City Council Study Meeting - ARCHIVED

SOUTH JORDAN CITY CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING February 18, 2025 Present: Mayor Dawn Ramsey, Council Member Patrick Harris, Council Member Kathie Johnson, Council Member Don Shelton, Council Member Tamara Zander, Council Member Jason McGuire, City Manager Dustin Lewis, Assistant City Manager Jason Rasmussen, City Attorney Ryan Loose, Director of Planning Steven Schaefermeyer, Director of City Commerce Brian Preece, Director of Public Works Raymond Garrison, Associate Director of Public Works Colby Hill, CFO Sunil Naidu, City Engineer Brad Klavano, Director of Administrative Services Melinda Seager, Police Chief Jeff Carr, Fire Chief Chris Dawson, Director of Recreation Janell Payne, Art’s Program Coordinator Tiffany Parker, CTO Matthew Davis, Senior Systems Administrator Phill Brown, GIS Coordinator Matt Jarman, Long-Range Planner Joe Moss, Animal Control Supervisor Jill Rasmussen, City Recorder Anna Crookston Absent: Others: Amy McKay Butler, Anadine Burrell, Mandi Barrus 4:36 P.M. STUDY MEETING A. Welcome, Roll Call, and Introduction: By Mayor, Dawn R. Ramsey Mayor Ramsey introduced the meeting and welcomed everyone present. B. Invocation: By Council Member, Kathie Johnson Council Member Johnson offered the invocation. Mayor Ramsey noted that City Attorney Ryan Loose was absent as he was testifying in a legislative committee hearing online and would be joining shortly. C. Mayor and Council Coordination The Council and Mayor discussed the Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) meeting, with a request for a recap at the end of the council meeting. It was noted that representation at LPC was strong, with members attending both online and in person. The discussion highlighted the challenges of prioritizing legislative issues, as new bills continue to emerge in the final weeks of the session. The importance of aligning priorities was emphasized, given that shifting dynamics can make it difficult to assess each issue in real-time. Staff members, including City Attorney Loose, Council Members McGuire, Johnson, and Shelton, have been actively involved in LPC meetings, with additional staff and department chiefs also engaged in the process. South Jordan City 2 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 D. Discussion/Review of Regular Council Meeting: Presentation Items: - Presenting Neil Rasmussen with the APWA Outstanding Drinking Water System Professional Award. - Presenting Cameron Browning with the APWA Outstanding Storm Drain Maintenance Professional Award. - Art's Council Annual Update. Action Items: - Resolution R2025-06, Appointing Lori Harding to the South Jordan Planning Commission. - Resolution R2025-07, Approving the agreement for installation of sewer improvements along 1055 West with Jordan Basin Improvement District. - Resolution R2025-08, Amending the City Wide Policy 500-01 relating to PID. - Resolution R2025-09, Development Agreement with Mulberry Cottage, LLC and WHDTMR, LLC pertaining to property located at 10537 S. 3010 W. and 10555 S. 3010 W. E. Presentation Item: E.1. Art’s Council member appointment. (By Director of Recreation, Janell Payne) Director Payne introduced applicant Anadine Burrell, Amy McKay, and Mandi Barrus. Amy Butler introduced herself as a South Jordan resident who moved to the community three years ago with her husband after retiring from her first career as a professional counselor. She shared her background as an artist, photographer, and author, highlighting the welcoming arts opportunities in the city. Ms. Butler expressed her advocacy for therapeutic arts, emphasizing its value as a form of self-expression. She expressed gratitude for the community’s support and stated her desire to contribute by encouraging others to engage in artistic and creative pursuits. Mandi Barrus introduced herself as a professional musician, music educator, and artistic director, as well as the co-founder of a nonprofit performing arts organization. A five-year resident of South Jordan and live in Daybreak, she highlighted her experience in program administration, artistic assessment, and community engagement. Ms. Barrus expressed enthusiasm for the new county Performing Arts Center and a desire to serve as a consultant to ensure it meets the community’s needs. She also emphasized her interest in bringing more performances and programs to South Jordan, allowing her nonprofit to contribute to the local arts scene. Anadine Burrell introduced herself as a 15-year resident of South Jordan who also lives in Daybreak with a strong background in music and community theater. She has sung with the Utah Opera Chorus for 10 years and has also performed with the Utah Symphony Chorus for over a decade. Ms. Burrell expressed her interest in joining the Arts Council to help strengthen the local performing arts scene, noting that much of her musical involvement has been downtown and she would love to see more opportunities in South Jordan. As a performer, she believes she can provide valuable insight into attracting high-quality talent and engaging the community. She also South Jordan City 3 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 shared that her husband is part of the artistic community and that the arts are an essential part of their family's life. Council Member Zander asked Ms. Barrus for clarification on the type of programming envisioned for the new county facility, seeking insight into what would be considered the right programming. Ms. Barrus emphasized her advocacy for making opera and the arts accessible to everyone. She envisions programming that serves diverse ages, languages, accessibility needs, and underserved populations, including those experiencing homelessness. She highlighted the importance of educational outreach in schools, after-school and evening programs for skill-building, and opportunities for community participation in theater and visual arts. She also stressed the value of performances in nontraditional spaces, such