Planning Commission Application Summary

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Application Summary Project Name: Palmer Estates Rezone Request Address: 1266 East South Current Zoning: RA1 (Residential Agricultural) Hearing Date: April 23, 2015 Summary of Request This application is a request for approval of a Rezone for approximately 5.16 acres located at 1266 East South. The applicant would like to rezone the property to R4 (Single-family Residential, 10,000 square foot lots) with a Development Agreement for a specific maintenance free layout. Background The property has been used as the Corner Canyon Equestrian Center for several years. The home on the property dates back to the 1960s. General Plan and Zoning The Land Use Map of the General Plan calls for Residential Low Medium Density designation. This designation is designed for very large lot single-family neighborhoods, but does allow for increased densities when specific performance and mitigation standards are taken. The property is currently zoned RA1 (Residential Agricultural). This zone allows for one dwelling unit per acre. The proposed zoning district R4 allows for up to four units per acre. The applicant is proposing a density of 4.12 dwelling units per acre, or more specifically 19 single-family detached homes. Analysis The applicant has outlined design and buffer standards within the Development Agreement which would protect the existing low density neighborhood to the west and south. The maintenance free layout proposed by the Development Agreement would provide a valuable alternative housing option for the City, allowing residents to remain in Draper who do not want yard maintenance but want the convenience of Draper trail access and single-family home. Several letters have been obtained from nearby residents and can be found in Exhibit F. Deviations (If applicable) None Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for this request.

2 Development Review Committee 1020 East Pioneer Road Draper, UT (801) STAFF REPORT April 14, 2015 To: From: Draper City Planning Commission Business Date: April 23, 2015 Development Review Committee Prepared By: Jennifer Jastremsky, AICP, Planner II Planning Division Community Development Department Re: Palmer Estates Re zone Request Application No.: E Applicant: Mindy Dansie, representing DAI/Candlelight Homes and Troy Dana, representing Madison Creek, LLC Project Location: Approximately 1266 East South Zoning: RA1 (Residential Agricultural, 40,000 square foot lot minimums) Zone Acreage: Approximately 5.16 Acres (Approximately 224,769.6 ft 2 ) Request: Request for approval of a Rezone from the RA1 (Residential Agricultural, 40,000 square foot lot minimums) to the R4 (Single-family Residentia l, 10,000 square foot lot minimums) zone. A Development Agreement is requested to allow a specific layout. SUMMARY This application is a request for approval of a Rezone for approximately 5.16 acres located on the south side of South, at approximately 1266 East South. The property is currently zoned RA1 (Residentia l Agricultural). The applicant is requesting that a Rezone be approved to allow the property to be developed with four dwelling units per acre. BACKGROUND The property has been used as a private equestrian center, Corner Canyon Equestrian Center, for some time now. The residential home on the property dates to the 1960s and the various barns date from the 1970s and 1980s. ANALYSIS General Plan and Zoning. The Land Use Map of the General Plan calls for the Residential Low Medium Density land use designation for the subject property. This category includes areas of very large lot P almer Estat es App. # E Rezone Request 1

3 single-family neighborhoods and ranchettes. It also states that increased densities within these areas would be allowed only with compliance to specific performance standards and impact mitigation measures. The property has been assigned the RA1 (Residential Agricultural, 40,000 square foot lots) zoning classification, supporting approximately one dwelling unit per acre. The purpose of the RA1 zone is to foster low density development with little impact on its surroundings and municipal services; to generally preserve the character of the City s semi-rural areas; and to promote and preserve conditions favorable to large-lot family life, including the keeping of limited numbers of animals and fowl. The A5, A2, RA1 and RA2 zoning designations are identified by the General Plan as a preferred zoning classification for the Residential Low Medium land use designation. The RA1 zone abuts the subject property on the north and west, the R3 and RA1 zones abut on the east and the RA2 and RA1 zones abuts on the south. Development Agreement: The applicant has applied for a Development Agreement. This agreement will set the maximum allowed number of dwelling units at 19. This equates to 4.12 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing 19 detached single-family homes. The arrangement of the development would provide a maintenance free community, wherein each home is surrounded by common open space rather than an individual lot. An HOA would be set up to maintain all common space. A Concept Site Plan can be found in Exhibit D. The applicant has also provided images of possible elevations, as found in Exhibit E. The Agreement would prohibit the same floor plans from being built next to each other and require at least three different models between the floor plans. The applicant is proposing to dedicate acres, or 5, square feet, of property along 1300 East to the City. The City would need to acquire this property sometime in the future for roadway improvements. This dedication will negate future acquisition. The property is also located along the Draper Canal Trail. This will allow the City an option of installing improvements such benches along the trail at a future date. The Development Agreement will look at buffering for adjacent properties. It includes provisions that certain homes on the west side of the development would be limited to rambler style units. Several trees along Judy Gainer s property, to the west, are slated to remain and will not be demolished as part of site development. A 6-foot tall privacy fence would be built along the west and south property lines. Wrought iron fencing would be utilized along South. Request Analysis: The General Plan supports higher density developments in the lower density areas when performance standards and mitigation measures are taken. The applicant is proposing mitigation measures with the buffer standards and elevation standards outlined within the Development Agreement. The adjacent road, 1300 East, will be widened to accommodate additional traffic in the area and will support the traffic from this development. The maintenance free style of the design would meet the needs of long-standing Draper residents who need to downsize, but wish to remain in the City in a single-family home. It also caters to others, such as Millennia ls, who want the enjoyment of a single-family home without the yard maintenance. Criteria For Approval. The criteria for review and potential approval of a Rezone request is found in Sections (e)(1) of the Draper City Municipal Code. This section depicts the standard of review for such requests as: (1) Map Amendments: (i) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with goals, objectives and policies of the City s General Plan; (ii) Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property; P almer Estat es App. # E Rezone Request 2

