Meeting Minutes of the
GRANITE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2011
Metropolitan Water District Offices Conference Room
Danish Road
Council Members in 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);
Terry Wood (District 1&2); Drew Weaver (District 4); and Rob Alston (District 1&2) arrived late.
1.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 and welcomed everyone in attendance and
asked them to join in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.
The Chair announced that Merrill Stillman had a heart attack and will not be with us tonight
as he is home recovering and doing well.
3.
Approval of Minutes for March 2, 2011: The Chair had a few changes as did other members
of the Council. Changes were passed along to the secretary for incorporation into the minutes.
A motion was made to approve the minutes with the associated changes. The motion passed
by unanimous vote.
4.
Problems with Little Cottonwood Canyon Closures: (Sgt. Travis Skinner, Capt. Ownby,
Sandy Police Captain John Lening, Cottonwood Heights Asst. Police Chief Paul Brenneman,
and UDOT Avalanche forecaster Liam Fitzgerald.) The Chair took the opportunity to explain
that in the past years the plan to circulate the traffic worked very well. Several meetings were
held to make this happen where residents and Council members were involved. This year a
new plan was put in place, without notice to the Council or Little Cottonwood neighborhood.
This change has clogged the neighborhood and limited people from leaving and entering the
neighborhood. Sergeant Skinner met with the Council in December 2010 and explained that
the old plan was going to remain in place. The Council’s question is why was it changed and
why was the Council not notified? Travis Skinner complemented the Chair in his accurate
explanation regarding the change. Sergeant Skinner handed out some material. Sergeant
Skinner explained that the problem not only impacts the Granite Community, but it also
impacts Sandy and Cottonwood Heights. Sergeant Skinner stated that he has tried to work
with all the partners including the avalanche forecaster to see if things could be changed.
Great efforts were made to have the road open by 9:00 AM each day of a closure. This goal
was achieved with one exception in December 2010. The way the new plan works is that
traffic is stacked in the canyon (approximately 2.5 miles from the electronic sign up). Then
when the canyon is open the traffic starts moving. The stacked cars can only move one at a
time and it takes a long time to get the stream of cars moving. However the cars that are
coming from Wasatch Boulevard and other locations hit the canyon (7,000 vehicles) and the
traffic comes to a standstill even though the canyon is open. UDOT requires that once the road
is open, it is open and the police have to let everyone who wants go up the canyon up.
Council members questioned the officer about why there was not an officer at Wasatch
Boulevard. Sergeant Skinner explained that once the canyon is opened the cars in the canyon
1|Page
take 3 minutes each to get going and cars just do not move up the canyon fast enough to keep
traffic down below (around the triangle) moving. The Council again asked why not keep the
traffic circulating as you did last year until the traffic is moving? Cottonwood Heights Asst.
Police Chief Paul Brenneman explained that when the traffic is circulated it moves off the
roads and into the neighborhoods in Cottonwood Heights and Sandy City, creating the same
problems in these neighborhoods as Little Cottonwood neighborhood is facing. Assist. Police
Chief Brenneman explained that they are trying to work together with all parties to minimize
the impact. Cottonwood Heights wants to maximize parking opportunities. That will help with
the problem with approximately 600 new parking stalls to allow for mass transit to take
people up the canyon. Cottonwood Heights likes the current plan, and would like to share the
burden instead of shouldering the burden. Sergeant Skinner explained that it is really the lag
time from when cars start moving that is causing the problem. The Council asked what
happens when the stacked cars in the canyon reach the electronic sign. Sergeant Skinner stated
that they are then circulated; however, he added that has not had to happen this year since the
road has been open. Council Members stated that it appears that we are shouldering the
burden not just sharing it. The Council stated that they are willing to share it not shoulder it.
The Council and residents made several recommendations as to how we might share the load.
There needs to be a meeting focusing on just this issue and a plan developed for everyone’s
benefit so that everyone can share the load. The decision was made to get together following
the ski season so that this issue can be discussed further. The Chair suggested that UDOT be
involved in the discussion. The Chair suggested that a meeting be held at Granite Elementary
School this summer. Sergeant Skinner provided his phone number 801.386.3945 (personal
phone) so that residents can call if they are unable to get home due to a road closure. The
Chair will work with Sergeant Skinner to establish the future meeting time and date.
5.
