CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Michael McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Eric Richardson, Jim Perry, Gary Maxwell, Charelle Bowman (by phone), Joel Wright (7:25 p.m.)
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Gretchen Gordon, Deputy City Recorder
Others: Kenny Schoemig, Jeff Hiatt, Shaye Codling, Brandon Comer, Tanner Smith, Ken Boyer, Caden Codling, Nathan Farnsworth, Kirk Hamilton, Jon Bratt, Ryan Levin, Cliff Chandler, David Swensen, Steven Taylor, Samuel Brady, Mike Burr, Alex Burr
COUNCIL MEETING
1. This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by Gary Maxwell
Pledge of Allegiance - Nathan Farnsworth, Troop 1192
2. Public Comment (7:15 p.m.)
• Delvon Baulhuis - Mr. Baulhuis lives in The Cedars town-home area and is moving to a home in Juniper Heights. He addressed concerns that he has regarding the landscaping/water policy. In the town homes, they have some acreage that must be watered at the exact same times that other areas of the City are watering and many times there is not enough pressure the next day to water. There are some people who are grossly abusing the system and watering both day and night on the approved days of the week. He would request that any HOA have the right to submit a plan to modify the watering schedule. He proposed adding a meter to assess those who abuse the system.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Minutes from the November 7, 2006, Regular City Council Meeting (7:20 p.m.)
MOTION C. Richardson - To table the consent agenda until the December 5th meeting. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
Nay - C. Perry Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Bowman - To move Item #11 before Item #4. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Richardson
C. Perry Motion passes.
11. Review/Action on the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (7:23 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the City amended the Commercial Design Guidelines on November 16, 2004. As commercial development gets closer, there are some recommended changes for the overall success of the commercial development. Staff discussed whether these proposals need to be referred back the Planning Commission prior to approval. For a number of months, the Planning Commission worked on prior modifications to this document and subsequently the City Council made revisions that did not go back to the Planning Commission.
Staff has consulted with the attorney for the Utah League of Cities and Towns to determine whether the revision needs to once again go back to the Planning Commission prior to changes being made by the City Council. He stated that legally they did not have to go back, but that it was the City’s decision. There has been an increasing interest by developers in the commercial district, but there was a suggestion made to take out the maximum square footage and percentages. Everything in the commercial zone has to come to the City Council under conditional use for approval. Staff recommends that the guidelines be changed in that manner.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry agrees that there are unintended consequences with that limitation as he has spoken with some potential developers. The whole intent was not to limit or set an expectation, but this conveys something that may not be accurate.
• C. Richardson stated that this is a good idea to consider. In the commercial zone, it is definitely a unique location that is specific to our community. The guidelines are very important because a conditional use is not arbitrary, but this ensures that it is done right. He supports staff recommendations, but feels strongly that this needs to have a review by the Planning Commission. In the Decisions survey that was just completed, 58% supported commercial development and this includes looking at big box development. The residents also indicated that the City needs to make sure that we communicate effectively.
C. Richardson made the following statement: The City of Cedar Hills has been actively engaged in economic development in order to provide a secure tax base for the City and to fill the convenience needs of our community and the City Council wishes to facilitate the timely development of our commercial zone. In the recent Decisions 2006 survey, residents provided overwhelming support for the Council’s desire to expedite development of our commercial zone that is in harmony with the City’s General Plan. Current economic climate in the development needs for potential suitors creates an immediate need for altered flexibility on building clustering as projects are reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
MOTION: C. Richardson - That the City Council instructs the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation at their November 30th meeting on the Council’s proposed update to the Commercial Design Guidelines, which is staff’s recommendation as noted in the memo for Sections 4,2,3, 4.3.3 and 4.4.3. Seconded by C. Bowman.
• C. Perry stated that he is often frustrated, as some residents are, that the City moves at the “speed of government” and work goes back and forth. He doesn’t see any benefit to this going back to the Planning Commission. He feels that the City Council is taking nothing away and not changing the intent. He feels that it is still in harmony with the purpose and intent that are stated in the guidelines that the Planning Commission drafted. He worries that the City goes through such a long process for every small thing. He does not feel that this helps the Council communicate more with the residents.
