PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Gary Maxwell, Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman, Eric Richardson, Joel Wright
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
David Bunker, City Engineer
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Gretchen Gordon, Parker Gordon, Eric Erickson, Brent Uibel, Steve Kroes, David Bragonje, Charl Louw, Stephen Gehrke, Craig Clement, Randi Shover, Jason Phillips, H.R. Brown, Steve Lee, Peggy Rowell, Gary Fullmer, Trent Augustus Corey Reed, Brandon Carter, Kevin Bradford, Spencer Bradford, Caleb Warnock, Karissa Neeley, Amy Choate-Nielsen, Zonda Perry
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 7:13 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Richardson
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Comment (7:15 p.m.)
• Steve Lee: Mr. Lee stated that he is encouraged by some of the things that are happening with the golf course. He thanked the City Council for looking more closely at the Junipers area. He would like Hole #15 preserved. It is beautiful and adds value to those that abut the hole. He would support more development of the Junipers to preserve Hole #15. He also supports selling the course so that the City can realize a profit now, make interest and let someone else take the risk. He said the days of controversy for Cedar Hills should be over. He would like the course to be appraised so that the City knows what it is worth.
• Gary Fullmer: Mr. Fullmer stated that he is interested in The Cedars Design Standards regarding fencing. He said that the original decisions that were made regarding fences were made with good intentions. The vision of that neighborhood and what has actually happened are different. There are a lot of young families with young kids. The vertical nature of the neighborhood makes it dangerous. He hopes some latitude with fencing is available.
3. Minutes from the February 6, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (7:20 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Wright - To approve the minutes from the February 6, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Wright Motion passes.
4. Water Conservation Plan (7:21 p.m.)
5. Presentation Regarding State Road 92 (7:22 p.m.)
See handouts. Randi Shover and Jason Philips of HW Lockner, the consulting firm for UDOT, announced that the SR-92 project has started. In this phase, they are studying SR-92 east of I-15 to American Fork Canyon. The study does not include the I-15 interchange. The study looks at long-term transportation solutions up to the year 2030. There is a thirteen-month time frame for the study. Construction would start in 2009 and would likely take two years. There will be an open house at IM Flash Technologies from 5:30-7:30 p.m. on February 22. There is also a web page where residents can provide comments. A commuter rail is not in the long-term plan for the road. C. Wright stated that SR-92 is the best example of poor planning. He would like to see provisions for a bicycle lane. C. Bowman said that the Murdock Canal will be covered and made into a bike/pedestrian trail that will run along part of the road.
6. Review/Action on Annexation Petition for Property Located at 3694 West 9600 North, Pleasant Grove (7:34 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that David Brangonje has petitioned Pleasant Grove to disconnect. Utah County has received and reviewed his petition. The County would like confirmation that Cedar Hills is willing to accept him. Mr. Brangonje is willing to wait to see if the boundary adjustment occurs. Previously, Pleasant Grove has addressed these petitions by saying that if the boundary adjustment does not occur by July 1, 2007, then the disconnection from Pleasant Grove and annexation by Cedar Hills may occur.
• C. Perry said that there may be some value to have the petition and intention on record to show that there are those that are waiting for boundary adjustment.
• C. Maxwell pointed out that there are Cedar Hills’ sewer, secondary water and culinary water running in front of the house. He also stated that he will not vote because Mr. Brangonje is his brother-in-law.
• C. Richardson confirmed that the swapping of the 9600 N and 4000 W sewer lines is off the table and is now irrelevant.
MOTION: C. Perry - To accept the Annexation Petition for further consideration. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Abstain- C. Maxwell Motion passes.
7. Review/Action on Board/Committee Appointments - Parks and Trails Committee (7:41 p.m.)
See handouts. Mayor McGee stated that the City has received a renewed application from a current member of the Parks and Trails Committee, David Told. Mayor McGee recommended reappointing him.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To affirm Mayor McGee’s appointment of David Told to the Parks and Trails Committee with a term ending December 31, 2009. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review/Action on The Cedars Design Standards Regarding Fences (8:43 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that CC&Rs are recorded in The Cedars west and on Plat A, which is Sugarloaf Drive but the Design Guidelines were not attached. The development agreement, which includes the Design Guidelines, was recorded against all the properties. The Council can decide to go back to the development agreement or it can also decide to change the ordinance. The Design Guidelines state that they can be enforced by the City. Staff has been enforcing the Guidelines. She would like this issue addressed by ordinance.
