[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6661043,"mediaKeyId","2419435-84f28ae48bf2f97e2b272055a5684085","parentId",2419435,"title","Planning Commission recommends amendment to Professional Office zone, replacing site‑specific exhibits with general architectural guidelines","audioSeconds",5620,"startMs",3377000,"endMs",8997000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2419435-84f28ae48bf2f97e2b272055a5684085&start=3377&end=8997","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2419435-84f28ae48bf2f97e2b272055a5684085/thumbnail_3377000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6661043/Utah/Planning-Commission-recommends-amendment-to-Professional-Office-zone-replacing-sitespecific-exhibits-with-general-architectural-guidelines","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661043-5ba54e2f6ccbcee7a18aecfe0008e553/orig.mp4?Expires=1770853899&Signature=StaCKtF2PIh1ieqCEzWuLv5nUdcVJhUdIATCpHP-A8YgN1H3SsBxXCefYhLj8vhOJDtHXY-OMiofjhgKV28gkkSB418kqafaBBYA6VPY7uLjukUFkz5DwVcI8uHdkPpIh0OOCshDHpvEEq9l8Pi~xMGKZ1H9k-HJUn9nhYo8YdBIskhl136e~-9q3xpZ~5bvyJUlKQE~AkRN6MF41QMkasYU3Y8Wnx9hsjK3iZySRFdTsyTCZ~-ZpRcSjuPcGCBeeRKE9IIPW01QLgT4xnRkUh7TNLQn4IYaOaCZNCBjGv4Ax7b3beWDipkFzA1w2DDQl1Z7AeD1qZ46mgtkgg4vew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-26T17:05:23Z","article","The Highland Planning Commission voted on Feb. 25 to forward a recommendation to city council to amend the Professional Office (PO) zoning text and exhibits. The proposed change removes detailed, site‑specific architecture exhibits and replaces them with more general architectural guidelines and a new set of illustrative images. Commissioners also added language making previously approved master site plans remain in effect for the affected properties unless changed through the established master‑site‑plan amendment process.

Rob (planning staff) described the amendment as an effort to reconcile existing code exhibits with properties that are zoned PO but not reflected in the old, very detailed exhibits. He told the commission the change would allow the PO zoning to function as a general code standard while retaining existing master site plans for properties that already have them.

Jerry (planning consultant/staff) framed the change as restoring a typical two‑step process: establish general design guidelines in the zoning and then review project‑specific site plans under that framework. He told commissioners, “The normal process for doing this type of work in a zone is that you establish the guidelines in the zone, and then you work within the structure of that zone to work through the the specific details of the site plan.” The commission debated how to preserve public input where an existing master site plan sits on record; commissioners agreed that any change to a previously approved master site plan should require an amendment or application that allows public review.

Commission discussion included concerns that swapping images might create a conflict with existing numeric limits in the code — for example, a previously specified single‑story building footprint versus new sample images that show two‑story concepts. Commissioners asked staff to clarify that the new exhibits would not automatically change building height or square footage limits established elsewhere in the code and that any changes to an approved master site plan would come through the master‑site‑plan process.

Commissioner Trent moved to recommend approval of the amendment with the exhibit substitutions and an added clarification that existing master site plans remain in effect unless formally amended; the motion was seconded and carried on roll call. Staff said the item will go to the city council for final action and encouraged affected neighbors and stakeholders to participate at the council hearing.

The recommendation modifies Exhibit C (building design images and specific site standards) by removing two images and adding two others that commissioners identified as better representing acceptable building forms in the PO zone, while leaving other design and materials requirements in code. Commissioners said that if an applicant later proposes a different master site plan for a property that previously had one, the applicant would need to submit an amendment so the public can comment at that stage.

Rob said the staff supports the proposed change because “we do have property that doesn't match the exhibits,” and that the amendment will make the zone usable for multiple properties rather than applying a one‑off standard to a single site.