as food pantries, to ensure broader community access to the arts. Council Member McGuire noted that all applicants appeared to reside in the Daybreak community and inquired whether they were currently serving on the LiveDAYBREAK Arts Council. The three applicants do not serve on the LiveDAYBREAK Arts Council. He clarified that the question was for informational purposes, acknowledging that the city’s current Arts Council chair is also a Daybreak resident. He then asked what types of arts programming the applicants would like to bring to the city that are not currently being offered. Ms. Barrus expressed a strong interest in bringing opera and classical music to South Jordan, noting that while the city has a strong presence in musical theater through partnerships with Sandbox Theatre, Herriman, and Kensington Theatre, there is currently little representation of opera or orchestral ensembles. She emphasized her commitment to promoting underrepresented voices in classical music, including Utah-based artists, composers, people of color, and women. She highlighted her experience in premiering works by local composers, citing a recent production that led to an out-of-state opera company picking up the piece for a full performance. She also advocated for adapting traditional operatic works for modern audiences by shortening performances, providing English or Spanish translations, and ensuring accessibility for all attendees. Ms. Butler echoed Ms. Barrus’s support for expanding beyond musical theater, emphasizing the abundance of talent in Utah and the opportunity to showcase more orchestral and instrumental works by local artists. She highlighted the need to create opportunities for those who are passionate about the arts but may not have time due to professional commitments. She acknowledged that while she may not have extensive business experience, she brings strong enthusiasm and a talent for promoting events, particularly through social media. She expressed a desire to make opera and symphony performances more approachable, noting that many adults have never attended such events due to their formal nature. She suggested that featuring local performers could encourage attendance, as people are more likely to support events when they know someone involved, just as they do with community and school theater productions. Ms. Burrell shared her interest in expanding arts programming to include poetry workshops and opportunities for individuals who have never painted before. She expressed enthusiasm for art South Jordan City 4 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 therapy and its benefits, both from her experience as a therapist and as an artist herself. She highlighted the value of providing accessible creative outlets, such as photography contests and plein air painting programs, noting how meaningful it is for participants to have their work displayed, even if they don’t win. She suggested fostering collaborations with local businesses, such as displaying poetry in coffee shops, to further integrate the arts into the community. Mayor Ramsey asked whether any of the applicants had attended either of South Jordan’s productions in the past year. The three applicants had not attended the productions. Mayor Ramsey thanked the applicants for attending and sharing more about themselves. She explained that the city strives to ensure a diverse representation of artistic disciplines on the Arts Council. Rather than selecting individuals with the same focus, the goal is to include a variety of perspectives and art forms. She explained that the city would review current Arts Council members, focus areas, and available openings before making a decision. She assured the applicants that the selection process would involve discussion among the group, and someone would follow up with them soon. She expressed appreciation for their interest to serve. F. Discussion Items: F.1. R-M Zone Amendments. (By Long-Range Planner, Joe Moss) Director of Planning Steven Schaefermeyer provided an update on zoning proposals, recalling that the PD floating zone was introduced last year to limit density to eight units per acre, except in station area plans and freeway-adjacent areas. The goal was to reduce negotiations focused solely on density. He explained that the department had committed to developing new residential multi-family zoning options and invited feedback on the proposed direction. The intent is to create a zoning category that bridges the gap between RM-6 and RM-8, offering a structured alternative for townhome developments without defaulting to the PD zone, which is often seen as overly flexible. Any changes would still require a rezone and development agreement to ensure project parameters are met. Long-Range Planner Joe Moss presented prepared presentation Attachment A. He discussed proposed zoning updates aimed at accommodating moderate-income and medium-density housing. He highlighted a projected shortage of 5,000 housing units for households earning 80% of the area median income (AMI) or less by 2030. Currently, multi-family and live-work units are prohibited in RM zones, and the city lacks a designated multi-family zone. Existing RM-5 and RM-6 zones limit density to six units per acre, restricting housing options. He compared South Jordan’s zoning regulations to neighboring cities, noting that some have higher density allowances or unique requirements, such as Herriman’s minimum density rule. He also pointed out that the city’s residential district purpose statement references only single-family housing, despite RM standing for "residential multiple." He presented visual examples in Attachment A of different housing types, discussing density perceptions and zoning gaps. He described developments where duplexes appear as single-family homes from the front but have shared garages in the rear, contributing to a more multi-family appearance. Comparisons were made to developments in Riverton and Daybreak, where a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes provide greater variety in housing choices. He noted that factors such as driveway South Jordan City 5 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 layouts, setbacks, and grading impact how developments feel at the street level. For example, alley-loaded townhomes create a more open and park-like streetscape, while front-facing driveways alter the neighborhood’s visual character. He explained that zoning considerations extend beyond density, with building massing and design elements influencing community perception. He distinguished between house-scale and block-scale buildings, noting that setbacks and architectural features affect how structures integrate into surrounding areas. He also addressed transition factors between different housing types, citing examples where grading, setbacks, and design elements either helped blend multi-family developments with single-family neighborhoods or created stark contrasts. Developments in Riverton, West Jordan, and Herriman demonstrated varying approaches to integrating density while maintaining neighborhood character. He outlined potential approaches for incorporating these considerations into zoning code updates. Options included traditional prescriptive zoning requirements, flexible standards tailored to different housing types, and a point-based system modeled after Salt Lake City’s transit-oriented development zones. The latter system assigns weighted points to urban design elements, allowing developers to achieve administrative approval if they meet a specified threshold. Alternatively, the city could require all projects to meet a minimum number of points, or incorporate these elements into planned development (PD) standards. He noted that while PD zoning allows for case-by-case adjustments, it may introduce inconsistencies and additional complexity in the review process. The presentation concluded with a discussion on the advantages and challenges of these approaches. Council Member Johnson asked how creativity in design could be encouraged, noting a tendency for higher-density developments, such as apartments and condominiums, to follow a uniform, cookie-cutter approach. Council Member Shelton noted that in the pursuit of affordable housing, design standards imposed by cities are often reduced, impacting the overall form and quality of developments. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that incorporating design standards through a points-based system, like Salt Lake City’s model, could encourage higher-quality developments. Developers could earn points for using durable materials, such as brick, or for design elements like building placement and entrance orientation. He emphasized that while affordable housing projects might prioritize massing over high-end finishes, incentives could still be structured to enhance visual appeal and minimize impacts. He noted that since all existing RM-zoned parcels are currently developed, any future rezoning could include a development agreement to refine architectural details while maintaining flexibility in the city’s broader design standards. Council Member Johnson noted that the city has allowed increased density in exchange for higher-quality developments. Mayor Ramsey acknowledged the thorough presentation and expressed support for the council’s progressive approach to development. She questioned the necessity of changing the code to include design standards for RM zones when similar outcomes could already be achieved through PD overlays. She asked for clarification on where these changes would apply and whether they were being pursued simply to fill gaps in the code, even if they might rarely be South Jordan City 6 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 used. Additionally, she inquired about the potential impact these changes could have on future master development agreements. Long-Range Planner Moss explained that the proposed zoning updates would serve as an additional tool for development. Currently, planned developments (PDs) are based on an existing zone and then modified to fit specific project needs. The challenge with medium-density development is the absence of a dedicated zoning district that provides a clear starting point. The goal of updating the RM zone is to establish citywide standards for this type of housing. Developers could then either build within the predefined zone using the established standards or use it as a foundation for a PD, making adjustments as necessary. Mayor Ramsey asked whether the creation of this zoning standard would have any impact on future master development agreements. Director Schaefermeyer responded that there wouldn’t necessarily be an impact on future master development agreements. He explained that large-scale properties, such as the annex property, could utilize the PC zone, which operates differently from the PD floating zone. He noted that past projects, such as Shoreline, required extensive work on guidelines and design booklets due to gaps in the current RM zone, which does not address aspects like open space, guest parking, or driveways. He cited a previous townhome project on Redwood Road, where extensive back-and- forth discussions occurred over basic design elements. He expressed a desire to establish a minimum standard in the code to streamline future projects, allowing developers to either meet those standards or propose more through a PD floating zone. He emphasized that having predefined standards would prevent starting from a blank slate for every project. While there are a few remaining properties along Redwood Road and other corridors where this could apply, he acknowledged that large undeveloped properties east of Bangerter Highway would likely face sensitivity regarding anything above an R3 zoning designation. Mayor Ramsey inquired about the next steps, acknowledging the variety of options presented. She expressed interest in having further discussions on the matter and asked for clarification on the intended course of action moving