Docstoc

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday

Document Sample
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday Powered By Docstoc
					                  MINUTES OF THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN
                        CITY COUNCIL MEETING

                         Tuesday, February 6, 2007
                                6:00 p.m.
                            Council Chambers
                        8000 South Redwood Road
                         West Jordan, Utah 84088
________________________________________________________________________

COUNCIL:      Mayor David B. Newton, and Council Members Rob Bennett, Kathy
              Hilton, Melissa Johnson, Mike Kellermeyer, Kim V. Rolfe, and Lyle C.
              Summers.

STAFF:        Gary Luebbers, City Manager; Tom Steele, Assistant City Manager/CFO;
              Melanie Briggs, City Clerk/Recorder; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Tom
              Burdett, Community Development Director; Wendell Rigby, City
              Engineer; David Hales, Finance/Administrative Services Director; Jim
              Carbine, Utility Manager; Ken McGuire, Police Chief; Brad Wardle, Fire
              Chief; Rick Lewis, City Planner; Mike Meldrum, Planner, and Chris
              Gilbert, Planner.

Mayor Newton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jacob Hawkins.

I.      PRESENTATION
        UTAH ARMY NATIONAL GUARD PRESENTATION TO THE FIRE
        DEPARTMENT
Brad Wardle recognized Fire Department member, Dave Bower, Apache Helicopter
pilot, who had been deployed to Afghanistan twice. He introduced Colonel Brady, and
Major Adams.

Major Adams, 2nd Battalion, 211th Aviation, presented a plaque to the West Jordan City
Fire Department, and the men and women who serve under Chief Wardle. He addressed
the previous “crash rescue training” the National Guard had been through, along with
Station 53, of the West Jordan Fire Department.

Colonel Brady, Commander Aviation Support, expressed appreciation for the interaction
and emergency support provided by the West Jordan Fire Department.


II.     CITIZEN COMMENTS
Tony McGuire, West Jordan resident, addressed West Jordan as becoming a First Class
City, and Sister Cities. He expressed his appreciation to the Mayor for paying the 2006
Sister City International membership dues.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 2




There was no one else who desired to speak.


III.         CONSENT ITEMS
       5.a     Approve the minutes of January 16, 2007 as presented

       5.b      Approve articles for the West Jordan Journal

       5.c      Approve Resolution 07-16, confirming the City Council appointments
                various committees

       5.d      Approve expenditure in the amount of $677, allocated from the Contingency
                Fund for the 2007 Sister City International membership dues

       5.e      Approve Resolution 07-17, regarding a bond reduction for Richardson
                Estates Subdivision, located at 8721 South 1000 West

       5.f      Approve Resolution 07-18, regarding a bond reduction for Ranches
                Phase 3 Subdivision, landscape and fencing, located at 5300 West 7900
                South

       5.g      Approve Resolution 07-19, authorizing the Mayor to execute Airport
                Detention Basin – payment to Foursquare Properties, Inc. for the
                completed design of the Airport Detention Basin

       5.h      Approve Resolution 07-20, authorizing the Mayor to execute a
                Professional Services Agreement with CRS Engineers for surveying
                services, in an amount not to exceed $8,320

       5.i      Approve Resolution 07-21, authorizing the Mayor to execute two Pipeline
                Easement Agreements with Rocky Mountain Power for sewer pipelines
                located under the Power Transmission Corridor

       5.j      Approve Resolution 07-22, authorizing the Mayor to execute an
                agreement with John M. “Jack” Hammond, of Architectural Nexus, Inc.
                for consultant architectural services in connection with matters relating
                to the design, construction, damages, and repair of Fire Station No. 55

MOTION:            Councilmember Bennett moved to approve Consent items 5.a through
                   5.j. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Summers.

A roll call vote was taken
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 3



Councilmember Bennett           Yes
Councilmember Hilton            Yes
Councilmember Johnson           Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer       Yes
Councilmember Rolfe             Yes
Councilmember Summers           Yes
Mayor Newton                    Yes

The motion passed 7-0.


IV.    PUBLIC HEARING
       RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL
       ORDINANCE 07-04, REGARDING A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
       6.11 ACRES FROM R-1-12 (ZC) TO R-1-10E (ZC) FOR COPPERFIELD
       SUBDIVISION PHASE 2, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 9000
       SOUTH 6400 WEST, D.R. HORTON, APPLICANT
Tom Burdett explained this application was originally presented to the City Council on
September 6, 2005. The applicant put the application on hold until the West Side Study
Area Plan analysis was completed. The applicant had now opted to activate this
application for Phase 2 of the Copperfield Subdivision.

The proposed project was located at approximately 6400 West 9000 South and was Phase
2 of the Copperfield Subdivision. The property was currently zoned R-1-12E (ZC) and
had a land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The applicant was requesting
that approximately 8-acres be rezoned to R-1-lOE (ZC) to allow for a reconfiguration of
lots in Phase 2. It should be noted that this application was only for the rezone. The
applicant had supplied a concept map for reference purposes only. The applicant would
be required to apply for a subdivision plat to approve a lot configuration. The Planning
Commission would review this application. The applicant had submitted the required
letter identifying the reasons for the requested rezone.