• C. Richardson feels that the intent was to be explicit and he feels that some things have been proposed as changes and he supports those, but this is a significant change and the Council needs to make sure that this is communicated well.
• C. Bowman stated that in light of what has happened this past year, she wants to make sure that everything is done exactly as it should be. She wants to avoid further town meetings and she doesn’t want to cause any further delays.
• C. Perry wanted to know if the Council was actually asking for the Planning Commission’s input or using this as a way to communicate with residents.
• C. Maxwell stated that he is a real estate developer and was on the Planning Commission for a year. He feels that by moving forward on the issue of striking the actual square footage, the City is not “opening the door.” Developers will feel that they are able to propose a plan and not be limited; all plans still have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. He would want the option to present a plan, which will go back to the Planning Commission when an applicant submits their plan. If a developer feels that there is no negotiation on size, an effort may not even be made by the developer.
• C. Wright stated that everything that he has seen by the Planning Commission has been excellent. They explore and evaluate things and he heavily relies on this. He feels that this is the proper role of the Council and this document has been sifted by the Planning Commission.
• C. Richardson is not debating whether this is a good idea or not. He feels this is prudent even though the Planning Commission will see it either way. He stated that if the Planning Commission denies this change, they will deny a future request from a potential developer. The next Planning Commission meeting is only five days away and he feels that it would ensure that the procedure is followed.
• C. Perry doesn’t fear their opinion, but he feels that it is clear how the City Council feels. Referring it back to the Planning Commission serves no useful purpose. There will be plenty of opportunity for input, review, and communication when an application is made.
• C. Maxwell said that the fence ordinance went back and forth, and the Planning Commission gave their input on this issue multiple times. The Planning Commission has already given input on this issue. The Council already knows what they want to accomplish, so this isn’t a bad scenario.
• C. Wright called for a vote.
• C. Perry asked for input from Cliff Chandler, who is a current Planning Commission member.
• Cliff Chandler said that he can’t speak for all members, but he wouldn’t have any problem if this was reviewed again by the Planning Commission. After hearing the discussion, he doesn’t feel it is necessary. This has been reviewed and decided on. If the Council wants it to come back to Planning Commission, they will review it.
• C. Wright called for a vote.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Richardson
Nay - C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Perry - To adopt Resolution 11-21-2006A, A Resolution Establishing Guidelines for the Layout and Design of Planned Commercial Development Projects with the SC-1 Shopping Center Zone of the City of Cedar Hills, with the change being that Section 4.2.3 reads as follows: “Building Size: Building Size for the neighborhood retail commercial district shall be reviewed by the City Council and potentially approved based on such items as building placement, aesthetics, noise control, lighting design, traffic control, etc. to give the feel consistent with the overall commercial development as well as the community as a whole. Section 4.3.3 and 4.4.3 also be changed accordingly. Seconded by C. Wright.
• C. Perry stated that the Planning Commission will have every opportunity to review and communicate with residents.
• C. Bowman thanked Cliff Chandler for being there and requested that he pass along the discussion had by the Council.
• C. Richardson wanted it to go on record that he feels that this is the wrong order on a substantial change.
