Meeting Notes
GRANITE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 2, 2011
Metropolitan Water District Offices Conference Room
Attendance: Michael Hansen (District 3) – Chair, Mary Young (District 3) – Vice Chair, David Hart (District 5) –
Secretary, Bryce John (District 4), Farah Crawford (District 5), Merrill Stillman (District 1&2), Drew Weaver (District 4),
Rob Alston (District 1 & 2), and Josh Linker (Alt. District 5– Nonvoting).
Guests: Rita Lund – Community Council Liaison, David Gellner – County Planning Staff, Amalia Deslis – Contact for
UDOT, Officer James Taylor – County Unified Police, Tod Young, Bruce Richardson, Nick Augustus – Stanley
Consultants.
1.
Call to Order – The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Hansen at 7:01 PM in the Metropolitan
Water District Office Conference Room.
a. Welcome by Chair – The Chairman welcomed all in attendance and invited them to join in the
Pledge of Allegiance lead by Mike Hansen.
2.
Approval of Minutes for February 2, 2011 – David Hart made a motion for approval; motion was seconded
by Mary Young. Unanimously approved.
3.
Widening of Intersection at 9800 South and Wasatch Boulevard – Amalia Deslis, UDOT
Ms. Deslis presented the team that would be addressing the Community Council. They explained that after a
great deal of study, coordination with residents and analysis the plan before the Council is the final plan
which UDOT has selected for implementation (See attached documentation from UDOT). This plan calls for
the east portion of the intersection to be widened by 17 to 20 feet to the north, the addition of a left turn lane
and a combination right turn and straight lane. This will require the construction of a retaining wall of about 7
feet plus the 42” vertical safety wall. The total height from La Montaigne will be a 10’ high wall on the north
side of the street to act as a retaining wall and safety barricade. The wall will be hidden from view by the
existing vegetation and new vegetation on the La Montaigne side. On the west side of the intersection the
road width would be increased slightly to allow for both a independent left turn lane, a dedicated right turn
lane and a through traffic lane (three lanes). The north side of the intersection will be slightly widened to
allow for a signal-free right turn. Pedestrian sidewalks will be added on the south along with crosswalks in
three locations that work for bikers, joggers and walkers (the north side of the intersection will not have a
crosswalk). The consultants stated that to date there have been 18 accidents at this intersection, 14 of
which are in the east west direction. There will also be improved drainage from the streets to the drainage
systems. Time line for the construction will be from late May to mid August. The contractor has not yet been
selected. Bidding will begin very soon.
The Council felt that the project was a long time in coming and was appreciative of UDOT actions.
The Council was concerned about the intersection because it frequently backs up with skiers (to the west).
The consultant was asked about extending or elongating the west left turn lane further to the west to allow
more cars to get out of the ski traffic that want to go up the canyon, thereby reducing some of the pressure
on the intersection. This extension would allow people who are not going up the canyon to turn north. UDOT
said that they will study this idea.
The Council asked about pedestrian traffic. Three crosswalks are being added to increase the safety of the
roadway. The sidewalks will be 5 feet wide and will extend further than they have along the roadways.
The Council asked several questions about safety for both pedestrians and for drivers. These questions
were related to how the intersection would work and would be signaled.
1|Page
The Council voiced its strong concerns about safety, closure and timing. The Council was not comfortable at
all with the idea of closing the traffic in both directions for any length of time and specifically asked that
accommodations be made to provide a flagman and that at least one lane of traffic be open at all times and
accessible to residents coming and going from the neighborhoods to the east. The consultant explained that
for every day the lanes are closed the contractor will be charged $3,300 dollars a day with a twenty (20) day
maximum road closure. The consultant is concerned about the safety of the contractor. The Council asked
that the contractor be encouraged to keep at least one lane open all the time to limit the inconvenience to
the homeowners. While the Council understands the safety issues, it is unacceptable to many that the road
will need to be closed and the contractors should be required to keep the one lane open at all times. UDOT
said that they would need to study this further.
The consultants were asked about the hazardous material clean up that is also occurring this summer,
specifically about the number of trucks in the area. The consultant said that they would coordinate the truck
traffic to minimize impact.
The Council asked about Cal Richardson’s access and how the driveway entry would work. The consultant
explained that he would have a dedicated curb cut for a typical driveway entry from the street and would
also have a mountable curb just west of the curb cut. This way a large vehicle could enter the property using
the mountable curb.
The consultant was reminded about the 42” water line that will be full at the time of year that the construction
is occurring. The consultant knows about the waterline and decided to work around it rather than moving it
or impacting it at all. No asphalt will be removed either.
A visitor asked if there would be any landscaping for the geological viewing area. The consultant said that
the funds for the landscaping would not be available for this. The question was asked if the state would like
to deed it over to the County so that the County could landscape it. The consultant agreed to provide
additional information to the State so that they could communicate with the County.
The question of geology was introduced by a visitor. The consultant said that they would make sure that the
wall was designed to seismic standards to reduce as much as possible the possibility of the failure during an
earthquake.
4.