4 (iii) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the standards of any applicable overlay zone. (iv) The extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect adjacent property; and (v) The adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. REVIEWS Planning Division Review. The Draper City Planning Division has completed their review of the Rezone submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request with the following proposed comments: 1. The proposed maintenance free style of development will provide for a much needed housing option within the city. This includes options for an aging population and a younger generation who prefers maintenance free lifestyles. 2. The General Plan contemplates higher densities in low density areas with strict standards in place to mitigate negative effects. Engineering and Public Works Divisions Review. The Draper City Engineering and Public Works Divisions have completed their reviews of the Rezone submission and have issued a recommendation for approval for the request with the following proposed comments: 1. The adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection; Other than noted below, we are not aware of any inadequacies of the facilities intended to serve this property. a. Connectivity with this parcel does not appear to be an issue, as it appears to have adequate access to South and 1300 East. b. There are not any storm drainage facilities fronting the property in South to provide a drainage discharge point. Provisions for onsite storm drainage will need to be addressed with any subdivision application, and shall comply with the provisions of the site plan requirements within the Draper City Municipal Code. Development Agreement provides an indication that a discharge to Corner Canyon Creek may be obtained from the adjacent property owner, that would satisfy the drainage discharge requirements. c. Sanitary sewer facilities will be provided by South Valley Sewer District. Any subdivision application will require a commitment to serve from the Sewer District that facilities are adequate to provide service for the proposed uses. d. Drinking water facilities will be provided by WaterPro. Any subdivision application will require a commitment to serve from the water provider that facilities are adequate to provide service for the proposed uses. Unified Fire Authority Review. The Unified Fire Authority has completed their review of the Rezone submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request with the following proposed comments that need to be kept in mind for future site plan development: P almer Estat es App. # E Rezone Request 3

5 1. Fire Department Access is required. An unobstructed minimum road width of twenty-six (26) feet exclusive of the shoulders and a minimum height of thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches shall be required. The road must be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of emergency apparatus. The surface shall be able to provide all weather driving capabilities. The road shall have an inside turning radius of twenty eight (28) feet. There shall be a maximum grade of 10%. Grades may be checked prior to building permits being issued. (D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet exclusive of the shoulders.) Also see 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D requirements on street widths. 2. Fire Department Approved Turn Around Required. Access roads over 150 feet long shall require an approved turn around. B 3. Fire Hydrants are required. There shall be a total of 5 hydrants required spaced at 500ft. increments. The required fire flow for this project is 2000GPM for full 2 hour duration. This will allow up to a 6200sqft home. Anything larger will require additional fire flow test to determine if sprinklers are needed. 4. Hydrants and Site Access. All hydrants and a form of acceptable temporary Fire Department Access to the site shall be installed and APPROVED by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. If at any time during the building phase any of the hydrants or temporary Fire Department Access becomes non-compliant any and all permits could be revoked. 5. No combustible construction shall be allowed prior to hydrant installation and testing by water purveyor. All hydrants must be operational prior to any combustible elements being received or delivered on building site. 6. Visible Addressing Required. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers plainly legible and visible from the street fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. 7. Street Signs required and are to be posted and legible prior to building permits being issued. All lots to have lot number or address posted and legible. Legal Division Review. The Draper City Legal Division has completed their review of the Rezone submission and has issued a recommendation for approval for the request without further comment. Noticing. The applicant(s) have expressed their desire to rezone the subject property and do so in a manner which is compliant with the City Code. As such, notice has been properly issued in the manner outlined in the City and State Codes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a Rezone Request by Mindy Dansie, representing DAI/Candlelight Homes and Troy Dana, representing Madison Creek, LLC, application # E. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed development plans meet the intent, goals, and objectives of the Draper City General Plan. a. The General Plan supports higher densities within the Residential Low Medium Land Use Designation when there are specified performance standards and impact mitigation measures. Palmer Estates App. # E Rezone Request 4