The Planning Commission reviewed this item on August 3, 2005 and had forwarded a
positive recommendation to the City Council to grant the rezone. Staff had included the
minutes and motion from the August 3, 2005 Planning Commission meeting for review
by the City Council. At that time staff recommended that the Planning Commission
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.

The applicant had modified the application since it was last presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council. The modified application moved four lots that were
previously part of Phase 2 into Phase 3. It also had eliminated the wash from the legal
description. The legal description had been reduced by 2.4-acres and now included
approximately 6.11 acres in the proposed rezone area.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 4



The proposed rezone would change the existing zoning from R-1-12E (ZC) to R-l-10E
(ZC). Surrounding land uses included: agricultural lands to the north and west; the Ron
Wood Memorial Park to the northeast; and industrial and commercial uses/zoning to the
southeast.

The Copperfield Subdivision was granted a rezone by the City Council on October 14,
2003. The City Council attached two zoning conditions to the property, which were:

         1. Not to exceed a total of 139 lots.
         2. Adequate buffering must be provided adjacent to the New Bingham Highway.

There had been no changes in the Subdivision Ordinance or General Land Use Plan since
the time that the City Council granted a rezone on this property. Phase 2 of the
Copperfield Subdivision, as currently zoned, was in compliance with the General Land
Use Plan map. In staff's original analysis staff could find no compelling reasons to
recommend that a rezone be granted on the subject property. Staff had reviewed the
current proposal and had found that the proposed subdivision layout provided a much
more desirable design. The applicant provided a proposed subdivision design with the
now expired Preliminary Subdivision Plat that showed a subdivision road running
parallel to 9000 South. Only a block wall separated the internal subdivision road from
9000 South. Staff agreed with the applicant that this design was not preferable. Staff had
attached a copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission and City Council meetings
from the original rezone hearings for review by the City Council.

The Planning Commission disagreed with staff's original recommendation and had
forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to grant this rezone request.
The property originally was in an A-20 zone and was zoned to R-1-14F. It was then
zoned to R-1-12E (ZC). A rezone was again being requested to R-1-lOE (ZC). In its
initial review the City Council was presented with an R-I-8 request that was determined
to be inappropriate for that location. The City Council determined that the R-1-12E (ZC)
was the appropriate zoning for this location and granted this zoning on October 14, 2003.

The applicant submitted a letter for the City Council meeting of September 6, 2005
outlining the reasons for the requested zone change. The applicant had submitted an
updated letter requesting that this application be activated. This new letter did not
include any new information as to the reasons for the requested zone change. The letter
did include a statement regarding "changes resulting from West Jordan City's mandate
that we give 100 feet for the Barney's Wash channel." It should be noted that on the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat drawings that a channel width of 100 feet was shown by the
applicant and subsequently reduced to a width of 50 feet by the applicant. The adjacent
subdivision, Duck Creek, had provided a channel width of 100 feet based on the
Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval granted (now expired) to the Copperfield
Subdivision.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 5



Criteria Evaluation
Section 89-5-403(b) of the Zoning Ordinance required that the Planning Commission find
that the following five criteria had been met before it might make a positive
recommendation to the City Council for Zoning Map or Zoning Ordinance text
amendments. The Planning Commission considered these criteria at their August 3,
2005, meeting and had forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council.

Criteria 1:       The proposed amendment was consistent with the purposes, goals,
                  objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.

         Discussion: The proposed rezone request was consistent with the General Land
         Use Plan. The property was currently in a Medium Density Residential land use
         designation. The current zoning on the property was R-l-l2E (ZC) and the
         proposed zone was R-1-lOE (ZC). The zoning conditions that were included in
         the rezone approval on October 14, 2003 were still applicable and no change was
         proposed. The proposed amendment did not change the land use designation;
         however, during the rezone hearings held on October 14, 2003 the City Council
         determined that the subject property was best used as 12,000 square foot lots.
         Prior to the rezone being granted on October 14, 2003 the property was zoned R-
         l-14F.

         Finding 1:     The application complied with the guidelines of the General Land
         Use Plan. The land use designation for this property was Medium Density
         Residential that allowed a density range from 3.1 to 5.5 units per acre. The R-1-
         lO zoning district was within this range.

Criteria 2:       The proposed amendment was harmonious with the overall character of
                  existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.

         Discussion: Surrounding land uses included agricultural land to the west, a
         Proposed single-family development to the north, the City baseball complex (Ron
         Wood Memorial Park) to the northeast, and industrial and commercial land
         uses/zoning to the southeast. The proposed development would be harmonious
         with these surrounding land uses by providing land use transitions from the
         industrial/commercial uses on the south to the lower density residential uses to the
         north. There was a proposed subdivision to the east (Duck Creek) that would
         connect through a stub street in phase 2 of the Copperfield Subdivision.

         The property immediately north of the subject property was zoned for lots of at
         least 12,000 square feet. The subject property was also zoned for the same lot
         size. A transitional area or buffer was not needed between this phase and
         subsequent phases to the north.