Planning and Zoning Matters: David Hart – Rezone for Alta Approach
David Hart introduced the rezoning request by describing the general area and the general nature of the
request. The rezoning is at 4000 E Alta Approach RD (9815 S). The Chair noted that both David Gellner
from the County Planning Department and Darlene Batatian, the applicant who filed the rezoning request,
were present and invited David Gellner to make a presentation. David Gellner suggested that the applicant
should make the presentation and turned the time over to Ms. Batatian.
Ms. Batatian introduced Josh Linker (Alt. District 5) and said that he is a proponent of the project and a
liaison with Stonebridge for the project. Stonebridge is the developer. Ms. Batatian introduced the project by
handing out a PowerPoint handout (see that attached). She additionally addressed the property and the
reasoning for the request which included two separate requests:
a. One for the existing non-conforming use where the current townhomes are located. The landowner
would like to change this to a conforming use such that landowner would be able to buy and sell
property which currently, because of the legal nonconforming use designation, they are allegedly
not able to get a loan from a bank to cover the sale or transaction. She indicated that the density
would also allow for additional townhomes to be added around the pool (within the current open
space) and would allow for more density.
b. The second area was the lot (0.94 acres) to the west of the pool lot which is currently zoned R-1-15
which would allow a single family residence. She indicated that for the last few years a land owner
had been trying to put a single family home on the property but could not afford to do so. The land
owner put the site up for sale and Stonebridge has purchased the lot with the intention to change
2|Page
the zoning to R-2-10 which would allow for townhomes of approximately 8 units. While the plan
does not call for 6 units (requests approximately 8), the zoning is what would govern the
development and the density.
Ms. Batatian described the situation with the roadways and the ownership or legal challenges which are
related to the ownership of the roadways that have arisen due to the nature of the two developments.
The Council asked about the ownership of the property. Ms. Batatian said that it is currently owned by
Stonebridge, but it was previously owned by Josh Linker and a business partner. They sold it to the Molars
who tried to put a single family residence on the site and were unable to meet the county requirements and
have recently sold it to Stonebridge.
The question was raised as to whether a rezone on the south side of Quarry Drive (existing townhouses)
would increase the density of the legal nonconforming use area. Ms. Batatian and Mr. Linker stated that they
would not add additional density by addressing the pool and the clubhouse. The Chair asked that she
address the question of the density. Ms. Batatian said that they did want to add some additional units around
the pool and clubhouse area. This lead to other questions from the Council such as, that once they received
the rezoning they could increase the density along the north side (south of Little Cottonwood Road SR210).
They would then ask for access and by giving this zone the door is open for additional units along the north.
The Council was very concerned about the increase in the density. Ms. Batatian addressed the question by
saying that they had room around the pool and that the pool was in need of repair. This introduced the
question about the rezoning that occurred two years ago where Stonebridge said that with the rezoning that
they would be able to repair or replace the pool. Ms. Batatian said that yes they would replace the pool,
which is no longer desired by residents. She ended by saying she did not know if UDOT would grant them
access off of SR210, for the one unit.
Ms. Batatian wanted to request that once they have the rezoning that they would like to have a haul road
through the property to SR210 to avoid trucks going through the site to limit the impact to residents. She
indicated that this would be in the general area of where the driveway to the proposed unit was indicated.
The Council expressed concern over the location of the six units that would back on to the main entry of a
subdivision of million dollar homes where the first thing that one sees upon entering the subdivision is the
back of these units. The Council reminded Ms. Batatian that the previous rezoning had a 100 foot green
buffer that separated the townhouses from the single family residences. The Council asked that a buffer be
considered on this lot of 100 feet or so in order to protect the residents that have purchased their homes with
the understanding that a single family residence would be located there. Ms. Batatian said that the property
is very challenging and that it was very restrictive, and that a buffer would be difficult. She said that at one
time the idea was to move the clubhouse to the new lot but no one thought that was a good idea. They will
leave the club house where it is. The Council repeated the request for a 50 to 100 foot buffer of natural
vegetation. Mr. Linker said that all the trees would be removed. The Council said that it is currently R-1-15
and did not see that it needs to be rezoned unless the applicant can provide some sort of natural green
buffer and new vegetation that was acceptable.
Mr. Linker said that 20 years ago Stonebridge was given approval for many more condos. He went on to
explain that it was then down-zoned. The Council was not concerned with what the zoning was 20 years ago
and preferred to focus upon the fact that it is currently zoned R-1-15. Mr. Linker then provided a testimonial
on how important it was to him to have a complete development. He is frustrated about the pool not being
fixed and that the development be completed.
The Council restated that two years ago when the rezoning of the hillside was introduced, people went along
with the rezoning to provide the additional funds to complete the projects. Now it feels like we are going
through it all over again and that this is being boot-strapped to expand the condos further. This is of great
concern and needs serious thought. Some members of the Council were not convinced that a rezone is in
the best interest of the community. There was concern raised by members of the Council that once a rezone
3|Page
is granted a new owner could expand the zone to its maximum density. Ms. Batatian agreed that by
rezoning you are opening the door to the maximum allowable density.
