Council continues decision on Highland Boulevard professional-office zone after residents object to two-story designs

The Highland City Council on March 4 held a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to the Professional Office (PO) zoning that governs parcels along Highland Boulevard and near Lone Peak. Rob Patterson, city planning staff, presented the amendment and explained the history: the PO zone was adopted in 2003 with three attached exhibits (a master site plan, landscaping plan and architectural elevations) that have since been amended several times.

The applicant, Patterson Homes, requested removal of the site-specific exhibits and replacement with a more general architectural exhibit meant to allow a broader set of styles in the PO zone. Planning commission discussion last month focused on building height and design. The original exhibits included a one-story restriction for some parcels on the east side of Highland Boulevard but the PO zone text separately allows a maximum building height of 35 feet. That inconsistency was central to the debate: if the exhibits are removed, those east-side parcels could be developed to the 35-foot regulatory limit, which could yield two-story or visually taller buildings from adjacent neighborhoods.

Residents testified at length. Alex Bean, a homeowner in Bull River, said a planned two-story office on the Patterson parcel would look directly into living spaces and children's bedrooms and urged the council to keep the single-story restriction. Bridal McCallan, who owns land behind the PO parcels, said earlier neighborhood agreements anticipated low-impact, day-use professional buildings that would be compatible with nearby residential lots and argued against removing the height and site restrictions. Several other neighbors, including Tracy Barnes and Jerry Abbott, urged the council to preserve the single-story expectations that informed earlier approvals. The architect for the applicant, Curtis Minor, and the applicant's representative said the exhibits were outdated, that some approved buildings already do not match the old elevation drawings, and that modernized, more general standards would make the PO zone usable for current development.

Planning Commission Chair Chris Howden told the council the commission voted 6'1 to remove two of the older architectural examples and forward the text amendment, but stated the commission's intent may not have been fully clear regarding whether removing the exhibits was intended to also remove the site-specific single-story limits. Council members raised the same uncertainty and asked for clarity on two points: (1) whether the commission intended to remove the one-story limitation for parcels on the east side of Highland Boulevard, and (2) how "building height" should be measured on sloped parcels (for example, whether measured from the highest point of finished grade, the average grade, or another method).

After discussion, the council voted to continue the item to its April 15 meeting and asked staff to return with clarification from the planning commission about the commission's recommendation and an explicit definition for how height is measured in the PO zone. The continuation motion passed by a 5'0 vote.

The council also asked staff to ensure medians shown on the existing master site plan remain a required improvement and to confirm that landscaping obligations tied to the master plan are not removed inadvertently by the text amendment. The applicant and opponents were instructed that any subsequent site-plan submittals must also comply with the adopted master site plan unless it is formally amended.

The item will return to the council after the planning commission clarifies the issues the council identified.