Draper City Council voted 4–0 to deny Ordinance 16-30, a proposal to rezone three parcels in Suncrest (including the K2/clubhouse building) from legacy C-2 zoning to the city’s current General Commercial (CG) zone. The council heard more than two dozen public comments both supporting and opposing the change before taking action.

Jennifer (city planner) reviewed the zoning history: the Suncrest area is governed by a 1999 code tied to development agreements, and its C-2 designation is a carryover from the older code that staff cannot amend directly. The applicant, property owner Adam Koch, asked for CG zoning because the older C-2 rules do not permit a reception center; Koch said his building was constructed in 1997–1999 with a large gathering space and a full kitchen and that he intends to run a small wedding/banquet venue there.

Public comment was strongly divided. Supporters said the venue would be smaller than other facilities in the area, the applicant already shares parking with the HOA, and rezoning would legitimize an existing use and help keep a locally owned business operating. Opponents raised repeated concerns about insufficient parking, overflow parking onto neighborhood streets, noise and fireworks, wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface, insurance and liability impacts, precedent-setting spot zoning, enforcement problems and conflicts of interest because the applicant is active in community bodies. Several speakers — including legal counsel representing a group of residents — urged the council to consider alternatives such as development agreements or additional study rather than a rezone.

Planning Commission had recommended approval (4–1) at its December 12 meeting. Council members expressed concern that rezoning the two parcels to CG would create an out-of-scale commercial zoning pocket surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods, and that the applicant had not demonstrated that infrastructure and parking were adequate to support the commercial intensification. One council member also cited a pattern of prior enforcement complaints at the site and the public safety implications of fireworks in a high fire-risk area.

Councilmember Green moved to deny Ordinance 16-30; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Lowery and passed unanimously (4–0). Councilmembers stated the presumption in favor of the existing zoning had not been overcome, cited adverse impacts to adjacent properties and pointed to unresolved parking and neighborhood compatibility issues.

Ending: The ordinance was denied; the applicant and neighbors were encouraged to pursue alternative mechanisms (for example, a more narrowly tailored development agreement or parking improvements) if they wished to address the underlying business use. No rezoning or conditional-use permit was granted.