forward. Long-Range Planner Moss stated that the next steps would involve reviewing the feedback received and developing a proposal for the RM zone. This proposal would then go through the Planning Commission before returning to the Council for adoption. He noted that if another group discussion was necessary, that option remained open. The primary goal was to identify key elements that the Council felt were important to include in the RM zone to ensure it had solid baseline standards. Council Member Shelton agreed with Council Member Johnson’s point about creativity, acknowledging the challenge of codifying it. He emphasized the importance of reducing the visual impact from the street, incorporating more interesting architectural elements, varied rooflines, and different setbacks to enhance the city's character. He proposed compiling a list of design ideas and questioned whether it would be beneficial to involve the Planning Commission for additional input, though he acknowledged that could become a complex discussion. South Jordan City 7 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 Council Member Zander commended the presentation visuals, noting the importance of elements such as rooflines, setbacks, landscaping, and sidewalks as potential baseline standards. She acknowledged the complexity of setting absolute design requirements, recognizing that flexibility is sometimes necessary. Drawing from her experience in Daybreak, she observed that certain architectural features, while aesthetically appealing, can be costly, and she expressed hesitation about making them mandatory citywide. However, she emphasized that varied textures, rooflines, and angles improve the visual appeal and create a more welcoming neighborhood feel. She also pointed out that a sidewalk immediately adjacent to a house, with little setback, creates an uncomfortable streetscape. Council Member McGuire remarked that much of the discussion seemed to be circling around the idea of a point system. He suggested that since there are various elements the city values in creating a great community, such as architectural features and landscaping, a structured point system could help ensure that standard developments align with those priorities. He continued, suggesting that a point system could serve as a guideline for developers. He proposed that if developers could design a project that meets a variety of the listed criteria, such as architectural features and landscaping, the project could proceed to the Planning Commission for approval. However, if a developer sought deviations beyond the established criteria, they would need to bring their proposal back to the Council under a development agreement. Mayor Ramsey asked whether the Council would be open to having the point system function administratively, allowing approval if a development meets the required points. Council Member Zander expressed concern that a development could technically meet the point requirements while still resulting in a design the Council finds undesirable. Council Member McGuire acknowledged that while this tool may not be widely used due to the city's existing growth and agreements, it might still be necessary to have it in place to avoid becoming a target for not providing such an option. Mayor Ramsey stated that the city’s master-planned community, with its high-density developments, helps balance the overall housing landscape. She emphasized that this diversity in housing options aligns with the city’s vision to provide housing for every stage of life, allowing families of all ages to find suitable options within the same community. This approach, she noted, has strengthened the city by offering a wider range of choices. Director Schaefermeyer noted that the PC zone in the city code can be more complex to explain compared to the standards used by other communities. He acknowledged that while discussions help clarify its intent, some aspects of the code may initially seem unusual. He also pointed out that once people recognize that Daybreak is part of South Jordan, they tend to better understand the city's planning approach, depending on their level of familiarity with local development. Mayor Ramsey acknowledged that while the city already has a significant amount of RM zoning at five to six units per acre, it may not be explicitly specified for other areas. She understood the concern and noted that it seemed the council would like to have another discussion on the topic. South Jordan City 8 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 She requested that staff bring back a list of choices and options for the council’s input, allowing them to help shape the proposal. Long-Range Planner Moss stated that they could prepare a preliminary draft outlining potential menu items, including how they might be weighted and what the thresholds would be for meeting various design standards. Director Schaefermeyer added that the discussion was valuable, especially as it would apply to future developments, such as those on Kennecott’s property. He noted that these considerations would be relevant in the design guidelines for projects in a PC zone or near the freeway. He also mentioned that having a Design Guidelines Manual could be beneficial, providing a reference for developers when applying for a PD floating zone, ensuring consistency in discussions and expectations. Council Member Harris expressed concern about applying a one-size-fits-all approach to development, emphasizing that different areas of the city have unique characteristics. He noted that while a PD (Planned Development) zone allows for flexibility in considering site-specific conditions, a rigid administrative system might not account for the varying needs of different locations. He supported guiding developers in the right direction but cautioned against an overly formulaic approach that could limit the city's ability to make context-sensitive decisions. Mayor Ramsey agreed with Council Member Harris on the importance of balance, acknowledging