Rodney Despain stated that the Development Agreement was between the City and Lone Peak Links. By extension, when approved, the Design Guidelines were added. The responsibility of individual lot owners to the Development Agreement and Design Guidelines is remote. Recording of the Guidelines does not make it law. Rather, it makes land buyers aware. A case can be made for the City to try to enforce those, but it is a limited case. CC&Rs are private covenants and not City ordinances and not enforceable by the City. The City cannot enforce private covenants.
• C. Perry stated that because the east side of The Cedars has no HOA, they are left in limbo with no way to change the Design Guidelines. The City’s grounds for enforcement of the Design Guidelines are dubious, and he does not want to play enforcer. He feels that the current City fencing ordinances should be enforced, but the City should not enforce, or review fencing.
• C. Bowman does not want to make a change if there are residents that feel that they were protected by the Design Guidelines. She would feel more comfortable asking that those that want to differ from the Design Guidelines bring in written approval from immediate neighbors. She stated that she feels the City should enforce anything it is legally required to enforce.
• C. Richardson stated that he feels the City should not enforce CC&Rs. When he pulled a building permit, he had to get permission from his Architectural Review Committee. He would prefer that the City pass off on its own ordinances, but refer people back to its ARCs or CC&Rs for further requirements they may need to meet. Design guidelines are a different matter because they are agreements between the City and the developer. The City may have a role in the design standards. He said that he understands the vision for that area, but if the development was founded on such a vision, it should be executed on. In this case, it was not.
• Mayor McGee said that he feels the Council should decide that it will no longer enforce the Design Guidelines.
• C. Richardson stated that there is currently no mechanism to change the CC&Rs. On every building permit, be it a fencing permit or irrigation permit, it should say that this complies with City code, but not necessarily with any CC&Rs or other restrictions that may apply. Property owners are responsible for checking other restrictions, etc. to ensure compliance. The Council agreed.
9. Review/Action on Golf Course Reconfiguration (8:22 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that in the last Council meeting the Council discussed possible golf course reconfiguration and the repayment of debt. The Council tabled the item to allow C. Maxwell to investigate the matter and to allow C. Perry to come up with a Plan B. Staff’s recommendation remains the same: (1) Create an information sheet about the reconfiguration to be sent out to all ‘postal patrons’ in the City of Cedar Hills; (2) Contact The Cedar’s West HOA about the reconfiguration and request that they immediately place this on their agenda to be voted on by their homeowners; (3) Further develop specific reconfiguration plans and submit to the City Council for review and approval; (4) Create a specific time line for reconfiguration activities.
• C. Maxwell stated that he met with residents in the HOA on the last two Saturdays. In the first meeting, he made a presentation that received some support. He subsequently made and distributed a flyer. He met with residents again the following Saturday. He stated that the first step is to remove the debt. City staff and Civil Science put together some plans that C. Maxwell presented to The Cedars. He got signatures from 61 residents for development of the junipers. There were about 70 people present. The plan for developing the junipers calls for 11 lots. Cost of development would be $280,000-$330,000. C. Maxwell estimates that the City would be able to net about $200,000 per lot. A golf hole would need to be added to the junipers area. It would cost $180,000-$250,000. David Bunker said an outcropping makes further development of the junipers area difficult. The pedestrian trail in the junipers would need to be rerouted.
The second portion of development is Hole #15. The intention is to leave some open space for the town homes. A church development that abuts the town homes may not be necessary. The cost of development for the 22 lots is about $42,000 per lot. The City could net about $200,000 per lot. The entire project could net the City about $6.6 million, with a cost of $250,000 for the development of the new hole. The church development could be a contingency plan. C. Maxwell stated that he feels the HOA would vote for this plan. He said in his years as a developer, he has not seen a church site hurt property values. This might be a case where it may hurt values because in this case you are giving up a view corridor. Centennial has been left out of this plan because C. Maxwell feels that if it were included, it would not get enough votes.