6 b. Maintain a balance of land uses that support a high quality of life, a diverse economic base, and a rich mixture of housing and leisure opportunities. c. Provide a variety of housing type and innovative development patterns and building methods that will result in greater housing affordability. d. Guide growth to locations contiguous to existing development to provide city services in a cost effective and efficient manner. e. Ensure that neighborhoods transition to one another by considering appropriate land uses, development patterns, character elements, and access to mobility networks. 2. The proposed development plans meet the requirements and provisions of the Draper City Municipal Code. 3. The proposed development plans will not be deleterious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the general public nor the residents of adjacent properties. 4. The proposed development conforms to the general aesthetic and physical development of the area with the buffer mitigations proposed within the Development Agreement. 5. The public services in the area are adequate to support the subject development. MODEL MOTIONS Sample Motion for a Positive Recommendation I move we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Palmer Estates Rezone Request by Mindy Dansie, representing DAI/Candlelight Homes and Troy Dana, representing Madison Creek, LLC for the purpose of rezoning the property from RA1 to R4, application # E, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report dated April 14, 2015 and as modified by the findings below: 1. List any additional findings Sample Motion for a Negative Recommendation I move we forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the Palmer Estates Rezone Request by Mindy Dansie, representing DAI/Candlelight Homes and Troy Dana, representing Madison Creek, LLC for the purpose of rezoning the property from RA1 to R4, application # E, based on the following findings: 1. List any additional findings Palmer Estates App. # E Rezone Request 5

7

8 EXHIBIT A AERIAL MAP

9 Ln er o B e rr y ch A k ag i Ln D sh i Ln r Cub Creek Cir Ran Na Li nd say P ea G ro v e C t ch O r c hard Ct S Lone Peak Ln ders L n 1300 E R an 1400 E S e B ent Pi n C v dle Br i Feet 600 Rd T r ai l Palmer Estates Rezone and Development Agreement Aerial Map Legend City Limits r dd Parcels an l h Hig N W E S

10 EXHIBIT B LAND USE MAP

11 13110 S Trail Rider Cir 1185 E 1162 E Ranchero Dr S S 1300 E S Residential Low/MediumDensity Nashi Ln Peach Boulter St Conrads View Ln Ln Berry Orchard Ct Akagi Ln Shadowlands Ln Red Tree Ct S Highland Dr Roberts Brook Ln 1100 E Randers Ln Lone Peak Ln S S 1400 E Open Space/Parks Country Ln Bent Pine Cv Bridle Trail Rd Residential Hillside Low Density Legend City Limits Parcels N ,180 Feet Palmer Estates Rezone and Development Agreement Land Use Map W S E

12 EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP

13 13110 S 1185 E RA2 Boulter St Conrads View Ln Shadowlands Ln Trail Rider Cir Roberts Brook Ln 1100 E 1162 E Ranchero Dr Randers Ln RA S Lone Peak Ln R S 1300 E R S S Nashi Ln 1400 E Peach Ln Berry Orchard Ct Akagi Ln Red Tree Ct OS South Mountain Agreement S Highland Dr Country Ln Bent Pine Cv Bridle Trail Rd RM Legend City Limits Parcels ,180 Feet Palmer Estates Rezone and Development Agreement Zoning Map W N S E