         Finding 2:    The proposed amendment would be harmonious with the overall
         character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 6



         property. The property immediately north of the subject property was zoned for
         lots of at least 12,000 square feet. The subject property was also zoned for the
         same lot size. The proposed amendment would provide for a transitional lot size
         between 9000 South and Barney's Wash to Phase 3 of the Copperfield
         Subdivision that lied to the immediate north of the subject property.

Criteria 3:       The proposed amendment would not adversely affect adjacent
                  properties.

         Discussion:       The proposed amendment did not adversely affect the adjacent
         properties.

         Finding 3:        The proposed amendment would not adversely affect adjacent
         properties.

Criteria 4:       The proposed amendment was consistent with the provisions of any
                  applicable overlay zoning districts which might impose additional
                  standards.

         Discussion: The property was not located in any overlay zoning districts;
         therefore there were no additional standards.

         Finding 4:      The proposed amendment was not located in any overlay-zoning
         district and there were no additional standards.

Criteria 5:       Public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,
                  including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities,
                  police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water
                  supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection, are adequate.

         Discussion: Adequate public facilities were available. Although demand on
         them would increase, impact fees would be required to offset the increased
         demand. The proposed amendment would also have impact on parks, recreational
         facilities and schools.

         Finding 5:        Public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property
         were available and adequate. Engineering evaluations for the site during the
         subdivision plat review process would dictate the location and size of connections
         to utility lines.

Planning Commission and staff recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance
rezoning 6.11-acres in Phase 2 of the Copperfield Subdivision from R-1-12E (ZC)
(Single-Family Residential on a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet with a minimum
"E" home size) to R-l-lOE (ZC) (Single-Family Residential on a minimum lot size of
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 7



10,000 square feet with a minimum "E" home size) at approximately 6400 West 9000
South, DR Horton Custom Homes (Micah Peters), applicant.

Boyd Martin, DR Horton, described the proposed development, home size, and proposed
selling price.

Mayor Newton opened the Public Hearing. There was no one who desired to speak.
Mayor Newton closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION:           Councilmember Bennett moved to adopt Ordinance 07-04, rezoning
                  6.11-acres in Phase 2 of the Copperfield Subdivision from R-1-
                  12E(ZC) to R-1-10E(ZC) located at approximately 6400 West 9000
                  South, DR Horton Custom Homes (Micah Peters), applicant, based on
                  findings 1 through 3 in the packet, and adding two additional Zoning
                  Conditions:

                  1.       Limit the maximum number of lots to 16.
                  2.       Any lot smaller than 12,000 square feet would be an “F” size
                           home.

                  The motion was seconded by Councilmember Summers.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett               Yes
Councilmember Hilton                Yes
Councilmember Johnson               Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer           Yes
Councilmember Rolfe                 Yes
Councilmember Summers               Yes
Mayor Newton                        Yes

The motion passed 7-0.


       CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2007 - RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT
       AND CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL ORDINANCE 07-02, REGARDING
       AN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST JORDAN MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE
       89, SECTION 89-3-303; 89-3-1109; 89-6-103, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
       CITY OF WEST JORDAN, APPLICANT
Tom Burdett said on November 14, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing
regarding a number of changes to Zoning Ordinance Section 89-6-103, regarding
Accessory Structures, that were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
The City Council then approved an Ordinance adopting these changes with a single
modification to remove the Rural Residential zoning category from inclusion under
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 8



"residential zones" and include it with "agricultural zones" with the intent that
agricultural-related accessory buildings not be subject to a height limit.

To accomplish the intent of City Council and to maintain consistency of requirements
within the Zoning Ordinance additional modifications to Section 89-6-103, Accessory
Buildings and Uses, Section 89-3-303, the Lot and Bulk Standards table for residential
zones, and Section 89-3-1109, the West Side Planning Area, were necessary.

The changes to Section 89-3-303 place the same language under the Maximum Building
Height category for the RR-20, RR-30, and RR-40 zones that existed in the agricultural
zones table, specifically excluding agricultural-related accessory buildings not used for
human habitation from compliance with the 30-foot maximum allowable height in all
residential zones. The changes to Section 89-3-1109 provide exclusions for agricultural-
related buildings in specific zones and brought requirements for accessory buildings on
properties in the West Side Planning Area into conformance with the new requirements.
Minor additional cleanup changes had been included to Section 89-6-103. The new and
the cumulative changes were both shown in detail on the legislative copy attached to the
Ordinance, with the new changes highlighted in red type.

All additional proposed changes, except the agricultural-related accessory building
exclusion in Section 89-3-1109, were considered by the Planning Commission on January
3, 2007, and were unanimously recommended for approval.

