Granite Community Council by 8Wv4bfU9


									                               Granite Community Council
                                            May 6, 2009

The meeting was conducted in the boardroom of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake &
Sandy, 3430 East Danish Road, Sandy, Utah 84093-2139.

Granite Community Council attendees: Michael Hansen (D3), Marty Vandersteen (D5),
Rob Alston (D1 & 2), Merrill Stillman (D1 & 2), Drew Weaver (D4), Dale Kimsey (D4), Farah
Crawford (D5), Susan Vogeler (Alt. D5), and Mary Young (D3).

Salt Lake County attendees: Max Burdick, Salt Lake County (SLCo) Councilman (District
6); Tod Young, SLCo Planning Commission; Rita Lund, SLCo Community Council
Representative; Megan Hillyard, SLCo Mayor’s Office; and Det. Brody Waldram, SLCo

Guests: June Vandersteen, Cassandra Hansen, Mike Robinson, Mike Marker, Rich Young,
Josh Linker, Darlene Batatian, Steve Putnam, Paul Ledesma, David Hart, Brandon Kehl,
Susan Despain, Gary Napel, Max Lundberg, John Reese, Doug Vogeler, Vere Lancaster,
and Bob Norris.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Hansen, who led the pledge of
allegiance. Visitors were welcomed. The minutes of the April 1, 2009 meeting were approved
and will be posted to the Council’s website,
Mary Young, Granite Community Emergency Volunteer Coordinator (EVC), presented a
report on emergency preparedness in Granite. Salt Lake County/Unified Fire Authority
(SLCo/UFA) requested that the Granite Community Council (GCC) name an EVC for the
Granite community to be the point of contact for emergency preparedness (EP), training of
residents, and to coordinate possible emergency evacuation/response. Mary Young
volunteered at the March 4, 2009, meeting and can be reached at 942-2491 or at
She has attended emergency training meetings and the Millcreek EP fair, and collected numerous
books, pamphlets, and contacts related to emergency planning. She contacted the LDS Granite
View Stake and two ward emergency specialists and conducted a recent meeting to determine the
Granite emergency team’s organizational structure, roles/responsibilities, and available resources.
The team determined that the structure should consist of two co-EVC’s (Mary Young and Gene
Whitmore, 942-3129,, who will be the points of contact for outside
emergency personnel (e.g., SLCo, Unified Fire Authority (UFA), Sandy City), and who will
coordinate with Area Coordinators (AC), who will be named for each ward area in Granite. Most
other communities in this area are using stake/ward boundaries, because use of their existing
maps, coordination, communication, and stake/ward emergency specialists is working well for
them. Ward specialists or other volunteers can act as AC’s, while Team Leaders (TL’s) will work
under them, handling about 50 homes (these will be volunteers within each Area), and Block
Captains (volunteers within each Team’s region) will help coordinate with the smallest level, the
street blocks.
The Emergency Team will plan to develop an emergency contact database, by combining
contact information from the LDS Church’s Granite View Stake data along with contact info
collected from the non-LDS community, e.g., at GCC meetings, community events, etc. They are
particularly interested in working with District 5, which already has established an emergency list
for their area and which shares both community and emergency information using their local
server. Vere Lancaster is secretary of their emergency organization and he expressed a
willingness to work with the Granite Emergency Team.
There are many available resources for training (Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) and other)—we can sign up for CERT from Sandy City (free) or from UFA ($30). There are
also many documents that we can use and adapt for the Granite community, emergency
workshops, etc. People whose job it is to help us include Dave Ulibarri, UFA Community Services
Specialist; Ken Kraudy, Emergency Manager for Sandy; and Jeff Graviet, SLCo Emergency
Preparedness Coordinator. Coralee Moser, Herriman EVC, is helping us already, by providing
numerous documents and briefings about what Herriman has done in emergency planning (they
are the leaders in our valley). Other contacts are available to help us power up (if needed) on using
the ham radio operators organization (Granite View Stake) for emergency communications, Eagle
Scouts for emergency support projects, etc. The Granite View emergency specialists have been
publishing a monthly Emergency Preparedness newsletter for 18 months and are constructing an
emergency preparedness website for the community. Sandy City has published and distributed
Your Personal Disaster Preparedness Planner, and is conducting workshops on emergency
planning (5/16, 6/6, 6/13 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., 5/20, 5/27, 6/17 from 7 to 9 p.m., in multipurpose
room, #341, Sandy City Hall).