Planning and Zoning Matters: Rezone for Alta Approach Condominiums, Phase 3:
(David Gellner, Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services Department, Darlene
Batatian, and Josh Linker). The Chair turned over the meeting to David Gellner. Mr. Gellner
introduced the rezone request for Alta Approach. It is proposed that two parcels be rezoned
from R-1-15 to R-2-10. This request is looking at the underlying zoning of the property not
the specific use. He stated that he is not for or against the project. He is only at the meeting to
provide input. The Chair asked the Planning Commission Staff what they will be
recommending at the Planning Commission Meeting in April. David Gellner stated that the
Granite Community Council (GCC) Master Plan was opposed to multifamily housing and
favored large lot single family rural neighborhoods. This is the way the area was rezoned after
the condos were constructed. There are other County plans that call for more density and
smaller lots. The planning staff did not see the Moller lot as part of the large lot neighborhood
to the west. The Chair pointed out that it is as contiguous with the neighborhood to the west as
it is to the multifamily property. Mr. Gellner continued, that after studying these plans, the
planning staff is recommending approval with zoning conditions that limit density on parcels
to four units per acre. The Council asked how this would impact the different lots. Mr. Gellner
explained that the total 4.57 acres would allow 18 total units. Currently 11 units exist, so a
total of 7 additional units would be allowed. When one adds in the 8 units (approved last year)
that are on the south hill side there would be a total of 15 new units allowed.
The Chair next turned the floor over to Darlene Batatian (representing Stonebridge) for her
presentation. Ms. Batatian provided a handout (see attached). She stated that the goals are to:
2|Page
a. Restore legal conforming zoning status to the existing condominiums.
b. Facilitate expansion of the Alta Approach Condominiums.
c. Consolidate all proposals under one application so that it is considered one project.
Ms. Batatian next explained the process of zoning and approval. She stated that if the zoning
is approved they will be back several times to the Council to show the design progress. Ms.
Batatian stated that they had met with both groups (Alta Approach Condominium Home
Owners Association (Condo HOA), and the Alta Approach Resident Home Owners
Association (Resident HOA). The Condo HOA represented to Stonebridge their approval to
go forward, she stated. She also stated that they had met with the Resident HOA recently. She
mentioned that everyone is concerned about density. She explained their position on density.
She stated that the County planning staff recommendation is less than what is shown on the
documents. She further stated that UDOT will not grant any additional access to the site from
SR210 so that after the zoning approval Stonebridge would be looking at a reduced number of
units for the site. She concluded by stating that Stonebridge is happy with the density
recommended by the planning staff. She reminded the Council that Stonebridge is willing to
provide open space dedication in the area that is greater than 30% slope (non-buildable land).
This will be done to reduce the tax liability for the condominium owner. She discussed that
most issues will be handled with the conditional use application following the zoning
approval. She stated that during the meeting with residents of both HOAs she had heard the
following concerns:
a. No binding agreement between Condo HOA and Stonebridge. New units are needed
in order to fix the pool for the Condo HOA. The current language is not set up to
allow this. They would like to do this after the zoning. The Condo HOA is not
comfortable with that and would like it a firm contractual commitment from
Stonebridge first.
b. The single family orphan lot (Moller lot) is not part of Resident HOA – She stated
that the agreement was not recorded, is not part of the HOA and is not binding.
c. Buffer along the edge would be discussed with the Council following the zoning
approval and during the conditional use discussion. It should not be a problem since
the hillside will need to be completely reworked. Stonebridge will be happy to look
at it once the site plan is done.
Stonebridge has an option to purchase the “orphan” or Moller lot. Stonebridge needs to move
forward with the lot purchase. They would like to have the zoning done before they purchase.
This concluded Stonebridge presentation.
The Chair asked for questions. There were none.
The Chair invited Josh Cantor to speak. Mr. Cantor introduced himself as representing the
Resident HOA. He and his wife are homeowners that are directly impacted. He handed out
their disagreements with the information that was handed out earlier by Ms. Batatian. See the
attached. They are completely opposed to the following parts of the proposal:
a. Rezoning to legally conforming use is OK with the Resident HOA, as long as the
rezone density does not increase the number of units. They are opposed to the
planning staff recommendations. They are opposed to having more units than
currently exist now or are planned for the South slope.
b. Pool Lot. The pool is dilapidated. It belongs to the Condo HOA and should be
resolved. They will allow access off of their road to the Condo HOA in order to do
3|Page
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
that. They do not want additional units on this parcel. The repair of the pool is
acceptable and needed.
Their primary objection is with the Moller lot. Mr. Cantor stated it is not an orphan
lot and resents it being called such. He stated that the agreement is not resolved and
may be subject to litigation and that is a matter between the Resident HOA and the
Mollers. The agreement is that this lot is to be developed as a single family home.