that future development decisions should consider the unique characteristics of different areas in the city. She pointed out that if any of the remaining farms or larger family parcels were to be redeveloped in the future, each case would need to be evaluated individually. Some locations might require different considerations than what the state currently mandates, simply because that approach would be the best fit for that particular area. F.2. Animal Code Amendments. (By City Manager, Dustin Lewis) City Manager Dustin Lewis invited Police Chief Jeff Carr, Animal Control Supervisor Jill Rasmussen, and Associate Director of Parks Colby Hill to join the discussion. City Manager Lewis provided background on the discussion regarding leash laws, explaining that the conversation stemmed from an email received in late October from a resident upset about an encounter in the park involving off-leash dogs. After sharing the email with the council, several members requested a formal discussion, which was scheduled for tonight as the first available opportunity. To help inform the discussion, Supervisor Rasmussen was asked to research other cities' policies. The findings showed that all 17 cities in Salt Lake County have leash laws similar to South Jordan’s. Additionally, a review was conducted on which cities offer fenced dog parks and which have designated, non-fenced off-leash areas. Copies of these findings and a copy of the city's current ordinance, Section 6.12.040, were provided to the council (Attachment B). The ordinance was last amended in 2021 for technical updates, with a more notable change in 2014 that removed the requirement for cats to be leashed, acknowledging that such a rule was not being realistically enforced. He continued by emphasizing that the city’s leash law has been in place for a long time and acknowledged the challenge of enforcing such South Jordan City 9 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 rules, particularly in cases like the now-removed requirement for leashing cats. Before opening the discussion to the council, he previewed some early findings from the city's Parks and Open Space Plan, which is still in draft form. The plan references dogs 44 to 45 times, highlighting the significance of the issue in the community. Findings from open houses and surveys revealed that one in five residents (21%) reported experiencing negative interactions with dogs while using city parks and trails. These conflicts range in severity but indicate an ongoing concern among park users. The city’s data collection and outreach efforts have been structured to gather a balanced, scientific understanding of community experiences regarding pets in public spaces. Council Member Harris shared a recent and alarming incident where an 87-year-old man was seriously injured after being knocked to the ground by an 11-month-old Labrador. The dog struck the man in the chest, causing him to fall, and the injuries were significant. This incident, which occurred just a week ago, underscores the potential risks associated with off-leash dogs in public spaces and adds urgency to the council’s discussion on leash laws and designated off- leash areas. City Manager Lewis highlighted key insights from the draft Parks and Open Space Plan, noting that 65% of respondents expressed a strong interest in having a dedicated dog park in the community. Additionally, there is a high demand for improved enforcement of off-leash dog laws, with concerns about minimizing dog-related conflicts. He emphasized that dog walking is one of the most popular trail activities, accounting for 34% of trail usage. While adding dog- friendly amenities is popular, staff have raised concerns about wear and tear, long-term maintenance, and enforcement challenges. Discussions with other cities reinforced the recommendation to keep the current leash law in place. He compared leash law enforcement to speeding laws, explaining that officers should have the discretion to enforce rules based on context, for example, a dog running off-leash in an empty park on a winter morning might not be an issue, but on a crowded summer evening, it could pose serious risks. City Attorney Loose noted that the city prosecuted 16 cases of restraint violations last year, averaging just over one per month. He emphasized that this number is fairly typical and reflects the discretionary enforcement approach used by officers. Council Member Harris shared his personal experience with both fenced-in dog parks and designated off-leash areas, such as those in Sandy and Memory Grove. He noted that in fenced dog parks, it may not always be safe to bring a female dog, as he observed that many of the dogs in these areas were male and tended to surround his dog. He elaborated on his experience, stating that for him and his family, the fenced dog park was not a good experience. He didn't feel it was safe for their dog, to the point where he had to carry her out when she was swarmed by other dogs, primarily male dogs. Based on this, his family has chosen not to return to that type of environment. On the other hand, he noted that his experience at an off-leash area like Memory Grove was better, as it was more of a hiking trail where dogs and people naturally spread out. However, he also pointed out a key issue with off-leash areas: some dogs are well-trained and stay close to their owners, while others run freely without control, creating potential conflicts. He raised a legal concern regarding liability in designated off-leash areas. He questioned what happens if an injury occurs, whether involving residents or animals. Since the city does not South Jordan City 10 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 require waivers to enter public parks, he wondered if it is implied that individuals enter at their own risk when using an off-leash area, or whether the city assumes some level of liability. He also asked for a legal perspective, specifically whether there is any case law in Utah that provides precedent