Roll call vote taken. Aye - C. Bowman
Aye - C. Maxwell
Aye - C. Wright
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Proposed Purchase of City Property Located Along Southern Edge of Sunset Park (7:56 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. During the November 7th City Council meeting, a proposal was discussed by the property owner directly south of Sunset Park. This proposal was to purchase a 5' strip of park property, move shrubs, add drainage features, and correct a potential drainage issue that exists in the park. The Public Works Director and Konrad Hildebrandt did an on-site visit with the property owners and landscaper. Initially, he didn’t believe there was a drainage issue there because the City did have issues there before and substantial changes were made to eliminate that problem. After further review, the City did see a low-spot where there could potentially be some drainage issues that would need to be reviewed. The proposal is to have the homeowner fix those issues for the City as well as selling 5' of property. On the back of the staff memo, there is a picture that shows the 5' that would push it back along the bushes along the fence. As staff, there would be no major impact to the park area or to the residents utilizing the park. The City would require fair market value, but staff feels that the 5' would be insignificant. This would be a win for the homeowner and would not be a loss for the City and could be a win in correcting the problem. The staff recommends that the City allow this purchase to take place.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that at the last meeting, the staff recommended not to sell this, but to look into how to fix the drainage. The homeowner wants to put an RV pad here and he feels that this would impact the park. If everyone applied that principle, it could really impact the parks. As long as the City gains, he is amenable to a proposal.
• C. Maxwell stated that there is a drainage issue and if the City were to sell the 5' that part would be to correct any drainage issue that would come off the park. That would be a potential win for the City. He has not spoken with the homeowner, but has spoken with the landscaper and the City staff. He feels that this is a permanent solution to this ongoing problem.
• Mayor McGee cautioned against providing a recommendation on how the drainage was to be fixed to avoid assuming the liability.
• C. Bowman doesn’t want the motivation to be that the homeowner fixes something that is the City’s responsibility.
• C. Richardson indicated that this isn’t an expensive problem for the City or homeowner to fix. He wants to see a final analysis on market value of the land and specifics of the improvements.
• C. Wright suggested selling the land to the property owner, require specifications of improvements, and include a clause that the City will not assume any responsibility for future drainage problems.
• Mayor McGee stated the he feels that moving the fence over 5', may increase the likelihood of flooding because of its proximity to the berm.
• The homeowner’s landscape contractor was in attendance. He stated that there is still plenty of space to contour the land and berm, if needed, between the fence and berm. They plan is to excavate the area, line it with fabric, fill it with gravel, and cover it with fabric and top soil. It would be engineered to the City’s recommendation.
• There was a consensus from the Council that there was not enough information to make an appropriate decision.
MOTION: C. Wright - That staff work on this issue, prepare a contract for fair market value with two conditions: 1) That the homeowner makes all the necessary drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and 2) Include a Hold Harmless Clause that attaches to the land that they cannot ever collect damages from the City of Cedar Hills for any future water damage. Seconded by C. Maxwell
• The issue will need to come back to Council for approval of a contract.
• C. Perry stated that this in no way absolves the City from their responsibility. If the City does not feel that there is a problem, the Council should not approve this.
• Mayor McGee stated that the City is willing to give the homeowner the opportunity to correct the perceived problem. If the homeowner does that, he assumes all responsibility for the corrections.
Aye - C. Maxwell
C. Wright
Nay - C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion fails.
C. Wright excused - 8:30pm
• C. Perry would like to see two plans, with options for the homeowner fixing the issue and the City selling the land with a second proposal to retain the land and having the City fix the area. C. Perry stated that he would like to also receive a recommendation from the Parks and Trails Committee on the overall impact to the park system. C. Bowman can talk to the Committee.
5. Review/Action on Final for Landon Court, Plat B (8:33p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt presented the plat map. Plat A has already been approved, which includes the west side of the cul-de-sac. This is a proposal for final plat approval. A recommendation for approval was given by the Planning Commission upon condition of water submission and the water certificate for the existing home. This completes this subdivision.
C. Wright returns - 8:34 p.m.
Staff recommends granting final approval, with the inclusion of conditions from the Planning Commission and final engineering.
Council Discussion:
• C. Richardson wanted to know if the City received the letter from Pleasant Grove Irrigation Company approving the elimination of flood irrigation. Water from 9600 North will not enter the cul-de-sac.
• Ryan Levin stated that the water has been transferred to the City.