There is no reason for this zoning to change. The Moller lot is as connected to, or
contiguous to, the large lot single family homeowner PUD as much as if not more so
that to the condos. It is located at the entrance to the PUD.
Regarding the rezoning that took place last year. It was everyone’s understanding
that Stonebridge only wanted 8 units and no more. Now just a year later we find out
that they want more units. It is unacceptable both in the density and the way
Stonebridge has gone about this. The Resident HOA did not object to the 8 new
units. If they would have known that Stonebridge was going to change the deal and
ask for more units, the Resident HOA would have objected. We now object to the 17
new units. It is just too many! The fact that they can be placed anywhere, even all on
one lot, is very concerning and objectionable. Ms. Batatian tried to explain
Stonebridge’s intent and the zoning options that the Council has. She advocated for a
zoning limitation on the different sites using the recommendations of County
Planning Staff.
Mr. Cantor stated that they are opposed to the number of units that Stonebridge is
planning.
The 2009 application map for the rezone of the South slope showed a buffer zone
and the Moller lot was shown as the single family home.
The Resident HOA view is that it changes the zoning unnecessarily. It may be a
difficult lot to build on for a single family home but all hillside lots are expensive
and difficult to build on. It was that way for all the homeowners in the PUD and it is
not a reason to change the zoning.
The zoning change would add density and permit multi-unit condos that are much
more contiguous to the Resident HOA property.
The fiscal situation of the Condo development is not relevant to the rezoning issues.
Stonebridge, not the condo owners, is moving this forward.
The Moller lot is not better used for multifamily housing but for single family
housing. It does have a huge visual impact on the PUD and the single family
residents and it is far different than the Condo HOA which is much further away
from the lot than are the single family homes.
It is not an orphan lot. It is part of the Resident HOA and they have been given
access from the private road. It is the entry to the community and is part of the HOA.
It is considered part of the PUD. The Moller’s have been paying the HOA fees for
several years.
Timing is a question. We would like to know what the true timeline is. The road that
Stonebridge owns has been poorly maintained. Stonebridge needs to be a better land
owner and maintain their property properly.
Charles McManus, President of the Condo HOA, addressed the Council. He stated that they
would like to be what they are from a zoning standpoint. Over the last few days the Condo
HOA is concerned about the additional density and its impact on the existing road just as the
4|Page
Resident HOA is. The Condo HOA is troubled that certain representations have been made
that the condos will be fixed as will the pool. No real deal has been made and they are not
happy with the way this is coming together. They are opposed to seeing it move forward at
this time. They are fine with their area being rezoned, but not the other property (Moller lot).
There are 5 condo owners that got together and are presenting their opposition to the proposal.
(Mr. Linker owns 6 units as discussed in the previous meeting). They are only in favor of the
rezone, with no additional density, for the existing condos only. The Chair asked about the
statement that was made regarding the difficulty of sales due to the current zoning. The Condo
HOA owners stated that the only problem associated with lending is that one owner has more
than 10 percent of the development and it is therefore not Fanny-Mae compliant. The sales of
the properties have nothing to do with being a legal non-conforming use.
The Council then discussed the density issues and the zoning options.
Bruce Witt, owner in the Resident HOA, lives in close proximity to the Moller lot. The
neighborhood has strong feelings that the Moller lot is a single family lot and welcomed them
into the PUD. The Mollers have been paying the fees to the HOA since 2008. The proximity
is too close to the single family area and there is no real buffer zone available.
Kathy Cantor: In 2009, she attended the Planning Commission meeting. She approved of the
rezoning then because of the 80 foot zoning buffer. Stonebridge did not say that in two years
it would be asking for additional land for more condos. Ms. Cantor stated that if she had
known that was Stonebridge’s plan in 2009, she would have been completely opposed to the
re-zoning. She felt like there had been a bait and switch.
Jacob Butter, a member of the Condo HOA, stated that there are two reasons for coming
forward: 1) no agreement with Stonebridge and 2) the Condo HOA has never taken a position
on the 2009 rezone and there is no position by the Condo HOA on the Moller property. They
are not in favor of the proposal. There is nothing on record. He handed out a paper from 5 of
the 11 owners. The rezoning is not really necessary as far as the 5 homeowners are concerned.
A woman across the street across from the Moller property expressed her concern about the
height and the impact it would have on her property.
Pamela Hinbecker stated that the density was too much. Stonebridge has never been clear with
their statements. This development would degrade the area and there would be too many cars
coming in and out.