The Council comments kept coming back to the original question that was not answered – that of a buffer of
50 to 100 feet along the residential area to develop a win – win for everyone. The other question was the
access off of SR210. There is to be none.
The question was raised about ski units, how many were currently grandfathered in and are legal, and how
many are functioning and are not legal. Also how many of the new townhouses will be ski units? Mr. Linker
said that he was the one running the units, that there were 6 that were grandfathered and only 4 that are
operating presently. Mr. Linker was asked for documentation. Ms. Batatian said that the requested zone
does not allow any ski units.
Ms. Batatian stated that she saw a clear separation between the homes and the condos. The Council saw it
completely different – that the road was not the division but that the road was bounded by single family
homes, the buffer would then be behind the homes and between the condos. Mr. Linker said that the
homeowners voted to allow for access from Alta Approach Drive.
Council members expressed their frustration in that it seems that we are being given the same arguments
for the previous rezoning for this rezoning. The Council did not feel that it was a prudent idea to rezone the
legal non conforming use. The Chair pointed out that property to the east would be next for the rezoning.
While Mr. Linker disagreed, the Council was very concerned about the long term issues.
The Chair asked that Mr. Gellner address the Council. He said that a lot of what has been discussed has to
do with the conditions in the PUD process. He said that in a rezoning you can limit:

Height

Density

Permitted uses – limited to uses

Square footage of buildings
Mr. Gellner said that you can place conditions in a rezoning by attaching a ZC (zoning conditions) which can
limit the items above. This could limit the number of units per acre.
The question was asked about a continuance. Mr. Gellner said that this item will not be on the Planning
Commission agenda for March and the earliest it would be would be April.13th.
Ms. Batatian said that the buffer, screening and access off of SR210 was not something that will be
addressed at this stage, that they will discuss it with owner, but that it cannot be dealt with in the zoning
process. Once the rezoning is approved, they would look at those items as requested.
The Council asked Mr. Gellner to provide to the Council what the options are for the Council to consider in
deciding the change to the requested R-2-10 zone. The Council Chair was very clear about what the
rezoning was going to become, then anything listed in that rezoning will be acceptable.
The Council asked about number of units. Ms. Batatian said that what is shown is a simple concept sketch.
Nothing has been penciled out. They will need to see what needs to happen following the rezoning.
There was some discussion of shifting the open space from the around the pool area to the upper portion of
the hill side.
David Hart read into the record a statement received from the Wilcox family stating that they were opposed
to the rezoning.
5.
Sheriff’s Report and Discussion – Officer James Taylor
4|Page
Officer Taylor said that there were 57 calls for service, 16 resulted in cases.
The big questions that came from the Council were regarding the poor performance of the canyon closures.
The concern was that the closings were taking place by the “Y” intersection rather than at the lower area.
We are right back to where we were years ago. It is a real problem. Honking and yelling was a real problem.
The Council asked if a group of police officers could come together. This group would include Sandy and the
County. The Chair said that he would call Sheriff Winder. Sergeant Skinner said one thing and they are
doing another. Officer James Taylor said he would pass it along and have Sheriff Winder call the Chair.
6.
County Mayor’s Office Report – Rita Lund
Rita provided the following:
a. Provided checks for the Council
b. Budget in Brief (See the attached) book
c. Volunteer hours for our work on the Council. This will provide insurance for workers compensation
or for grants for the time we are spending. The Chair asked for hours to be turned into him.
d. Municipal priorities. Please submit five priorities for the budget submit by May 16th. These can be
items that have been submitted before.
e. Breakfast with the Mayor, March 30th at 8 AM.
f. Mayor Open Door March 31st. Anyone can get 10 minutes with the Mayor. 4:00 to 6:00 PM
g. Deputy Mayor Nicole Dunn has proposed to move Greg’s and Rita’s positions into the Mayor’s
office. This should improve communication.
h. Zoning – Committee Meetings. Reorganization of the ordinances from old ordinances that changed
over time has taken place internally. Once it goes to the consultant the next step will be for teams
to work with Council. They will be training teams that will work with Councils.
i. Planners will start to come to Council meetings when we have planning and zoning issues.
j. Legislative update was provided.
k. Dimple Dell Trail Reconstruction.
7.
Salt Lake County Report – Rita Lund, Community Council Liaison
See Item 6 above
8.
Treasurer's Report: Rob Alston
The council started with $9,512 and currently we have $11,512.
The following acts were approved by the Council:
a. Payment finalization of the $500 dollars for the Website. The Council approved $250 and now
needs to pay the final $250.
b. Payment to Mary for the emergency preparedness for CERT of $45.
Rob Alston made the motion to approve the $250 for the website and the $45 for Emergency Preparedness.
Second was made by Farah Crawford. Expenditures were unanimously approved
9.
Other Business
Tod Young reported that he has been working with Jim Hawk on the Website. The site is complete and Tod
would like to get the word out. The address is www.granitecommunitycouncil.net
10. Citizens’ Comments
Questions about the signs to change the website address? Tod Young originally created these sign and
donated them. He will decide if he is able to correct them of if the council should have this done.
11. Adjourn—Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
5|Page