on municipal liability in off-leash dog areas. City Attorney Loose clarified that the city does not assume additional liability simply by removing restraint or leash laws, just as raising a speed limit does not inherently increase liability, as long as the design of the space (roads or parks) is appropriate. He explained that removing the leash law would not create more legal liability, but it would eliminate an enforcement tool that can currently be used in cases where a dog, even unintentionally, causes harm (e.g., knocking someone over in excitement). Without a leash law, officers may lack the ability to cite owners for an incident unless there is a clear attack or bite, making it harder to enforce safety in public spaces. However, he noted that in a designated dog park or an area where the city controls the entire space, maintenance responsibilities could introduce some level of liability if not properly managed. Council Member Shelton asked if there would be more liability in a dog park. City Attorney Loose explained that the city could have more liability in a designated dog park compared to general open spaces, primarily because the city would have the responsibility to maintain the park, monitor aggressive dogs, and enforce safety rules. He compared this to children playing in a city park versus running around the neighborhood, if a child gets hurt in a park, the city’s responsibility includes ensuring the area was properly maintained and reasonably safe. Similarly, in a dog park, the city would need to address known risks, such as fencing issues or recurring aggressive dogs. However, if an off-leash area is simply designated and properly posted, he does not believe it would significantly increase liability, because people would be aware they are entering an area where dogs are allowed off-leash. His recommendation was to post clear signage to inform users of the risks and expectations. Council Member Zander pointed out that there is already a designated, fenced dog park in Daybreak, which is heavily used. She noted that, while she personally does not visit the park, her son does, and it is always full of dogs. She suggested that the city look at Daybreak’s dog park as a case study, since it is already within the city. By examining how that park operates, how well it is maintained, what enforcement challenges exist, and how dog owners use it, the city could determine whether a similar setup would be beneficial in other areas. Supervisor Rasmussen shared that there have been two or three calls regarding dog attacks at the Daybreak dog park. When these incidents occur, a case is created, but citations are not issued because the park is clearly marked with "Enter at Your Own Risk" signage. She emphasized that if the city were to designate a new dog park, they could implement similar signage to ensure that owners understand the risks before entering. While reports of incidents are documented, enforcement is limited since dog owners voluntarily enter the park knowing the potential risks of off-leash interactions. City Manager Lewis added that feedback from his peers emphasized the need for significant space to establish a successful dog park. To ensure proper functionality, multiple designated South Jordan City 11 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 areas should be included to allow for rest zones, appropriate maintenance, and sufficient spacing for safe interactions. These factors will be taken into consideration as discussions progress. Police Chief Jeff Carr asked Supervisor Rasmussen to share insights regarding unfenced off- leash areas and any relevant experiences or challenges associated with them. Supervisor Rasmussen shared that other agencies, including Draper, have encountered legal threats related to unfenced off-leash areas. In Draper, for example, a few dog owners have expressed frustration over incidents where their dogs were attacked by porcupines in a wilderness area, arguing that the city should be responsible for keeping wildlife out. Additionally, in another dog park that features a water area, some dogs became ill due to exposure, leading residents to seek compensation from the city. She noted that liability concerns exist in various forms, regardless of how the park is structured. She also referenced Herriman’s approach, highlighting that their dog park has extensive rules and regulations, including a requirement that only licensed spayed or neutered dogs are allowed to use the facility. City Manager Lewis noted that only about 20% of dogs are licensed, with fewer than 2,500 registered in a city of approximately 30,000 homes. He highlighted this as a factor to consider if the city were to establish a dog park, as many cities with designated dog parks require proof of licensing. He referenced Taylorsville’s approach, where non-residents must purchase a special tag to use their dog park, suggesting this could be a way to encourage more dog owners to license their pets. Council Member McGuire questioned how such a requirement would be effectively enforced. Supervisor Rasmussen stated it would be Animal Control stopping in and checking. She clarified that state law requires all dogs to wear both a city license tag and a rabies tag on their collar, regardless of location. Council Member Zander noted that residents have frequently approached her asking when the city will establish a dog park. She expressed that she is not in favor of using tax dollars to fund a dog park. City Manager Lewis acknowledged it is evident from community feedback that it is a highly sought-after amenity. He noted that once the parks and open space plan is finalized and presented, it will reflect the strong interest from residents in having a designated dog park. Council Member Zander pointed out that some residents advocating for a dog park may not have fully considered the liability aspects or their own experiences at other dog parks. She referenced Daybreak’s history with dog parks, noting that the first one, developed by the