The commission’s recommendation sends the amendment to city council for a public hearing and final decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - Feb 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Highland Planning Commission voted Feb. 25 to recommend city council approve modifications to the Professional Office (PO) zoning text and exhibits, replacing site‑specific architecture exhibits with broader architectural guidance.","taxTitle","Highland City Council, Highland, Utah County, Utah","taxId",20059,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6661046,"Neighbors press Highland Planning Commission over property lines for proposed 7‑lot Pantos subdivision; staff recommends approval",1094,496000,1590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2419435-84f28ae48bf2f97e2b272055a5684085&start=496&end=1590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2419435-84f28ae48bf2f97e2b272055a5684085/thumbnail_496000.jpg","/articles/6661046/Utah/Neighbors-press-Highland-Planning-Commission-over-property-lines-for-proposed-7lot-Pantos-subdivision-staff-recommends-approval","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661046-6f9885e60e6b2fdd9bf19ac3d9cf7d8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770853899&Signature=nHhvdQoQCaqDFP05qdKccRGfW8JKPrEatiKxIe7qyGxPBipcaKOrtJ8Hekr73z7duIBpRTvyV45QSqUeqA1cT6tzQ-mLul5GGieSM7kDJksG0nuGcw4qYwa4Ft~n-~VAsJwCYrg3ASjY7PRr19ULUvKMcpBj7rhkQnMhNtkSb~1MfvyYJ4S-~BeCz72qCdbbnV-cK-U96iet2LZI~1k5mkNcTqNVK8-nX3MKtnfhq6697kXcO~SWiIx1-O8xrKws1qhJq5rn8o8aYYTjL6j1P8X-DQhYxxJ-3zFidwWwE15R0EXcV~FwxD79qfUzJcDEIpo6ErkW9m1kP~lRn2K2gA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its Feb. 25 meeting, the Highland Planning Commission heard a public hearing on the Pantos preliminary plat, a proposed seven‑lot subdivision of roughly 6.5 acres north of Beulah Farm. City staff told commissioners the plat meets R‑1‑40 zoning standards and recommended approval, while multiple neighbors urged caution because of unresolved boundary and title issues.

Rob (City attorney/staff) told the commission the parcel is zoned R‑1‑40, “so standard 1 acre lot density, essentially,” and that the preliminary plat shows seven lots, each over the minimum frontage and size for the zone. He said an ALTA survey submitted with the application reported about 286,500 square feet for the original parcel and about 280,000 square feet after accounting for roadway use, and noted, “We recommend approval as it does meet r 1 40 standards.”

Neighbors at the hearing said recorded county parcel lines do not always match fence lines on the ground and that some adjacent owners have used their fenced boundaries for decades. Brian Garrett, who said he lives directly east of the Pantos parcel, asked, “So if the property lines do end up being, which they should be, they're the fence lines, do we still have enough property to make 7 lots?” Rob replied that the ALTA survey is the city’s required evidence for the record and explained the legal limits of the commission: the city cannot adjudicate private boundary disputes.

Rob said the arithmetic is consequential: “280,000 is exactly 7. So if it goes under that, it would round down to 6.” Neighbors and speakers described long‑standing fences, trees and concrete pads they say have marked property lines for decades, and some said mortgage or title constraints limit their ability to sign agreements that would settle boundaries. Charice Park said neighbors had been advised by counsel not to sign paperwork that could trigger mortgage issues.

Representatives for the property owner said Patterson Homes now holds title in county records and that the developer is open to discussing neighbors’ concerns. David Peterson, civil engineer for the applicant, said he could not resolve boundary disputes in the hearing setting and that Patterson’s team can work directly with affected property owners.

City staff acknowledged title and encroachment issues disclosed in the title report and suggested possible conditions commissioners could impose before final plat approval. Rob noted the commission could add a stipulation requiring the applicant to “verify and establish any boundary lines, in connection with final plat submittals, to the city attorney satisfaction.” Commissioners discussed that condition as a possible way to ensure the final plat reflects resolved title questions.

Commissioners also took public questions on related topics, including animal keeping in Highland and sidewalks along 10400 North. Staff said Highland’s residential zoning permits certain animals and that the developer would be required to build sidewalks for lots that directly front 10400 North, while other sidewalks in the corridor would depend on future city projects and funding.

No formal final action on the preliminary plat was recorded in the transcript. The record shows staff’s recommendation to approve the preliminary plat subject to the city’s standard construction‑plan and final‑plat processes and discusses options for conditioning final approval on resolution of title and boundary issues.

The commission’s review of the preliminary plat is a procedural step under state law; if approved, the developer would return later with final plats and construction drawings for administrative approval, subject to any conditions commissioners impose.","At the Feb. 25 Highland Planning Commission meeting, neighbors raised boundary and title concerns during a public hearing on the Pantos preliminary plat. City staff recommended approval for seven lots under R‑1‑40 zoning but acknowledged potential title disputes that could affect the final plat.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission recommends amendment to Professional Office zone, replacing site‑specific exhibits with general architectural guidelines

Neighbors press Highland Planning Commission over property lines for proposed 7‑lot Pantos subdivision; staff recommends approval