14 EXHIBIT D CONCEPT PLAN

15 15.0' 15.0' 20.0' GAINER, RANDOLPH B & JUDY B PARCEL ID# LOT ' WHITE, RICHARD B & KATHERINE B PARCEL ID# LOT 5 EX. CONCRETE WALL EX. WOOD FENCE TAN VINYL FENCING NOTE: UNITS 9, 10, 12 & 13 SHALL BE RAMBLERS EX. CHAIN LINK FENCE TAN VINYL FENCING PARCEL ID# GRIGG, DAVID N ASHBY, WILLIAM & JESSIE C PARCEL ID# ' 55.0' 55.0' S 13 58'39" W ' 62.0' 50.0' 36.0' 62.0' 142.3' UNIT 6 UNIT 9 R=40.0' 50.0' 15.0' 50.0' 15.0' 62.0' 20.0' 62.0' 18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 50.0' R28.0' 7.5' 20.0' 55.0' 55.0' UNIT ' 20.0' 55.0' 62.0' 20.0' 18.0' 106.7' 20.0' 18.0' 15.0' 18.0' 36.0' 18.0' 184.4' 152.8' 15.0' 18.0' 62.0' 17.8' PARCEL ID# OLDSON, RONALD K & DEBORAH A PARCEL ID# JAXARR, LLC R=28.0' R=28.0' 10.0' 55.0' R=136.0' 15.6' 8' 15.0' 15.0' 6' 18.0' 62.0' 55.0' 15.0' 62.0' 12.0' 20.0' 50.0' 62.0' R=100.0' R=28.0' 12.0' SOUTH STREET (PUBLIC STREET) EX.BUILDING EX. ASPHALT PATH PALMER, JUNE E PARCEL ID# EXHIBIT B CONCEPT PLAN LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN WROUGHT IRON FENCING EX.GRAVEL DRIVE EX.EDGE OF ASPHALT OPEN SPACE/ DETENTION AREA OPEN SPACE/ DETENTION AREA LOT AREA AC. MORE OR LESS TAN VINYL FENCING POSSIBLE FUTURE 15' ACCESS EASEMENT PARCEL 4 S 00 26'31" E ' 1300 EAST STREET (PUBLIC STREET) EX.EDGE OF ASPHALT INTEREST QUIT CLAIMED TO DRAPER CITY PALMER, JUNE E PARCEL ID# PARCEL 3 S 13 58'39" W 88.52' N 00 26'31" W 85.73' N 89 33'29" E 22.04' PARCELS 3 & 4 TO BE CONVEYED TO DRAPER CITY BY WARRANTY DEED PARCEL 3 AREA CONTAINS: ACRES MORE OR LESS (TO BE DEDICATED TO DRAPER CITY) PARCEL 4 AREA CONTAINS: ACRES MORE OR LESS (TO BE DEDICATED TO DRAPER CITY) EX. EDGE OF ASPHALT EX. TREES (TO REMAIN) EX. CHAIN LINK FENCE EX. TREES (TO REMAIN) PROPERTY LINE UNIT 10 EXISTING TREE EXHIBIT SCALE: 1"=20' EXHIBIT B

16 EXHIBIT E CONCEPT ELEVATIONS

17 Exhibit C Architectural Renderings

18

19 Exhibit D Entrance Feature

20 EXHIBIT F RESIDENT LETTERS

21 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: Tamara Gaffney Wednesday, April 15, :40 PM Jennifer Jastremsky Rezone App E Comments April 15, 2015 Jennifer Jastremsky AICP Planner II Draper City Community Development Department 1020 East Pioneer Road Draper, UT Re: Rezone App E Dear Ms. Jastremsky, I only received notice of public hearing on Saturday with a deadline of tomorrow to submit my thoughts about this development in writing. It was unclear if constituted "writing" so if this is not sufficient, please let me know. I was not given any other literature about it until a neighborhood meeting this evening and am shocked by the density proposed in this particular location put 19 homes into a little over 5 acre plot. I m writing with my strong opposition to this rezone on the basis that it is not in keeping with the neighborhood density and safety. Existing Neighborhood Density: My home at Lone Peak Lane is in an area of 1 acre lots and within the surrounding area there are only acre and half acre subdivisions. The developer has raised the point that other developments along 1300 E have been approved with large homes on small lots and that half acre lots along 1