Staff recommended the City Council adopt this revised Ordinance amending Sections 89-
3-303, 89-3-1109, and 89-6-103 of the West Jordan Municipal Code regarding Accessory
Uses, Buildings, and Structures, based upon the following:

         1.       The text amendment enhanced the Zoning Ordinance.
         2.       The text amendment complied with Goal 1 of the Urban Design section of
                  the General Plan, which read: ''To promote and foster the concepts of good
                  urban design at the community, neighborhood and individual project
                  levels."
         3.       The text amendment complied with Goal 2 of the Urban Design section of
                  the General Plan, which read: ''To strengthen the identity and image of the
                  City of West Jordan.”

Mayor Newton expressed his appreciation to staff for their assistance with the matter.
Councilmember Rolfe asked if all previously constructed accessory structure building
would be “grandfathered” in. Councilmember Johnson asked if the structure was
“grandfathered” in, should it be destroyed by fire, etc., would it allow for repair. Tom
Burdett provided clarification for each of their questions.

The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions regarding percentages of lot sizes
used for front, side, rear, and odd shaped lots; maximum building coverage, and
structures used for animals.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 9




Mayor Newton opened the Public Hearing.

Karl Lies, West Jordan resident, felt the 35% of the total lot restriction in conjunction
with the prohibition of structures in the front yard restriction, would allow the
homeowner some flexibility for odd shaped lots.

There was no one else who desired to speak. Mayor Newton closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION:           Mayor Newton moved to adopt Ordinance 07-02, amending Sections
                  89-3-303, 89-3-1109, and 89-6-103 of the West Jordan Municipal code
                  regarding Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures, based on the
                  following findings, with the exception of eliminating the words in
                  Section 89-3-1109, (1), (b), (7), “the rear yard,” making it 20% of the
                  lot in a residential zone.

                  1.       The application complies with all of the criteria established by
                           989-5-403(b) of the Zoning Ordinance for Zoning Text
                           Amendments.
                  2.       The health, safety, and welfare of residents are protected."

                  The motion was seconded by Councilmember Johnson.

Councilmember Bennett asked staff’s opinion regarding possible challenges with the
proposed restriction. Staff provided clarification.

Councilmember Summers commented the proposed restriction could be problematic for
the lots within his District.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett                No
Councilmember Hilton                 No
Councilmember Johnson                Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer            No
Councilmember Rolfe                  Yes
Councilmember Summers                No
Mayor Newton                         Yes

The motion failed 3-4.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 10



MOTION:           Councilmember Bennett moved to adopt Ordinance 07-02, amending
                  Sections 89-3-303, 89-3-1109, and 89-6-103 of the West Jordan
                  Municipal code regarding Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures,
                  based on the following findings; including the recommended change
                  to 89-6-103, (a), (1), “Any Agricultural-related accessory building, not
                  used for human occupancy, in the Rural Residential and Very Low
                  Density Single Family Residential (VLSFR) Districts are exempt from
                  this height requirement.”

                  1.       The application complies with all of the criteria established by
                           989-5-403(b) of the Zoning Ordinance for Zoning Text
                           Amendments.
                  2.       The health, safety, and welfare of residents are protected."

                  The motion was seconded by Councilmember Summers.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett                Yes
Councilmember Hilton                 Yes
Councilmember Johnson                No
Councilmember Kellermeyer            No
Councilmember Rolfe                  No
Councilmember Summers                Yes
Mayor Newton                         Yes

The motion passed 4-3.


V.      BUSINESS ITEMS
        DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPEAL OF A
        REQUEST TO AMEND (REMOVE) A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR
        THE WILDFLOWER ACRES SUBDIVISION PHASE 13, LOCATED AT
        APPROXIMATELY            5100      WEST     9200     SOUTH;        PETERSON
        DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., APPLICANT
Tom Burdett explained the Applicant was requesting an appeal of a Planning
Commission decision to remove a condition of approval to the Wildflower Acres
Subdivision, Phase 13. The specific condition (condition of approval #2 in the staff
report and minutes) was established by the Planning Commission in both the preliminary
and final subdivision approvals, the latter dated May 1, 2002. This condition required
that: "A minimum 6-foot high decorative wall was required by Ordinance 88-4-8030)
along the western and southern development boundaries adjacent to the M-1 zone
(measuring approximately 665-feet). The walls must be split-faced integrally dyed block,
not painted. [The Applicant] Must submit a wall sample and detail with the Final
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 11



Subdivision Plat application. The wall between the detention pond and the subdivision
might be eliminated once a text amendment was approved."

Tom Burdett explained the appeal process would proceed as follows:

1.       The Mayor shall invite the Appellant to come forward and address the City
         Council; wherein the Appellant will be allowed 15 minutes to address his/her
         concerns, summarizing the information contained in the record and in the
         supplement documentation and make any arguments. The Appellant will not be
         allowed to raise any new issues, or refer to information not previously submitted
         to the City Council.
2.       City Staff will then be allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation, where also, no
         new issues or information not previously submitted to the City Council shall be
         raised.
3.       Following presentations, the Appellant will have 5 minutes for a rebuttal
         presentation. This presentation shall be limited to responding to the presentations
         of the City Staff; where again, no new issues or information not previously
         submitted to the City Council shall be raised.