community’s developer, ultimately failed and was reverted to a natural area. City Manager Lewis emphasized that if the city were to establish a dog park, it would require dedicated staff for enforcement and maintenance. He expressed concern that not all users would be responsible pet owners, necessitating city employees to clean up after pets, make repairs, and maintain fencing and rest areas. Additionally, any amenities added would require regular South Jordan City 12 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 inspections, similar to the daily maintenance required for a splash pad. These ongoing costs and operational needs would have to be factored into the decision-making process. Council Member McGuire inquired about the status of the dog park discussions with the Bingham Creek Park Authority, noting that the topic has come up multiple times. He mentioned he is aware that research on the matter has been done but was unsure of the current progress. City Manager Lewis stated that the future phases of Bingham Creek Regional Park include plans for a dog park. However, the timeline for implementation remains uncertain and could be 10, 20, or even 30 years out. Associate Director Colby Hill referenced a 2008 Salt Lake County dog park implementation plan, which was updated in 2017, identifying Bingham Creek Regional Park as one of the top six locations for a dog park. Ultimately, the project's development depends on funding availability through the Bingham Creek Regional Park Authority. Council Member Harris asked what land was being considered for a dog park. City Manager Lewis stated that while there is no current plan, the Council may direct staff to explore the feasibility of a dog park. If directed, staff would conduct a full evaluation, similar to previous program assessments, considering cost, liability, and potential locations. A priority- based budget analysis could be presented during the fall strategic planning session, allowing the Council to determine whether to incorporate the project into the budget. Council Member Harris commented on the ongoing budget meetings, noting the lack of available funding for additional projects. He acknowledged the need for creativity in budgeting and expressed concern about how to accommodate new initiatives given current financial constraints. City Manager Lewis noted that conducting the analysis would provide the Council with a clearer understanding of the costs and feasibility of a dog park. This information would help determine whether the project is a high priority for future consideration. Council Member McGuire stated that, based on feedback from residents over the years, the issue warrants analysis. While not committing to approval, he noted that multiple residents have expressed interest in a dog park. Mayor Ramsey expressed support for conducting the analysis and highlighted key concerns, including cost, ongoing maintenance, and the overall investment required. She also raised questions about the feasibility of a non-fenced dog park, noting potential challenges with visitors from surrounding areas. She emphasized the importance of evaluating fenced versus non-fenced options, as a non-fenced approach could present enforcement and safety issues. Council Member McGuire stated that he would only support a fenced dog park. City Manager Lewis stated that various funding options could be explored, such as a fee-based model with annual passes, day-use fees via QR code, or an additional fee on pet licensing to help South Jordan City 13 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 offset operational and maintenance costs. He noted that there is time before strategic planning meetings in the fall to conduct a thorough analysis. He referenced the urban deer program as an example of a previous detailed evaluation and stated that a similar approach could be taken for the dog park. Council Member Harris expressed support for conducting the analysis, particularly with a focus on potential funding options. He liked the ideas presented, comparing a fee-based model to paying for access to the recreation center. He suggested that an additional fee could be added to dog licensing, giving owners the option to pay extra for dog park access. Council Member McGuire supported the idea of a fee-based model, noting that it would help control who uses the park. He referenced instances where non-residents were utilizing dog parks maintained by other cities without contributing to their upkeep. He emphasized the need for a use fee, particularly for non-residents, to ensure fair cost distribution. Council Member Johnson supported implementing fees, noting that a high volume of dogs in a designated area would require significant daily cleanup and maintenance. City Manager Lewis stated that the analysis would evaluate feasibility, including minimum requirements and best practices learned from other cities. He emphasized that staff could begin the analysis right away. He asked if the Council was comfortable leaving the ordinance unchanged for now. Council members were in agreement to leave the ordinance as is. Council Member Zander asked if there are any issues with the current ordinance that are causing challenges. Supervisor Rasmussen stated that the only concern with the current ordinance is the six-foot leash requirement, noting that enforcement is not practical with a tape measure. She pointed out challenges with retractable leashes but emphasized that as long as the owner maintains physical control and can stop the dog if needed, enforcement action would not be taken. She mentioned instances where owners use 20-foot leads to play with their dogs while still maintaining control. Mayor Ramsey expressed appreciation for Supervisor Rasmussen’s expertise and discretion in handling leash enforcement and thanked them for their work. Council Member Zander motioned to recess the City Council Study Meeting agenda to move to Executive Closed Session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; vote was 5-0 unanimous