22 1300 E have not sold due to pricing. I would like to point out that this development is not on 1300 E and other developments along 1300 E are not relevant as comparisons. The neighborhood we need to be comparing this project to is Bear Hollow, Lone Peak and Agaki Farms area. In these areas we have all low density custom homes. This development will be track homes (of a few different designs) and that is also not keeping with the neighborhood design and feeling. This is one of the last horse property areas in Draper and I strongly urge the city to keep this area as it was originally designed. I m sure that the master plan does not include moving the city toward all high density housing and you have already approved two such high density developments recently. We have paid a premium in our house values to have low density surroundings. I understand from tonight s meeting that the developer is willing to pay the home owner more if they get this rezone which includes a plan to have lot sizes in some parts of the property with less than 8000 sq foot lots and 5000 sq foot homes. This will certainly be vastly different configurations than all the surrounding area. Safety: I m sure that every neighborhood wishes to reduce density and this argument may not be compelling to a city looking for increased tax basis to enable more public works initiatives. There is another factor which concerns me even more, safety. This particular location is situated in an area with very little ingress and egress. We only have two points, an unprotected and narrow turn off of 1300 E onto (which is not a through street) and is an intersection of a trail crossing and stake center in addition to being the main point of entry for a potential of 56+ more cars or off of Trailrider or Bear Hollow which is now nearly impossible to turn off of given the two schools, high school traffic and upcoming high density construction project traffic that has not been factored into any existing problems we already have. You may think I am concerned about traffic but I m actually much more concerned about traffic accidents with pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, etc. I m very concerned that 1300 E is already going to be a nightmare with the developments you ve approved and that also impacts the dangerous intersection at and 1300 E where making a left turn has become treacherous and where traffic will back up if you have to put in a stop light at as well as the one you just put in at I am in favor of beautiful new homes in Draper and welcome the idea of more families into this city and my neighborhood. My question is why is the city planning commission in such a rush? There has already been a very large amount of building, rezoning and there are several nearby projects which are about to dramatically impact the number of homes available and we have yet to carefully study the infrastructure impact of the existing approved developments. I have moved to Draper from the San Francisco area of California and I can attest to the impact of high density years down the road were much more dramatic than the original studies projected. Cities up and down that area are faced with water rationing, sewage management and waste management challenges, school overcrowding, traffic and safety issues that they never foresaw when the plots were created and houses built. Your development plans today are very likely to result in traffic fatalities within the next 5 years. Wouldn t it be more prudent to delay rezoning decisions until our other projects have been completed. We can still rezone this plot of land later if we find our fears were unfounded. Wouldn t you rather be more thoughtful about these decisions which will impact the city for hundreds of years to come than see white crosses on 1300 E demarking the place where a child or expectant mother was killed? I urge you to slow down and delay this rezone request until we have adjusted to the existing growth in Draper. Once you have put 19 homes into 5 acres at this location it can never be undone. 2

23 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my concerns and objections. Best regards, Tamara Gaffney Lone Peak Lane (801)

24 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: Joy Johnson Thursday, April 16, :31 AM Jennifer Jastremsky Rezoning and Development of the Equestrian Center To: Re: Draper City Council Rezoning/Development of the Equestrian Center Please note that we are vehemently opposed to rezoning the Equestrian Center located at South and 1300 East from RA1 to R4. Stuffing 19 homes on 5 acres of land is extremely high density for this area. The traffic is already a problem in this area and this will just exacerbate the problem. We moved to Draper for a lifestyle in a beautiful community of low density housing. If some prefer high density living then they should form a community of this nature in a different area. We paid a premium for our 1 acre lot for the privilege of living in a community of 1 acre properties. We contribute a generous property tax to the community as well. We have loved our quiet community where our children can play outside safely and ride their bikes around without fear of heavy traffic, although this seems to be changing fast. Our children cannot even cross 1300 E safely anymore. We want to keep our R1 zoning to preserve the lifestyle that we have worked so hard to have. Even a R2 zoning would be much more palatable than R4. We hope that you will listen to the involved Draper Citizens that reside in this area. We will be attending the hearing on April 23 rd at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. Mike and Joy Johnson 1078 E S. Draper, UT

25 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: Kathrine White Thursday, April 16, :24 PM Jennifer Jastremsky Rezoning of the Equestrian Center To the Zoning Committee members (or Planning Commission): We own property adjacent to the Equestrian Center. Because of the density of the homes that are being planned for this development, we are concerned about the traffic issues it will create. Thirteenth east is becoming a very congested street currently does not go through to Fort Street. There are currently two other developments in progress along this street.the existing schools bring alot of traffic. Another new subdivision along 13th is going to add to the already overloaded traffic problem. For this reason we feel the city needs to do a traffic study before this subdivision is approved. There is an LDS church across from the Equestrian Center. That also adds to the traffic problem. Half acre plots would be in better keeping with the area that surrounds this development. It would also mean less cars. Thanks for your consideration, Rich and Kathrine White South Lone Peak Lane Draper, Utah 1