Steve Christensen, Attorney representing Peterson Development, summarized the
position of Peterson Development regarding the Appeal, including various exhibits from
the November Planning Commission’s hearings, Planning Commission minutes, Email
correspondence, Petition for the block wall, wall requirements, and fence comparisons.
He asked the City Council to consider amending the Ordinance approval that was granted
for Wildflower Acres, Phase 13, so that a masonry wall would not be required on the
property line, but rather a chain-link or vinyl fence.

Tom Burdett explained several months after the time of the review and approval of the
Wildflower Acres Subdivision - Phases 13 & 14, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to
require fencing [wall] based on differing land use intensities, rather than requiring
fencing based on differing zoning district boundaries. Apparently, Peterson Development
was informed by Senior Planner, Craig Hinckley that fencing would not be required
between the residential subdivision and the abutting M -1 zoning to the south and west of
Phases 13 & 14 of Wildflower Acres. This was partially true, for as stated in condition
#3 for preliminary and final subdivision plat approval: ...The requirement for a wall
between the detention pond and the subdivision might be eliminated once a text
amendment was approved. This statement; however did not eliminate the obligation to
install the subdivision boundary wall adjacent to the M-I zoning district for this specific
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was not yet adopted at the time of subdivision
approval. It was unknown if Mr. Hinckley informed Peterson Development of their
obligations regarding the different fencing areas of Phase 13 (i.e. fencing adjacent to the
detention pond opposed to fencing adjacent to the M-1 zoned vacant land).

Though the Zoning Ordinance text was amended in 2003 with respect to boundary
fencing [wall] requirements around new developments, text amendments were never
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 12



retroactive unless declared as such by the legislative body. The fact that an ordinance
change occurred after a Planning Commission decision did not eradicate a developer's
responsibility to meet specific conditions of approval. Text amendments and ordinance
modifications also did not invalidate Planning Commission conditions of approval.
Though the condition of approval was not applicable for the area between the detention
pond and Phase 13 of the Wildflower Acres Subdivision, the condition of approval was
applicable for the installation of a 6-foot wall between the western and southern boundary
of the development adjacent to the M-1 zone (OSI property).

Though no enforcement action ever commenced, Staff had been in continual contact with
Peterson Development regarding the said condition of approval since the matter was
introduced to the City by several homeowners of Wildflower Acres Phase 13 in the
spring of 2006. Upon being made aware of the issue, the Planning Staff mailed two
letters, one on May 18th and the other on June 28th, 2006, informing Peterson
Development of the wall installation requirements for Phase 13 of their now complete
subdivision, and to also make Peterson Development aware of a property owner's petition
that was forwarded to City Staff requesting that Peterson Development install the
required 6-foot high wall along boundaries of the phase. Since the matter could not be
solved administratively, Community Development Director, Tom Burdett, offered
Peterson Development the option of placing an inquiry to the Planning Commission to
discuss this specific condition of approval.

On August 2, 2006, Staff gave an overview of the item to the Planning Commission,
asking for a clarification on the requirement for a 6-foot wall along the edges of the
Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase 13. A motion was made that the Planning
Commission hear back on what enforcement steps had been taken to enforce the
conditions of granting subdivision approval, and on September 27, 2006, Peterson
Development applied for an Amendment of a Subdivision Condition of Approval.

The amended condition request was then scheduled as a Planning Commission public
hearing on November 15, 2006. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny
the request to remove condition #2 from the Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase 13;
though consider a modification to the condition to allow a vinyl fence to be substituted
for the wall. Upon hearing from the Applicant and from property owners who supported
the requirement for installation of a wall, the Planning Commission moved to deny the
request to remove condition #2 of the Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase 13 and to
keep the fencing [wall] as originally noted at the time of approval in May of 2002. The
reason for the decision was based on the City ordinances that were in place at the time
which required a buffering wall between differing zoning districts.

As stated previously, the City received a petition from the property owners of the
Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase 13 in the spring of 2006, requesting that Peterson
Development complete the required minimum 6-foot high, decorative block wall between
the M-l zone and the residential properties of the subdivision. In response to the petition,
the City forwarded the concern to Peterson Development, outlining that one of the
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 13



following must be pursued: (1) install the wall; (2) request an amendment to the
subdivision condition of approval; or (3) Appeal the Administrative Decision directing
that the wall be installed.

All letters, applications, minutes, and map information related to the application for this
appeal were supplied to the Council. As with all Appeals, the City Council Rules of
Procedure required that the City Council look only to the record of the proceedings
related to the Planning Commission's decision, and not to consider any new evidence in
this matter. Therefore, if the City Council elected to accept new evidence not heard by
the Planning Commission, it must suspend its Rules of Procedure to continue.

The Council and staff discussed clarifying questions.

Councilmember Rolfe felt this was a condition of the approval of their plat, and the
requirement should remain.

Tom Burdett reminded the Council the applicant was entitled to a rebuttal.

Steve Christensen reviewed the three options given to Peterson Development: (1) Appeal
the administrative decision; (2) Amend the Subdivision condition, and (3) Install the wall.
He recognized that under the Ordinance and the condition of the plat, a wall was
required. He requested the Council consider the current Ordinance which would not
require a block wall.