• C. Perry noted that there is a sump and is concerned about flooding of surrounding areas.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To grant final approval of Landon Court, Plat B, Subdivision in the PR 2.2 Zone subject to: 1) Final engineering, 2) Water in the amount of one-acre foot for each new lot being remitted and verified by the City, 3) Water certificate or deed for the existing home connected to Manila Water Company system shall also be required. Seconded by C. Wright.
• Discussion about working on a deed for the existing home. This needs some clarification, so that it doesn’t imply a deed on the actual home.
AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To include a water deed or water certificate or water shares for the existing home. Accepted and seconded by C. Wright.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
6. Review/Action on New Elevations for Bridgestone, PUD (8:43 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the revised building elevations were previously approved by the City Council, but they requested color renderings. McMullin Homes has submitted the plans for the future units. Staff recommendation would be to approve the renderings.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that previously the HOA submitted a letter that was requested and that the changes were put in writing.
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve acceptance of the revised building elevations and plans for the Bridgestone PUD. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
7. Review/Action to Award Bid for Timpanogos Cove Park Project (8:44 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. The City Council requested that the park project be rebid on its own. Previously it was bid jointly with three other parks and trails. The City only received one bid, which the City did not accept. There was a substantial amount of interest in the rebid and the low bidder for the project submitted a total base bid of $1,109,927.03, which is a savings of more than $300,000. On all bids, the City included a maximum mobilization charge of 7.5%. Using materials on site, etc., there may be some cost savings.
Council Discussion:
• C. Bowman wanted to know if this company has done any other projects in the area. Konrad Hildebrandt is not aware of other projects, but would provide some further information. The City Engineer feels that these are all competent contractors. The City must take the low bid unless there is an overriding condition. In the budget, there is $430,000 for the project. The Parks and Trails Committee has recommended that the City fund one park at a time.
• C. Perry said that impact fees need to be reviewed. Konrad Hildebrandt said that there is a completed impact fee study and capital improvements study to be reviewed by the Council at the next meeting, but it does not include recreation or parks. It is recommended that impact fees are reviewed every 2-3 years; it could possibly be done in-house between formal reviews by an outside company. The City has not reviewed these for seven years.
• C. Bowman stated that the Parks and Trails Committee has created a priority list on the order of park completion and Timpanogos Cove is next on the list.
MOTION: C. Bowman - To award the 2006 Timpanogos Cove Park project to S&L Landscaping, who is the low bidder. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
• C. Richardson stated that there is a schedule included in the bid. The targeted completion date is May 5th with some penalties for delay.
• C. Perry noted that the home builders working in the area have tracked a lot of dirt through this cul-de-sac, which subsequently goes down into the City’s storm drain system. He wanted the staff to keep an eye on this problem as the work on the park begins. It costs the City money to clean out the storm drains. Konard Hildebrandt stated that the City’s Storm Drain Mitigation Plan is implemented as part of the bid. Mayor McGee stated that the City pumps the drains prior to the work beginning and that the contractor is responsible for any clearing after the project.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review/Action to Award Bid for Bonneville Shoreline Trail Phase 2 (8:55 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that this is the second project that was bid out by the City. The low bid was from Hughes General Contractors of $358,158.50. Phase 1 was what was installed from the mouth of American Fork Canyon up past the LDS Church on Bayhill Drive. This project would go from Bayhill to the Timpanogos Cove Park, but does not include the trail head. The City has submitted a letter of intent on the UDOT 80/20 match grant. Staff has also submitted for a land/water use grant of $100,000 for the Timpanogos Park. The City has been given verbal approval on $175,000 for this trail, so the actual cost would be $358,000 minus the grant. This is going to be an asphalt trail, but will not include additional landscaping, just erosion control.