26 Greg & Sarah Smith 1052 Country Lane Draper, Utah April 16, 2015 Draper City Planning Commission / City Council Attn: Jennifer Jastremsky Draper City Hall 1020 E. Pioneer Road Draper, UT Re: Proposed Rezoning of the Equestrian Center Property Dear Ms. Jastremsky, Planning Commission & City Council This letter is sent to express my concerns and comments about the proposed rezoning of the Palmer Estates - Draper Equestrian Center located at South and 1300 East. I (we) understand that all of the proposal requirements have been met and that the developers (Troy Dana, Brian Flam) have done what they could to appease the adjacent property owners. However, as a neighborhood, many of us - including the adjacent property owners - sincerely do not feel that the rezoning and proposed development meet the requirements to justify the development. In accordance to section (E)(2) of the Draper City Code, we do not feel that the proposed rezoning is appropriate - it is not "harmonious with the overall character of the existing development(s) in the vicinity of the subject property". With even a quick review of the current zoning, roadways, trails, easements, traffic master and future use plans, etc you will see that everything surrounding the subject property is RA1 or RA2, and to change that to R4, as was done with the area adjacent Summit Academy on 132nd, would be like having a sore thumb with 19 warts on it. I understand that the Palmers would like to do other things and that the property can and should be developed. As a real estate professional myself, I appreciate this and understand where Troy and Brian are coming from. However, as stated, zoning from RA1 to R4 is not the highest and best use of this land (highest, but definitely not best). As you are seeing from others in the neighborhood, we do not oppose the sale and development of that land. Many of us would like to see it remain RA1 but would accept, and believe that a zoning of RA2 would meet the requirements of the City Code - and the financial win fall of the developing parties.

27 Simply put, rezoning to R4 and building 19 homes is too dense and is not in harmony with the area. I hope you will take my concerns, as well as those of my neighbors into consideration. Thank you. Greg Smith

28 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: James Rasmussen Thursday, April 16, :39 PM Jennifer Jastremsky Zoning Change Hello Jennifer, my name is James Rasmussen and I live on Lone Peak Lane in Draper. Last night we had a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed zoning change from 40,000 sq ft to 10,000 sq ft (I can't remember which is R4 or R1) for a piece of land near South 1300 East currently occupied by an equestrian business. I would like to voice my opinion. In a nutshell, I am supportive of the development if the project contained fewer than 15 single homes. Currently 19 homes are proposed. Third acre lots would be acceptable over the current proposal of less than quarter acre lots. Troy Dana, the developer, was at the neighborhood meeting and did a very nice job describing the project and how he was sensitive and accommodating to the adjacent property owners, and I really appreciate his approach. I realize that change is inevitable but we need to be wise in making changes. Lone Peak Lane has acre lots and has that old-time Draper feel of country living. Having a large development of high density housing so close will really change that for all the people in the area. I'm not concerned about property values but rather more concerned about how this development will really change what we love about our area of Draper. Traffic will also be a real concern. We have people now who drive down from 1300 east and cut through the subdivision behind the church ball field to drop children off at Summit. Having 19 more families driving in the area will contribute to congestion. Troy Dana will argue that for this project to "pencil" he needs this many houses. I would argue that is not true. I'm sure his "penciling" includes a profit, which it should, but having 5 fewer homes he may make less profit but will still be able to make it pencil and the development will fit better into the existing area. My wife was controller for a large home builder/developer in Salt Lake and they had a 20% margin! I believe there is plenty of room for Troy Dana to make a profit and make the neighbors happy. I respectfully ask you to consider this request to reduce the number of homes to less than 15. Thank you, James Rasmussen 1147 Lone Peak Lane Draper, UT

29 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: Amanda Peeler Thursday, April 16, :43 PM Jennifer Jastremsky Equestrian Center Development April 16, 2015 Dear Ms. Jastremsky, I am writing as a concerned citizen and neighbor in regards to the proposed development on the land currently occupied by Michelle Palmer's Equestrian Center located on the corner of 1300 East South. The proposed development would convert the 5 acres from R1 to R4. I feel that this change will intrinsically change the nature and feel of this area of Draper. Currently, the parcel is surrounded predominantly by R1 properties with animal rights. A previous request in the vicinity to rezone a single R1 lot into R2 was denied by the Council because it would remove old growth trees, increase traffic and change the character of the area. Now approval is pending to add 19 houses with a total of 58 garages on lots that are less than 1/4 acre when open space is taken into consideration as not being part of the home lots. That seems contradictory to the goals of neighborhood preservation, traffic congestion, school walking safety, and the original intention to maintain our area of Draper as animal property. I have no issue with development that reflects the characteristics and nature of the surrounding area. Although I would love to see lots that reflected the sizes of surrounding lots, I would appreciate at least a compromise with the developer to bring lot size up to 1/2 acre which would serve to lower traffic and preserve character. Few developments in Draper have this level of density - single family houses on individual lots that are 1/4 acre or less. This level of density would fit in Eagle Mountain, not Draper. I plan to attend the meeting next Thursday and hope the council will consider my concerns, and the concerns of others in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Amanda Peeler 1074 Lone Peak Lane Draper, UT