Mayor Newton asked if the applicant would be willing to put in a vinyl fence. Steve
Christensen confirmed (with the consent of the developer), the funds would be available
to put in a vinyl fence.

Councilmember Bennett felt a vinyl fence would be a “win-win” situation for both the
business owner and property owners.

Councilmember Summers asked if a wall would be required should Otto & Sons expand?
Tom Burdett confirmed that a wall would be required. The Council and staff discussed
clarifying questions regarding a reimbursement requirement being written into the
Ordinance. Roger Cutler defined the legal parameters for both the applicant and the City.

Councilmember Kellermeyer was in favor of a vinyl fence.

MOTION:           Councilmember Bennett moved to grant the appeal of the Planning
                  Commission’s decision to remove condition of approval #2, with the
                  appropriate remedy to require that the Appellant install a minimum
                  6-foot high vinyl fence as required by Ordinance 88-4-803(j) along the
                  western development boundaries adjacent to the M-1 zone for the
                  Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase 13, located at approximately
                  5100 West 9200 South, based on the argument that an appropriate
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 14



                  solution to the condition of approval can be solved through the
                  installation of a fence over a wall. The motion was seconded by
                  Councilmember Kellermeyer.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett             Yes
Councilmember Hilton              No
Councilmember Johnson             No
Councilmember Kellermeyer         Yes
Councilmember Rolfe               No
Councilmember Summers             No
Mayor Newton                      Yes

The motion failed 3-4.

MOTION:           Councilmember Summers moved to deny the appeal of the Planning
                  Commission's decision to remove condition of approval #2 requiring
                  the installation a minimum 6-foot high decorative wall as required by
                  Ordinance 88-4-803(j) along the western development boundaries
                  adjacent to the M-1 zone for the Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase
                  13, located at approximately 5100 West 9200 South, based on
                  supportive documentation in this report and the findings as
                  established by the Planning Commission during the Public Hearing
                  dated November 15, 2006.          The motion was seconded by
                  Councilmember Rolfe.

Mayor Newton spoke against the motion.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett             No
Councilmember Hilton              Yes
Councilmember Johnson             No
Councilmember Kellermeyer         No
Councilmember Rolfe               Yes
Councilmember Summers             Yes
Mayor Newton                      No

The motion failed 3-4.

The Council discussed the consequences of taking the appeal under advisement at that
time, pending a final decision at a later date.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 15



MOTION:           Councilmember Bennett moved to take a five-minute recess. The
                  motion was seconded by Councilmember Summers and passed 7-0 in
                  favor.

The Council recessed at 7:16 p.m., and reconvened at 7:24 p.m.

MOTION:           Councilmember Johnson moved to deny the appeal of the Planning
                  Commission’s decision to remove condition of approval #2 requiring
                  the installation a minimum 6-foot high decorative wall as required by
                  Ordinance 88-4-803(j) along the western development boundaries
                  adjacent to the M-l zone for the Wildflower Acres Subdivision Phase
                  13, located at approximately 5100 West 9200 South, based on
                  supportive documentation in this report and the findings as
                  established by the Planning Commission during the public hearing
                  dated November 15, 2006.          The motion was seconded by
                  Councilmember Rolfe.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett             Yes
Councilmember Hilton              Yes
Councilmember Johnson             Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer         No
Councilmember Rolfe               Yes
Councilmember Summers             Yes
Mayor Newton                      No

The motion passed 5-2.


        DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 07-
        04, INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH SALT LAKE
        COUNTY FOR THE CITY’S “UPDES” STORM DRAIN PERMIT
Wendell Rigby said West Jordan was a co-permittee with Salt Lake County and other
municipalities in the Salt Lake Valley for a Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(UPDES) permit. The permit was for release of storm water runoff into waters of the
state. Most of the cities in Salt Lake County including Bluffdale City, Draper City,
Herriman City, Holladay City, Midvale City, Murray City, Riverton City, Sandy City,
South Jordan City, South Salt Lake City, Riverton City, City of West Jordan, and West
Valley City had joined with Salt Lake County as co-permittees. The original UPDES
permit recently expired and a new permit had been issued. The new UPDES permit
remained in affect until May 31 of 2011. The County was requesting that West Jordan
enter into the following two Inter-local Agreements as a co-permittee.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 16



(1) The first Interlocal Agreement established a cooperative relationship between the
County and the Cities in regards to the UPDES permit and defined the responsibilities of
the municipalities and the County in meeting the permit requirements. The County's
primary responsibilities were to provide for the "Public Education and Outreach
Program" and to coordinate the submittal of annual reports to the State. Each co-
permittee (City) was individually accountable for the following:

a.       Permit compliance.
b.       Development of a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) in the Municipal
         Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) area of their jurisdiction, unless another co-
         permittee had agreed to assume that responsibility.
c.       Implementation of a SWMP in the area of jurisdiction of the co-permittees MS4
         unless another co-permittee has agreed to assume that responsibility.
d.       Cooperation in compiling the annual report and providing information for the
         annual report or portions of the annual report pertaining to areas of West Jordan
         City's responsibility.