The team needs to start getting contact info from non-LDS (and email addresses from all)
residents, attempt to connect all of our Granite residents/emergency volunteers into a cohesive,
communicating structure. They also need info on who is CERT trained and get more residents
CERT trained. Emergency Contact Forms will be made available at all GCC meetings and other
community events.
The Granite Emergency Team will expand by its next meeting, May 22nd, and meet on a monthly
basis to plan and communicate emergency preparedness information to the community.
Volunteers and suggestions are welcome! For now (until we expand), contact Mary or Gene to
volunteer, offer suggestions, or provide contact info.
Mr. Hansen then opened the meeting to citizen comments. Mr. Lancaster asked about the
Granite census designated place (CDP) issue—how is the Granite CDP being changed? There
seems to be differing opinions expressed by various officials in SLCo. Mr. Hansen clarified that
part of District 5 (D5) was designated by the U.S. Census Bureau as being in Little Cottonwood
Creek Valley CDP. The GCC asked SLCo how they showed the community of Granite and the
County maps do include D5. The GCC has asked SLCo to ensure that the Census Bureau change
our CDP to reflect the SLCo map and the history of our community (which includes D5). The
Association of Community Councils Together (ACCT) has asked that all CDP boundaries be the
same as community council boundaries in the County. The Census Bureau will publish these
changes in the fall of this year. Mr. Tod Young advised that the Census Bureau handbook says
that previously designated CDP boundaries are no longer valid once the new boundaries are
published. Whatever boundaries are newly submitted are considered good. There are numerous
problems with the 2000 publication of boundaries (including inclusion of Cottonwood Heights) and
all of these will be corrected.
Mr. Hart asked how the CDP issue plays into the township issue. Mr. Hansen explained that the
new township legislation has language authorizing establishment of townships based on the CDP
as one criterion. Mr. Hart asked why the Council is rushing into establishing the township. Why not
wait until the CDP is corrected? Mr. Hansen responded that the Council is trying to avoid further
piecemeal annexations and residents’ fears of being annexed.
Ms. Hillyard advised that SLCo will respond to the new petitions as soon as they’re submitted.
They’ve had numerous CDP changes throughout the valley. The CDP is mainly used for statistical
purposes by the Census Bureau. Is it OK to do a petition based on future CPD changes?
Councilman Burdick responded that there seems to be a grey area now. Once the petitions are
submitted, there will be lots of debate and discussion. Mr. Hansen advised that the Council
members are asking everyone in the existing CDP to sign the petitions, and asking people in the
questionable or future CDP area to sign separate petitions. The petitions must be certified by SLCo
after submittal. We may submit CDP petitions first, let the County determine if the number of
signatures is sufficient, then submit signatures from D5 (and parts of D4, which are also part of the
future CDP). Councilman Burdick added, regarding Sandy and the water issue (which has been
the reason why some properties had to annex into Sandy), the State of Utah allows a municipality
to share (or not) their water with users outside their municipality.
Mr. Linker spoke to someone who works in Annexations in Sandy, who clarified that the only way
they require annexation is if the property is contiguous to Sandy. Mr. Hansen noted that he gets
phone calls from two to three residents per month, who face unwanted annexation into Sandy. Mr.
Hart asked if the Council could find out how many properties are being threatened with annexation
right now. Mr. Hansen will attempt to find this out.
One resident asked why the size of the township is so large [it extends east all the way up Little
Cottonwood Canyon.] The Granite boundaries were extended in 2000 to the SLCo boundaries,
beyond but not including the Town of Alta or Snowbird Ski Resort. It includes a great deal of U.S.
Forest Service land. None of this property counts toward (or against) township requirements.
Some residents have had adjacent properties annexed into Sandy and their police services have
deteriorated as a result, with Sandy police virtually refusing service. Another resident asked the
question of how does becoming a township affect property taxes. Mr. Hansen responded that there
is no change—we get the same services and no additional layer of government.