30

31

32

33 Sterling and Amanda Oaks 1081 Ranchero Drive Draper, UT April 16, 2015 Draper City Planning Commission and Draper City Council 1020 E. Pioneer Road Draper, UT Re: Rezoning of Corner Canyon Equestrian Center on 1266 East South To Draper City Planning Commission and Draper City Council members: This week we were informed about the proposed development for the property at 1266 East South, the Corner Canyon Equestrian Center. Last night we attended a meeting where Troy Dana and Candlelight Homes presented their plan and a proposed layout of the property. It our understanding that they are requesting the land be rezoned from RA1 to R4. However, we are asking that this rezoning request be denied. The two of us have been Draper residents for 10 years, and currently live at 1081 Ranchero Drive. We initially built a home in South Mountain a decade ago, and then later decided to move down to lower Draper to benefit from the flat land, larger lots, and abundance of trees in this area. We paid significantly more money to do so, but felt that the tradeoff was worth the cost, as we wanted to enjoy more open space and less dangerous traffic for our young children. Learning about the proposed zoning change and development for the Equestrian Center concerns us for a variety of reasons. First, adding 19 single family homes, (all with 3-car garages), on such a small space and with only one traffic outlet, is going to significantly add to the traffic congestion in the area. Not only does it raise an eyebrow with regard to whether or not it meets appropriate safety requirements for emergency personnel support, (i.e. fire trucks and ambulances), but it will complicate the traffic flow on South, and inevitably our street (Ranchero Drive) as well. Already, residents between neighborhoods north of S and south of S use our street as a through street for traffic, because traffic on 1300 East is already congested particularly in the mornings. Since the junior high and high schools were completed, we have seen a significant increase in traffic on our street, and often these additional drivers disregard the street signs ( Deaf Child ) for our deaf neighbor children next to us. It is inevitable that adding 19 homes as mentioned above will contribute to this problem. Has a traffic study been conducted for this

34 area? If not, we request that the city pay for one and report its results to all concerned residents of this area. Secondly, though we understand that development in a city is necessary to some extent, we feel that paring these homes down to 10,000 square feet lots is extreme, particularly adjacent to a neighborhood that is primarily full acre lots, and where there is not a manmade or natural boundary between the property in question on the surrounding established neighborhood. We feel that this significantly decreases the appeal to live here. One of us grew up in the Holladay, Utah, which over has long boasted some of the highest property values in the state, and yet has also been incrementally carved up into smaller and smaller pieces of property. The problem has become so extreme that even though we could easily afford to live in that area close to friends and family, we have chosen not to, primarily because the city of Holladay has failed to preserve what made that area attractive in the first place its natural beauty and open feel. As we watch the Fairbourn property (across from Summit Academy) carved up into tiny lots, (about which we were not informed until the decision was already made by the city council), and large open spaces built upon without thought to traffic, preservation of trees, or setting aside space for neighborhood parks, we fear that not enough thought or consideration is being given to preserving the strengths that Draper has typically offered its residents in the past. In conclusion, we maintain that the current plan to rezone the Corner Canyon Equestrian Center property from RA1 to R4 when adjacent to RA1 neighborhoods is not responsible development, and that appropriate adjustments be made to that plan. We ask that the Planning Commission and City Council respectfully consider our concerns on this matter, and look forward to attending your meeting next Thursday, April 23, Sincerely, Sterling & Amanda Oaks

