South Jordan council debates flag‑lot overlay rezone after development agreement failed; staff to draft changes

The South Jordan City Council on Feb. 4 discussed a contested application to use a newly adopted flag‑lot overlay zone for a two‑lot subdivision, focusing on whether the developer’s required development agreement should be amended so the rezone can be implemented.

Mayor Dawn Ramsey and Steven Schafermeyer, the city’s director of planning, told the council the rezone itself was approved by a 3–2 vote in December but the development agreement failed, which prevents the developer from using the zone. Schafermeyer said D‑3 of the draft agreement ‘‘is the accessory dwelling unit provision, which prohibited detached ADUs or what we call guest houses’’ and that the provision was added after earlier council concerns.

The debate centered on whether the development agreement should keep a prohibition on detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for lots created under the flag‑lot overlay. Councilmember Harris said he supported the prohibition and explained his reasoning: “I was in favor of that provision because I know that we're increasing the density in the subdivision already, and I didn't want to allow us to be in a position where we could significantly, you know, beyond what we're anticipating, increase the density in the subdivision until perhaps years down the road when another council has a different thought about it.” Councilmembers who opposed the development agreement at the December vote said their concern was not necessarily the idea of flag lots but specific provisions in the agreement or a preference that ADU standards be handled administratively rather than by legislative agreement.

Schafermeyer told the council staff has prepared a pending ordinance and is working to refine standards for future applications, including an administrative pathway that would include a prohibition on detached ADUs in the flag‑lot overlay. He said staff’s anticipated next steps are to present a revised ordinance to the planning commission and then bring a version back to the council. ‘‘My plan is obviously to ask the applicant when they want to come back and find a time on the council agenda and present this same agreement with that understanding,’’ he said.

Council members discussed timing relative to pending state legislation on ADUs, including HB 88 (sponsored by Rep. Ray Ward, with a senate floor sponsor identified in the meeting as Sen. Fillmore). Attorney Luce advised that state law could supersede local rules but noted that private parties can still voluntarily agree to limit uses of property even if a later statute would otherwise authorize them. Several council members said they preferred not to delay local action waiting for the final outcome in the Legislature and directed staff to proceed on the schedule discussed: take the revised draft to the planning commission and return to council at the first March meeting (the week that concludes the legislative session).

No vote was taken at the Feb. 4 work meeting. Council direction recorded in the discussion included asking staff to draft ordinance language or an administrative pathway that would (a) prohibit detached ADUs on flag lots consistent with the D‑3 provision the council discussed and (b) clarify standards for future applications. Staff said they will present the draft to the planning commission and then return it to the council for consideration; the applicant may elect to delay a return to council if they prefer.

Why it matters: the council’s decision will determine whether the property owner can proceed with the flag‑lot subdivision and what limits (if any) will apply to accessory units. The issue also intersects with state ADU legislation, which council members said could change the local regulatory landscape.

What’s next: staff will prepare revised ordinance/administrative standards and present them to the planning commission; the council will consider the matter again at a future meeting. The applicant, represented in the meeting by Dan Mylar, may request a return date to present a revised development agreement once the draft is available.