A resident asked, “If I want to develop property, who do I go to?” Property developers in Granite
need to apply to SLCo; if they are seeking a zoning change or non-conforming use, then the issue
comes back to the GCC for recommendation to the SLCo Planning Commission.
Mr. Hansen further clarified that there is no possibility of Granite using its status as a township
as a stepping stone to become a town or city. There is no way that we’d want or benefit from
this. Sen. Wayne Niederhauser recently conducted an analysis of the costs of taxes and fees in
Sandy vs. the unincorporated County and found them to be even. The Council’s sole impetus to
form a township is to protect our boundaries. Councilman Burdick added that there is also the
rationale for allowing the residents to have self-determination.
Ms. Hillyard provided guests with an outline of the Senate Bill (SB)-73 Township legislation.
Det. Brody Waldram, SLCo Sheriff, reported that the Sheriff’s office has designed a logo to put on
their cars in the southeast part of the valley, which reflects all of the communities that they serve.
The GCC reviewed the logo and approved it, with the single recommendation to change “Granite
West” to “Granite.” Det. Waldram also provided a summary of crimes committed in Granite during
April, and answered questions from the Council and residents. The SLCo Sheriff has been
patrolling the church parking lot that was having car burglaries at the last meeting; this has been
effective in eliminating problems.
Mr. Linker asked how do the SLCo Sheriff and Sandy City Police protect our gerrymandered
borders. Det. Waldram noted that some of the islands may have problems. If something big
happens, the closest entity will respond. There are eight deputies assigned full-time to the
southeast area. Ms. Young asked what residents should do when they repeatedly have problems
with speeders on the roads past their homes/young children. Some have put up small signs
(“Children at Play—25 MPH”) and the signs have been stolen. What should we advise them to do?
Det. Waldram replied that they should contact him at 743-7000 [or at]--they
can send out a speed trailer or radar and can track the problem.
Ms. Hillyard reported that Envision Utah is spearheading a revision to the Wasatch Canyons
Master Plan. They’ve scheduled several workshops and are putting up a website for community
review and input. Workshops are on May 12, 13, and 14 at several locations. Contact for more information and to RSVP. An online survey can be completed,
to provide input on land use policy, transportation, and environmental concerns, at
The GCC will plan to put the issue of location of SLCo bulk waste trailers on next month’s agenda.
Ms. Lund, eastside township representative, deals with issues in the unincorporated areas. Other
townships are operating the same way they did before the establishment of the townships. She can
be reached to answer questions at 468-2073 (w), 550-5474 (c), or at
Planning and zoning: Ms. Darlene Batatian briefed the Council on the proposed rezone of the
Alta Approach Condominiums, Phase III. Last month the GCC informed Ms. Batatian and Mr.
Linker that it was favorably disposed regarding rezoning this property and they have made
application to SLCo for a rezone. The rezone is from R-1-15 (single family, detached dwellings) to
R-2-10 (attached units) and is intended to provide significant benefits to the development scheme
and be consistent with the intent of Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone (FCOZ) requirements.
At this meeting, they asked for a formal recommendation, which will go to the SLCo Planning staff
and the SLCo Planning Commission. Assuming that this request is successful, they will return later
with site plans for GCC comments on conditional use. Ms. Batatian explained the location and plan
for the development. Current zoning allows 9 single-unit homes; the developer prefers to cluster
them into four 2-unit condominiums next to the existing units and reduce impacts to other
residents’ views. By clustering them on the east side, they’ll be removed from the single family
homes, take up less room, and be built on a lesser slope and lower on the hillside, reducing visual
impact. The attached units will reduce construction costs, allowing more funds for aesthetic
improvements, appearance, and pool reconstruction. The existing pool is damaged and has been
unusable for years; it will be removed and replaced by the new construction contractor as part of
the new development. With additional houses in the development, the Homeowners Association
(HOA) will be more viable. The proposed site plan will require a slope waiver, but they feel that the
hardship situation (pool problems) warrant the waiver. Ms. Batatian provided recently completed
drawings which show the exterior design of the proposed condos; these did not appear similar to
the existing construction as planned. The development will provide easements for the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail. If they do not receive approval for changes, there is some concern about possible
future development of larger homes higher on the slope. This area can and should be protected
from future development.