35 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: To: Subject: Judy G. Thursday, April 16, :39 PM Jennifer Jastremsky Zone change for the Palmer Estates Dear Jennifer, I am one of the property owners that is adjacent to this proposed developement of the Palmer Estates. The zone change is not in keeping with the rest of the properties surrounding this developement. The neighborhood that I live in consists of one acre lots. To the South of us is a subdivision with half acre lots. It cannot be compared to any other neighborhoods, or any other zone changes that have taken place in Draper. This development/zone change also causes great concern with the traffic that is already a nightmare on 13th East. Getting onto 13th East, from 134th South, is almost impossible. Turning onto 134th South, from 13th East, is impossible. Especially if a left turn is being attempted. Please consider doing a traffic study before approving this zone change. The development will bring in nineteen homes with three car garages. That is, potentially, another 57 cars that will be added to the traffic problem. Please conside the impact on our schools as well. Our schools are already over crowded. I know they are planning on using the Corner Canyon stream for their drainage. Please consider studying this as well. You may want to review the hundred year flood plain and how this will be impacted with the extra water coming from this subdivision. I, along with many other residents in this area, ask that this zone change be denied until futher studies can be done. I am not opposed to this property being developed. I am opposed to the number of houses that are being proposed. I would approve of half acres, if that is a possibility. Thank you! Judy Gainer S. Lone Peak Lane Draper, Utah 1

36 April 16, 2015 Jason and Rachel Neeley 1068 E S. Draper Ut Draper Planning and Zoning Commission, My family bought a home in this neighborhood a number of years ago. The biggest reason we bought here is because of the size of the lots. We were pleased that there would be no more building as all the lots were full and there were rules in place to inhibit sub diving current lots. We love the fact that everyone here is of the same mindset. Keeping the old draper feel. You currently have a proposal to change the zoning for the Equestrian Center on S. before you that would change all of that and would also put more changes in motion. Please consider a few things: Some of us moved to Draper for land and the open feel. It was the last place in the valley that had land and trees. And we don t want to see it over built. The proposed development on S. does not fit the standard of living that this neighborhood possesses. While the homes will be beautiful and new, they do not promote the feeling we have here. Our neighborhood is comprised of homes, large or small, sitting on 1 acre parcels. If you change this portion then if opens the door for greed. Yes! Greed. Almost everyone is swayed by money. Soon my neighbors will want to sub divide their 1 acre lots for proposed flag lots. THIS IS NOT GOOD! Also, have you considered the traffic this proposed development on S. will bring? We do not the infrastructure to accommodate more traffic. Because of the already poor planning, we have 2 large schools adjacent to each other on 1300 East which are causing major traffic delays. There are no turning lanes or even sidewalks to keep students safe. Please consider that moving forward with this development means you are putting the cart before the horse. It sounds like Draper is famous for this problem. If Draper had put in the horse trails that were once promised this would not be an issue. Stop the madness now! Change and plan accordingly with resident s approval. We live here. We pay the taxes. We elect you. Doesn t our opinions matter? Whether you think moving forward with this proposal is a good idea or bad idea, consider changing it a bit. First of all put it off! Then widen 1300 east and put in sidewalks. You have already built the schools and we need make everyone safe. And secondly, don t let them change our neighborhood. Keep the lots at least at a ½ acre minimum. Rachel Neeley

37 Jennifer Jastremsky From: Sent: Thursday, April 16, :25 PM To: Jennifer Jastremsky Subject: Palmer Project (equestrian center at S E. Kelly and Kathryn Myers 1119 Lone Peak Ln. Draper, UT Draper City Planning Commission Attn: Jennifer Jastremski Draper City Hall 1020 E. Pioneer Road Draper, UT Re: Proposed Rezoning of the Equestrian Center Property located near South and 1300 East. I have been made aware of a proposal to re-zone the property from R1 to R4. I am writing this letter as a resident of the neighborhood, in opposition to the proposal. The current neighborhood is comprised of one acre lots, which has been the reason that many of my neighbors and I purchased lots and built homes here. There is a character to the current development which would be substantially altered by the development of 19 homes in approximately five acres. Section (E)(2) of the Draper City Code, requires the City Council evaluate, when faced with a request to amend zoning restrictions: Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property. There is not much doubt that this proposal will not continue the harmony of our current development, and therefore should not be approved. An additional factor is this decision includes how this will alter the traffic patterns that are already stressed due to the difficulty turning onto the very busy 1300 East. The more denser development would also add a greater burden to the already overcrowded schools. When city planners in the past have viewed this property, they zoned it as R1. Everyone who would be affected by this change now, had the understanding that is was zoned R1 when they purchased their land and built their homes. To change the zoning for the developer now goes against the residents who were compliant with the current zoning. I am absolutely in favor of the property owner's right to develop the land that they own. If they develop the land under the current zoning it will be a welcome addition, as we have all known that the land would eventually be developed, but expected it to be within the current R1 designation. I am planning on attending the Planning meeting next week and look forward to meeting you and discussing the proposal. Thank you for your time and energy working for Draper's future. Sincerely, Kelly and Kathryn Myers 1