through the packet and read the file and got to this development plan, I didn’t feel like I was comfortable making a recommendation based upon the details on this plan. I felt a lot more comfortable after I had looked at the concept plans that followed, so not to say that they have to be in that kind of detail, but I would like to see a little more than bubble diagrams for the development plan. I looked at that plan, and he has used the property next door, and the property owner next door obviously has no intention of having his property included in the plan. I would like to see the plan amended to show just the property he is able to use.
City Planner Greg Schindler said it has been a practice in the past that all of the Redwood Road Mixed Use Zone to show how adjacent properties could be developed and include them in the plan. I would propose that there is a way we could actually make it clear that the property on the bubble plan is not included. It does help the Kelipetsis family, so if they decide to do something with the property, they won’t have to go through the whole process of getting a new development plan if it has already been approved for their property if they decide they want to rezone and develop.
Commissioner Linda Auger said I think we should move on with the land amendment and the zoning change. I think we are jumping ahead, because we want to know how the roads are going to run, what kind of houses are going to be there, and they don’t know. At this time Mr. Klotovich does not have anybody ready to come in and develop it, and until we say it is alright for him to develop it, he is not going to get anybody to come in, so it is like a dog chasing his tail. We need to go back to what it is here for, to look at the land use amendment. I think we should go ahead and give it the change and then when they get ready for a development to come in, we can make those other decisions. I think we are going ahead of where we should be. I think it is a great place to put something like this on Redwood Road. You are not going to get residential house up to Redwood Road anymore because they have widened it, it’s not that nice little two lane road running up and down that north south corridor. It is a major road and you are not going to get houses on Redwood Road. I wouldn’t want to live on Redwood Road.
Commissioner Russ Naylor said I agree with Commissioner Auger. I just want to end up with a development plan that is specific enough that we don’t change it to mixed use, and then have a developer come in when he decides he wants to sell it, and proposes something totally different that is not acceptable.
Commissioner David Wood said I think there is another question you want to ask here, and that is when you look at this property where you have these residents on the north, you have commercial with the post office on the south, is village mixed use an appropriate land use for that kind of space, and I would argue that it is. I would think that when you have a major collector like we have with Redwood Road, it is going to eventually be a commercial roadway, and over time it will convert to commercial, the zoning will allow it to do that. When you have property such as this, which is as close to a commercial center which is 10600 and Redwood. This is a pretty logical way for this to develop, and I think Mr. Klotovich approach to this is pretty reasonable. I kind of like this idea. I do agree with Commissioner Linda Auger that it is appropriate to go ahead and make this land use change. It is better than anything else I think you could come up with for this property. I for one love looking out my back deck that has been an empty field, I have seen a deer, fox and other creatures I am not sure what they were, but I have enjoyed that. Things develop and I get that, so I think the approach is reasonable.
Chairman Clark Mabey said I agree with everything that Commissioner Wood just said as well. I also understand that before something in detail happens there would be full traffic studies, nothing unsafe would be allowed to go forward. You said it very well Commissioner Wood.
D.2. Potential Action Item – (See V. D.1.)
Commissioner Linda Auger motioned to recommend City Council Approve:
1. The Master Development Plans for the Klotovich Mixed Use Development.
2. Resolution R2012-01 amending Land Use Designation from Office to Village Mixed Use.
3. Ordinance 2012-01-Z rezoning property from Office Service, (OS) and Agricultural, (A-5) to Village Mixed Use (VMU).
Commissioner David Wood seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was unanimous 6-0 in favor, with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
E.1. Issue: FARM ANIMALS FLOATING ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HEARING)
File No. Section 17.130.040
Applicant: City of South Jordan
City Planner Greg Schindler reviewed background information on this item.
Commissioner Wood asked about specific animals such as mule, donkey, and burro as to whether they are really separate animals.
City Planner Greg Schindler replied that they were.
Chairman Mabey opened the Public Hearing
Ken Larsen, 9767 South Channing Drive South Jordan –I am concerned about beekeeping as the bee population is dwindling and I would like the City to pass the ordinance to allow bee keeping. The proposed amendment does not allow sufficient hives as two hives are needed for a sustainable population. I recommend that South Jordan look at other cities ordinances, West Jordan and Salt Lake City, as they allow bees on smaller lots without a restriction on hives. I think the nuisance language in the proposed ordinance will deal with issues.
Chairman Mabey asked whether a hive is sustainable in urban areas where there is not agriculture.
Mr. Larsen said that it is, and Salt Lake City is an example.
Commissioner Auger asked how many bees are in a hive.
Mr. Larsen said that there are 5 to 10 thousand bees but most stay in the hive.
City Planner Schindler asked whether Mr. Larsen thought that the ½ acre minimum lot size to have bees was practical.
Mr. Larsen said other cities allow bees on smaller lots, like Salt Lake City in the avenues, and while bees need some space they don’t need ½ an acre as they do fine on a ¼ or a 1/3 acre lot.
Commissioner Naylor asked about the size of a hive.
Mr. Larsen said that hives come in various sizes depending on what is desired and how many colonies they contain.
Ted Brinton, 10668 Single Jack Circle - I live next to a manure pile and the dust floats to my home. About 20 years ago the City required that animals were separated from adjacent dwellings by 40’. The ordinance was then changed to not allow any farm animals on lots lets than ¾ acres, the section of the proposed ordinance which states that it is to regulate to prevent animals from becoming a nuisance. I am in favor of the rule that would keep animals 40’ from any dwelling and in favor of not allowing animals in the side yard.
Chairman Mabey closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Naylor said I agree with Mr. Brinton about restricting animals in the side yard.
City Planner Schindler said that the Commission can add that language in their recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Wood said that there are some cases where keeping animals is not logical due to the sizes of the animals and land. As a Commission you can recommend a change to a 40’ side yard setback.
Commissioner Auger said that smaller animals can be reasonably kept on smaller acreage.
City Planner Greg Schindler said the City can adjust the requirement to allow smaller animals on smaller parcels.
Commissioner Auger said Sandy city allows chickens on smaller lots.
City Planner Schindler said staff will adjust the ordinance to accommodate animals on smaller lots but it will not address chickens as there is a separate ordinance for chickens. We will adjust the language to allow very small animals on ¼ acre lots. Further that 1/3 acre lots have 15 points under the proposal which would allow 7 very small animals.
Commissioner Naylor asked about roosters.
City Planner Greg Schindler said roosters are not allowed under the current ordinance dealing with chickens.
Chairman Maybe said that the intent was good, but I think that staff should do more research on bees.
Commissioner Auger said I would encourage staff to make the changes and do more research on bees for the next meeting.
E.2. Potential Action Item – (See V. E.1.)
Commissioner Auger made a motion to approve File No: Section 17.130.010 forwarding recommendation of approval to the City Council Regarding Ordinance No. 2011-18 Enacting Section 17.130.040 regarding the Farm Animal Floating Zone with the following recommendations:
1. Very small animals are allowed on a ¼ acre lot.
2. 2 hives are allowed
3. No farm animals in side yards unless there is 40’ setback from existing structures
4. Bees are permitted on ¼ acre.
Commissioner Naylor seconded the motion. The roll call vote was unanimous 6-0 in favor with Commissioner Paul Pugmire absent.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The November 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Meeting Minutes were prepared by Deputy City Recorder Cindy Valdez.
This is a true and correct copy of the November 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes, which were approved on December 13, 2011.
South Jordan City Recorder