The Chair asked for a motion to close public comment which he received and it passed. David
Hart made a motion that the existing Alta Approach phases 1 and 2 be rezoned to R-2-10 with
a maximum density of 3.5 units per acre. The existing units would then be the max. There
would be no density increase. They would be able to improve the pool and one unit possibly.
With respect to the Moller property, the motion was to deny the request for rezoning. The
motion was seconded.
The Council then discussed the motion that was made. The Chair commented that the
rezoning of the non-conforming use is a theoretical argument that is not needed for any
reason. The Chair then stated that any rezoning is setting a precedent and with the other
properties that are being discussed presently within Granite there is concern as to the
5|Page
precedent that this project would be setting. Large lots are part of the Master Plan and so the
Chair would vote no on the motion.
David Hart then stated that he would withdraw his motion. Terry Wood made a comment
about his feelings to keep the area single family property and then withdrew his second,
effectively killing the motion.
David Hart then made a motion recommending that the Council deny the application for rezoning the three parcels in question and that the zoning stay as it is: R-1-15. Terry Wood
seconded the motion. After discussion the motion was unanimously approved.
The Chair instructed the secretary to write a letter covering the following points:
a. Concerns of homeowners
b. Concerns of the Condo HOA
c. Density
d. Traffic on the road
e. Concerns of the Resident HOA
f. Proximity
g. Incompatibility of zoning change with the Granite Master Plan
h. Setting a precedent regarding down-zoning
The Chair and the Secretary will be at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday,
April 13.
6. Sheriff’s Report and Discussion: Officer James Taylor gave the report concerning crime
statistics: 55 calls for service and 25 calls became cases. That was up just a little from last
month. He then discussed some of the more concerning cases. There were two assaults. There
were some general questions and answers provided regarding some of the concerns. There was
some discussion about flooding in the area.
7. County Mayor’s Office Report: None.
8. Salt Lake County Council Report: The Salt Lake County Ordinance on Junk Automobiles
was presented by the Chair. Time was given to Rita Lund, Community Council Liaison, for
discussion. There were concerns raised by the Council about driveway width. Rita stated that
other community councils had similar discussions and have requested a 30 day continuance.
The ordinance addresses two things: the width of the driveway and too many vehicles or old
junk vehicles. There was a lot of concern by the Council. The Council said it would like to have
an extension of time.
David Hart made the motion to request an extension for one month. Terry Wood seconded the
motion and the motion passed unanimously.
There was discussion about a single-family residence that is being used as a ski house that is
now housing several adults, who park up to 10 cars/night and have caused noise complaints by
neighbors. The Chair will send an email to the Mayor requesting code enforcement at the ski
house.
6|Page
Pet Ordinance change. There is no limit on the number of pets in a home but cats have to obtain
a license.
9. Treasurer’s Report: Rob Alston provided the treasurers report indicating that the Council has
over $11,000 in the bank. There were a couple of checks that had not been written for $250.
Tod and Mary Young have a receipt that they need to have paid. That receipt was approved
previously. Rob requested a receipt for paid items
10. Hot Granite Nights: Mike Hansen skipped due to time.
11. Other Business: Dan Naylor from the LDS Stake was in attendance at the meeting and had
some business for the Council. Dan and his wife have been called to coordinate the clean-up on
May 14th. The passes for the dump were given to him by the Chair. The Granite community had
these passes that need to go to all people in the area to help them. The LDS Church will be
distributing the passes to all. The Church will focus on the widows and those that are shut in or
those in bad health. The work will start at 8:00 AM and should be over by noon.
The Naylors will also be in charge of the 4th of July parade, breakfast, and celebration. The
Council will pay for the permits that are required. The Council will also pay for various other
items up to $500. They should contact James Taylor from the Unified Police Department so that
they are able to get help. They should do this ASAP.
12. Public Comments: Those near to the property that is being operated virtually as a hotel for
skiers (the single family residence on SR209) requested that the Council draft a letter on the
house. The Council will write a letter about it. David Hart made a motion to have the Chair
write a letter to zoning enforcement to resolve this issue. Motion was seconded and passed
unanimously. David Gellner suggested that the Chair send it to Roland Yoshinaga.
Todd Draper introduced himself as the planner that will be working with the Council.
Mayor’s Office and potential flooding. Salt Lake County has a grant for people who need help
repairing their property from last year’s flood. It will not pay for work already completed but
will pay for work that is not currently done. The Council was concerned about the creek and the
road. The County is going to look at the road to make sure that road does not move. (SR210.
North Little Cottonwood Road).
13. Adjourn: A motion to adjourn was unanimously approved at 9:50 p.m.
7|Page