(2) The second lnterlocal Agreement commits the City of West Jordan to contribute
financially toward the cost of the County Wide Public Education and Outreach Program
administrated by the County. The County had established an education and outreach
program with a $120,000 annual budget. The County requested that the City of West
Jordan contribute $7,000 (5.8%) toward this program in 2007 by approving the second
Interlocal agreement. An example of the Public Education and Outreach program were
the TV commercials about Storm Water with the slogan "We All Live Downstream."

The City would incur no direct expenses as a result of approving the first lnterlocal
Agreement as each party to the Agreement was responsible for all expenses related to its
own storm water systems. The second Interlocal agreement committed the City to
contribute $7,000 toward the Salt Lake County Education and Outreach Program in 2007.
This amount was budgeted in the Engineering Department Professional Technical
account.

Staff recommended the Council approve Resolution No. 07-04, authorizing the Mayor to
execute two Interlocal Agreements with Salt Lake County to coordinate activities and
responsibilities with regard to their joint participation as a co-permittee on a UPDES
storm water permit and to contribute $7,000 toward the Salt Lake County Public
Education and Outreach Program.

MOTION:           Councilmember Rolfe moved to adopt Resolution No. 07-04,
                  authorizing the Mayor to execute two Interlocal Agreements with Salt
                  Lake County to coordinate activities and responsibilities with regard
                  to their joint participation as a co-permittee on a UPDES storm water
                  permit and to contribute $7,000 toward the Salt Lake County Public
                  Education and Outreach Program. The motion was seconded by
                  Councilmember Bennett.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 17




A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett              Yes
Councilmember Hilton               Yes
Councilmember Johnson              Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer          Yes
Councilmember Rolfe                Yes
Councilmember Summers              Yes
Mayor Newton                       Yes

The motion passed 7-0.


       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 07-
       23, EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL’S OPPOSITION TO THE USE
       OF TOLLING ALONG THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR
Councilmember Bennett discussed the proposed Resolution 07-23. He indicated if the
Resolution passed, a copy would be given to State Legislators, and copies to the media.

MOTION:           Councilmember Bennett moved to approve Resolution 07-23,
                  expressing the City Council’s opposition to the use of tolling along the
                  Mountain View corridor, and authorize the Mayor to sign it. The
                  motion was seconded by Councilmember Summers and passed 7-0 in
                  favor.

Mayor Newton informed the Council that Congressman Cannon opposed tolling, and
would be willing to write a letter to that effect also.


        DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR
        THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER POSITION
Councilmember Rolfe addressed proposed funding for the Public Information Officer
position. He discussed the positives of the position: (1) Consultant for committees; (2)
Assist Mayor with correspondence letters; (3) Voicing the statements of the Council; (4)
Provide professional “good news” of the City to the media, and (5) Assistance for the
stakeholders of the City.

Mayor Newton asked if the position would be full-time.             Councilmember Rolfe
confirmed he was recommending the position be full-time.

Councilmember Bennett felt a Public Information Officer was an increasingly important
position for local governments to effectively and efficiently communicate information to
their communities. He was in favor of the position starting out as part-time.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 18



Councilmember Summers indicated he would like to see a job description defining
qualifications, salary, etc. before voting on the proposed position.

Councilmember Kellermeyer agreed with Councilmember Summers, and was in favor of
the position starting out as part-time.

Councilmember Rolfe stated that he did not think the Council could get the quality of
person they were seeking on a part-time basis.

MOTION:           Councilmember Rolfe moved to direct staff to create a job description
                  and bring back for approval to look for a person that would fill
                  professionally the position of Public Information Officer for the City
                  of West Jordan. The motion was seconded by Councilmember
                  Summers.

Gary Luebbers commented staff had the job description of Public Information Officer,
and would provide it to the Council.

Councilmember Rolfe withdrew his motion, and requested staff to bring back a formal
job description of Public Information Officer. The Council agreed.

Gary Luebbers confirmed staff would bring back the job description and a salary
resolution to the Council at the next scheduled City Council meeting.


VI.      COMMUNICATIONS
         CITY MANAGER COMMENTS/REPORTS

      DECEMBER 2006 ESTIMATED POPULATION
Gary Luebbers reviewed the “West Jordan Population Estimate December 31, 2006,
handout.

         CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS/REPORTS

       WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Councilmember Rolfe reported on his meeting with the Water Conservation Committee,
and suggested the Council review and assist with the Water Conservation’s Education
program.

        RODEO COMMITTEE
Councilmember Hilton informed the Council the Rodeo Committee would be meeting
that night to begin their budget process.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 19



       “THE VILLAS”
Councilmember Hilton reminded Gary Luebbers to have staff review the status of the plat
map for “The Villas.”

        SUNSET RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Councilmember Johnson reported on her meeting at Sunset Ridge Middle School, and
indicated they had applied to be one of the National “Middle Schools to Watch.”