Council Discussion:
• C. Richardson wanted to know if all of the easements were secured across the trail. Konrad Hildebrandt said that this needs to be solidified before the City moves forward. The City has verbally talked to all of the property owners, but the letters are not in-hand. The trail is going in the aqueduct easement so there is no effect on a property situation. The grant will not be secured unless all easements are in hand.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To award the 2006 Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Phase 2, project to Hughes General Contractors, the apparent low bidder, contingent on all easements being secured and the grant being approved by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $175,000. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
9. Discussion Regarding the Landscape Watering Policy (9:01 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt reviewed usage, pumps, build-out of existing system, etc. In drought years, the City would be pressed with current demand. The current CUP agreement requires the City to buy all 710 acre feet. Mayor McGee is working on a Replenishment Agreement for this water, which is secure water but expensive. Staff recommends that the City maintain the existing watering policy and enforcement mechanism and increase communication efforts.
Council Discussion:
• C. Maxwell inquired whether the City would purchase and install meters for abusers of the system. In order to use meters, the City would have to have an ordinance allowing this.
• Cliff Chandler, who does compliance on this policy, stated that it is typically very difficult to enforce the ordinance when a complaint is called in and he cannot see evidence of the violation. He felt that there should be an adjustment in the fines for subsequent offences. He does not feel that $50 is enough to deter abuse of the system.
• The Council reviewed the current fee schedule. Enforcement is difficult for the portion of the City that is attached to the Manila Water Company and not the City’s water source.
• The City Council would like the staff to prepare a proposal for increased fines and suggestions on how to address over watering. Information should be included in the newsletter prior to the system being turned on in April. The newsletter should also include hard figures that indicated that the City is currently using triple the State recommendations.
• Cliff Chandler suggested holding some town meetings prior to April to discuss the pressurized irrigation and how it works. He indicated that this was very helpful to him.
• If the City wants to install meters, this may be something that is included as a fee on the building permit, like assessing for culinary water.
10. Review/Action on Business License Ordinance - Home Occupations, Solicitation, Peddler/Vendors (9:35 p.m.)
C. Bowman excused - 9:35 p.m.
See handouts. Gretchen Gordon explained that staff has been reviewing and updating the existing ordinance. The Utah League of Cities and Towns has also sent all of the cities a model ordinance specifically addressing solicitation. Some cities have been sued and the league has negotiated with a complainant to create an ordinance to satisfy the cities as well as the solicitors.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that on numerous occasions he has had solicitors come to his door and none have been properly licensed. There is no assurance that businesses will comply with an ordinance, but there is a penalty for noncompliance.
• Page 15, #5 - Discussion of commercial vehicles. C. Perry did not feel that this restriction was enforced on other residents who don’t have a business. Discussion of allowing two commercial vehicles per home occupation. The one-ton vehicle information should be a “one ton weight-rated vehicle.” “...except not more than two vehicles, not to exceed one-ton weight rating.”
• Gretchen Gordon stated that this ordinance tries to ensure that the residential nature of the neighborhood is maintained.
• C. Richardson stated that he wanted to make sure that the Premises Occupation information is inserted into the ordinance.
• Discussion of sign restriction. The City Council did not want to increase the size of the allowed sign. The City Council discussed adding a notation that all signs must comply with provisions of the City’s sign ordinance and the code section.
• Correct the typo on Page 2, C, Line 3 a space needs to be included. “inthe” corrected to “in the”
C. Wright excused - 10:15 p.m.
• Page 16, #15 - “The home occupation shall not have more than two non-residing employees working at the residence.”
• Page 17, A, 4 - C. Richardson suggested including restrictions on conducting business on Sunday. This was not changed.
• Page 18, 3-1D-3, add wording “Exemptions from Article: Exemptions from registration shall not be construed as exemptions from other sections of this ordinance.” This intent is already included at the end of this section.
• Page 19, 3-1D-5, 4(ii) move to 4a and make (v) Wording should be “(v) a felony crime of aggravated or violent conduct involving persons or property.”
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance 11-21-2006A, An Ordinance amending Title 3, Chapter 1, Business Licensing of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, as amended. Seconded by C. Perry. Roll call vote taken.
Aye - C. Maxwell
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
12. City Manager Report and Discussion (10:40 p.m.)
No items to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT
13. This meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. on a motion by C. Perry, seconded by C. Richardson and unanimously approved.
``
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
December 5, 2006