in favor. RECESS CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING AND MOVE TO EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION G. Executive Closed Session: G.1. Discuss the character, professional competence, physical or mental health of an individual. South Jordan City 14 City Council Study Meeting February 18, 2025 ADJOURN EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION AND RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING Council Member Johnson motioned to adjourn the Executive Closed Session and move back to the City Council Study Meeting. Council Member McGuire seconded the motion; vote was 5-0 unanimous in favor. ADJOURNMENT Council Member McGuire motioned to adjourn the February 18, 2025 City Council Study Meeting. Council Member Shelton seconded the motion; vote was 5-0 unanimous in favor. The February 18, 2025 City Council Study meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. This is a true and correct copy of the February 18, 2025 City Council Study Meeting Minutes, which were approved on March 4, 2025. South Jordan City Recorder  ATTACHMENT A City Council Study Session 2.18.25 RM Zone Text Amendment Discussion  Purpose of updates Overview of existing code and comparisons Agenda Visual review of development patterns and urban design features  Options for code changes Why is RM Important?  Single Family, 60% max Max 5 DUA in Building Envelope Residential Uses Lot Standards RM5 & RM6 Zones Overview Detached building RM5, 6 DUA in coverage RM6 Single Family, Attached 20’ min front 5,000 sq. ft. min setback, 25’ min lot Neighborhood for garage Residential 65’ min with in opening RM5, 60’ in RM6 Facility 8’ min side yard, 65’ min with in Multi-family* 10’ min for RM5, 60’ in RM6 Live-work* corner lots 20’ min rear yard, 10’ min for *Prohibited uses corner lots  “This chapter is established to provide standards and regulations, consistent with the city's general plan and the purposes and provisions of this title, for single- Purpose Statement family residential areas in the city. This chapter shall apply to the following residential zones as established in chapter 17.20, "Zone Establishment", of this title: R-1.8, R-2.5, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-M zones. Uses may only be conducted in residential zones in accordance with the regulations of this code. Allowed use (permitted and conditional), accessory use, temporary use and other associated use regulations may be found in chapter 17.18, "Uses", of this title.”  West Jordan Sandy “R-3 Zone: The multiple-family residential (R- “The RM District is established to provide a 3) zone is established to provide an attractive medium to high density residential setting for multiple-family, two-family and environment within Sandy City characterized Purpose Statements single-family dwellings, and associated uses as by group and small multiple-unit housing and defined in this article.” well planned site development.” Draper Herriman “The purpose of the RM1 and RM2 zones is to “R-M Zone: The purpose of the R-M Zone is to permit well designed apartments, townhomes, provide areas in the City for high density twin homes, and condominiums at relatively residential development which provide high densities that are appropriately buffered persons who reside therein a comfortable, from and compatible with surrounding land healthy, safe, and pleasant environment.” uses.”  25 RM Density Ranges by City 20 15 Dwellng Units Per Acre 10 5 0 South Jordan West Jordan Herriman Riverton Sandy Draper  The zoning code has no Lacks lot standards for Current Code Limitations standard residential differing housing types zoning district that such as townhomes, would allow densities apartments, or duplex. greater than 6 DUA. No urban design Provides no direction criteria to help create for transitions between consistent higher and lower development patterns density developments and streetscapes.  A B Visualizing Density Allen, TX Herriman, UT C D McKinney, TX Riverton, UT  6.7 5.5 DUA DUA Visualizing Density Allen, TX Herriman, UT 8 DUA 8 DUA McKinney, TX Riverton, UT  A B Visualizing Density West Jordan, UT Erie, CO Sandy, UT Riverton, UT C D  13.5 9.5 DUA DUA Visualizing Density West Jordan, UT Erie, CO Sandy, UT Riverton, UT 9.5 14 DUA DUA  Density Design Measurement of how Shapes the physical many dwelling units form of development are contained within a and defines the urban Density given area. character of a place. vs Design Allen, TX Density: “The number of lots or dwelling units per acre of gross land area in a residential project.” Density vs Design 6 DUA Small Lot Single Family 6 DUA & Townhome Single Family Redwood Rd 11400 S South Jordan South Jordan Density vs Design Anthem Park Blvd 5.4 DU/A 6.4 DU/A Multifamily Small Lot Single Family & Duplex Kitty Hawk Rd Herriman South Jordan Density vs Design 8 DUA 8 DUA Duplex Townhome & Duplex McKinney, TX Riverton, UT Density vs Design 6 DU/A Small Lot Single Family & Triplex South Jordan South Jordan Density vs Design 7800 S 12600 S 13.9 DU/A 13.5 DU/A Townhome and Townhome Multifamily Riverton West Jordan  Single Family Duplex Mansion House Triplex HOUSE SCALE Housing Type Scale South Jordan South Jordan BLOCK SCALE West Jordan Herriman Townhouse Multi-Family  South Jordan South Jordan Massing Sandy Riverton  South Jordan West Jordan Transitions South Jordan West Jordan  South Jordan Riverton West Jordan Streetscape Herriman Riverton West Jordan  • Uniform standard all must comply with • Can be rigid Requirements • Could include different standards for different building types (ex. Townhome, multi-family, small lot single- family) Ways to Incorporate • Creates a menu of design features developers can Design Points System choose from • Minimum threshold of points could be required or Standards incentivized PD or • Case by case • Resource intensive Development • May be inconsistent, however could incorporate Agreement minimum standards or other guiding factors Building Types in Code Questions ATTACHMENT B