        BUDGET PROCESS AND PROCEDURE FOR COMMITTEES
Councilmember Johnson was concerned after reading the Arts Council Minutes for
January 2007. She felt the Arts Council and the Western Stampede Committees might
not have a clear budget process and procedure for committees. She requested the item be
scheduled for February 20, 2007, the next City Council meeting, to discuss regarding the
budget process and procedure for committees. Councilmember Bennett suggested
inviting the Chair of the Arts Council and the Chair of the Rodeo Committee.

        FREEDOM GALLERY
Councilmember Bennett inquired of the Council if they had reviewed the information
they received regarding the Freedom Gallery. He suggested it be placed on an upcoming
agenda and request the Freedom Gallery representatives to make a presentation.

        CELEBRATION COMMITTEE
Councilmember Bennett reported on the status of the Celebration Committee. He
indicated they were in need of more time to accomplish everything before May, and
asked if the Celebration could possibly be held in August or September. The Council
agreed they would like the Celebration to be successful, rather than being held in May, it
should be held in September.

        SUGGESTED USES FOR $375,000
Councilmember Bennett suggested the $375,000 funds made available due to a contract
stipulation be used for a restroom/concession stand at the Rodeo Arena, portable
restrooms, a portable stage, and stadium seats. He directed staff to bring back costs and
estimates on the above-mentioned items.

      HOLD HARMLESS BILL
Councilmember Summers inquired of the Council if they had read Senator Buttars’ “Hold
Harmless” bill. He suggested the Council encourage their State Legislators to support it.

       TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
Councilmember Summers felt action needed to be taken regarding traffic studies of the
major intersections within the City. Gary Luebbers stated staff would start gathering
information through all the major eight to ten intersections in the City.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 20



        KRAFTMAID TOUR
Mayor Newton read aloud an invitation extended by Kraftmaid to the Council to tour
their new West Jordan plant. The Council agreed on the date of March 13, 2007.

       SUGAR FACTORY FUNDRAISER INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Mayor Newton informed the Council the Sugar Factory Committee would be holding a
fundraiser informational meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., and
encouraged the Council to be involved.

       ARTICLES FOR THE WEST JORDAN JOURNAL
Mayor Newton assigned submittal of articles for the West Jordan Journal as follows:
March-Councilmember     Kellermeyer,     April-Councilmember       Summers,   May-
Councilmember Johnson, June-Councilmember Hilton, and July-Councilmember
Bennett.     Councilmember Rolfe suggested including the article by the Water
Conservation Committee and the new water rates in the March issue.

       WESTSIDE MAYORS
Mayor Newton reported on the Westside Mayors meeting indicating the Sewer District
issue was near being resolved.

       HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ENROLLMENT FOR COLLEGE
Mayor Newton inquired of the Council their willingness to help John Seegrist, Chamber
of Commerce, with enrollment efforts of High School students for College, to be held
February 28, and March 1, between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at both West Jordan and
Copper Hills High Schools. Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Hilton
volunteered for Copper Hills High School, and Councilmember Rolfe, and Mayor
Newton volunteered for West Jordan High School.

       SENATE BILL 30 (SCHOOL DISTRICT BREAKUP BILL)
Mayor Newton reported on a meeting he had that day with the Westside Mayors, Chris
Buttars, and Howard Stevenson where ideas were discussed regarding Senate Bill 30.

        DECEMBER 16, 2006 COG VOTE
Mayor Newton stated for the record, his reasoning of voting against the use of the .25%
sales tax at the December 16, 2006, COG meeting was due to over 50% of the tax would
go towards the Commuter Rail which connected Davis County and Utah County to Salt
Lake County, and had nothing to do with the west side of the valley. He felt it should be
funded by the State, and not by the County sales tax.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2007
Page 21




VII.     CLOSED SESSION
         DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUES

COUNCIL:          Mayor David B. Newton, and Council Members Rob Bennett, Kathy
                  Hilton, Melissa K. Johnson, Mike Kellermeyer, Kim V. Rolfe and Lyle C.
                  Summers.

STAFF:            Roger Cutler, City Attorney.

MOTION:           Councilmember Rolfe moved to go into a Closed Session to discuss
                  Personnel issues, conduct the meeting in the 3rd Floor Administrative
                  Conference room, and then adjourn from that meeting. The motion
                  was seconded by Mayor Newton.

A roll call vote was taken

Councilmember Bennett              Yes
Councilmember Hilton               Yes
Councilmember Johnson              Yes
Councilmember Kellermeyer          Yes
Councilmember Rolfe                Yes
Councilmember Summers              Yes
Mayor Newton                       Yes

The motion passed 7-0.

The Council convened into a Closed Session to discuss personnel issues, at 8:25 p.m.

VIII. ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 9.30 p.m.

The content of the minutes is not intended, nor are they submitted, as a verbatim
transcription of the meeting. These minutes are a brief overview of what occurred at the
meeting.

                                                    DAVID B. NEWTON
ATTEST:                                             Mayor


MELANIE BRIGGS, MMC
City Clerk/Recorder

Approved this 20th day of February 2007

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:14
posted:5/1/2010
language:English
pages:21