The Council voted to recommend that the Salt Lake County Planning Commission approve the
proposal to rezone the property to R-2-10 for the reasons stated above.
Mr. Hansen received a letter from the SLCo Graffiti Program Manager, Nancy White, in response
to his letter regarding concerns and questions about the proposed graffiti ordinance. Copies
were provided and reviewed. The Council noted that the proposed ordinance did not address the
plan stated by Ms. White to provide free paint, solvent, and labor to clean up graffiti on property of
residents who cannot remove it themselves; this should be included to assuage the concern of
further victimizing the victims of graffiti. Mr. Hansen will reply to her letter with a request to make
this change.
The Council then discussed the issue of increasing communication with residents of Granite.
We considered several different possibilities: 1) sending Granite community newsletters/mailings to
residents on a regular basis (this would cost at least $500 each mailing, and we’d need to get
someone to write the newsletter); 2) erecting a real bulletin board somewhere in the community
(like the Geologic View Park), to post flyers about announcements, etc. (it was felt that this would
probably be ignored by most residents); 3) encouraging more people to read the Council’s website
for meeting agendas, minutes, and announcements (we have done and will continue to do this by
providing residents with flyers about Council meetings/website as we solicit petition signatures, at
Council meetings, and at future Granite community events); 4) utilize email more by council
members to forward copies of minutes and announcements to the community (District 5 is doing
this, sending both emergency information and community announcements via their website/server;
the Council would like to do more information distribution such as this); 5) post the minutes, once
written and reviewed by the Council chairman, on the website as draft minutes, so that they can be
read when they are most timely, and then correct and post the approved minutes after the next
meeting; and 6) Mr. Hart suggested that we do what they used to do when he was on the Council,
namely have about 5-6 council members put signs up announcing the GCC meeting, date, time,
location, and have space to write in any guest speakers’ names or issues—this way more
residents will be aware of meetings and also have a chance to talk to the Council members about
issues (Mr. Stillman was asked to look into purchasing 5-6 signs). We can also do a special mailing
advising residents of our meetings/website, and asking them to provide emergency contact
information; if our website were interactive (as is D5’s), we could also ask people to sign up online
to receive announcements and minutes (along with emergency information). Ms. Young advised
that we are having some problems with our current webmaster (making it difficult to make any
changes, much less major ones), so we may need to consider changing our web provider. We’d
like to have an interactive website. Mr. Alston may know someone who can help with this.
The Council then ratified the payment of expenditures associated with the petition drive, including
expenses for mailing labels ($40), rental of Granite Elementary School ($105), photocopy
expenses and mailings ($345), and purchase of liability insurance ($155 for $1-2 million for one
year). Mr. Tod Young will also provide receipts for some expenses for petition supplies. The
Council approved the quantified costs above. Mr. Alston provided the treasurer’s report, which
shows that the GCC’s current balance is $10,080.32. He is working on closing the GE fund
The Council discussed the status of the Granite Township petition drive. Some of the Council
members have been able to get out and get numerous signatures. Others are still getting out
themselves and getting the help of volunteers who will be taking the petitions around. Mr. Linker
indicated that he would email the petition to absentee owners in Alta Approach; they will need to
sign and send them back to Ms. Young by mail, who will email the petition file to Mr. Linker. We
may want to submit the signed petitions incrementally, so that the County can start processing
them, or submit them all at once, when we think there are sufficient signatures. Mr. Hansen will
check with SLCo on which method they prefer.
Mr. Hansen then proposed that the Council sponsor a Hot Granite Nights, which will be a big
community picnic with bluegrass music (one or two bands) in Granite Park. He’s reserved the
pavilion for Saturday, August 15, from 6 to 9 p.m. We will need to do mailed announcements to
residents and ensure it’s announced in ward houses. We will discuss the various issues associated
with the township at the gathering. Residents can bring their own food and drinks. Both Granite
and Sandy residents in the community will be invited.
Mr. Hansen will submit Granite’s municipal priorities to SLCo by May 15th.
Mr. Hansen excused the non-council members from the meeting, so that the members could
conduct an executive session, to discuss potential litigation.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

To top