• C. Wright said that he still feels that with this plan, the HOA does not sacrifice anything. He also sees that after all is said and done, the golf course may break even at best. There seems to be too much effort required for a break-even result.
• C. Bowman stated that she does not want to negatively impact any resident. There have been residents that have spoken for preserving Hole #15. She would also like to preserve Hole #15, and feels that the driving range would probably impact fewer people. The alternative to developing Hole #15 would be the driving range.
C. Bowman excused - 8:54 p.m.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To take a short recess. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright Motion passes.
Meeting reconvened - 9:02 p.m.
• C. Perry stated that he took the assignment to come up with a plan B, in the case that the HOA does not approve any additional density. Plan B includes enough development on the east side to generate $5 million and maintains an open space buffer around the town homes. There can be additional density on the east side because the golf course would not be preserved. He stated that the City collects impact fees for park land. The City is short on park land, and the land that can be developed into park land is expensive. If the City were to sell the golf course, the value of the land, as a golf course, is small. It doesn’t make sense to spend $8 million on development of the course, and then be content with break even. It makes even less sense to sell 100+ acres of land (golf course) for a few million, then turn around a buy park land for exorbitant prices. The City can use its parkland development funds to, in essence, buy land from itself. The golf course would be left as open space. The City can begin to develop many parks on the land. There has even been a proposal to buy the lower portion of the course. The City loses a golf course; maintains open space, beauty and views; and gains parkland that everyone can use.
• C. Bowman said she sees pros and cons to both scenarios. The City cannot afford to vote on rebonding if it cannot retire the debt.
• The Council agreed that an information sheet to be mailed to the entire City is important.
MOTION: C. Wright - That we ask The Cedars HOA to vote to approve on the grove reconfiguration no later than April 1, and that we mail out an information sheet in both the utility bill/March newsletter and separately, and if The HOA doesn’t approve reconfiguration by April 1, we will work very hard to make best use of the land, which appears to be a park. No second. Motion dies.
• C. Perry stated that he would like to make Option B option stronger and more concrete.
• C. Richardson does not want a division between the City and the HOA. He would like the City’s attorney to make the amendment to the CC&Rs for the HOA.
MOTION: C. Wright - That we contact The Cedars West HOA and ask them to approve reconfiguration to develop the cedar grove as Gary Maxwell indicated and specifically ask the City attorney to prepare the changes to the CC&Rs that is necessary that they will be voting on. Second, to create an information sheet about it and put it in the March newsletter and separate mailing to go to all City residents. Third, we declare our unanimous intent that if we don’t get the vote from The Cedars HOA by April 1, it is our intent to turn the golf course into wonderful open space that we see fit and have the budget for, which will probably be parks and open space. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
• C. Bowman stated that she does not like the term unanimous.
AMEND MOTION: C. Bowman - To remove the word unanimous. Approved by C. Wright. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
• C. Bowman stated that she feels that April 1 might be too soon.
• C. Richardson said that when the City attorney prepares the amendment, if he finds that it cannot be done by April 1, he will notify the City and it will come back to the Council.
C. Wright Motion passes.
10. Review/Action on Impact Fees Study (9:32 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that staff was instructed to look at the Capital Facilities plan for culinary water, sanitary sewer, and transportation impact fees. The last review for impact fees was in 2005 for the upper zone water storage. The proposal for the culinary water is $2,167 for the upper pressure zone; that includes the previous two revisions. The new impact fee for the lower zone is proposed at $1,662. Commercial impact fees are based on equivalent residential units. There were no significant upgrades to the sewer. Park land impact fees have not yet been evaluated and updated. Rodney Despain said that the impact fee studies should be conducted by a third party because of possible litigation. David Bunker will attempt to get the park land impact fee study as soon as possible. While it costs a lot for the impact fee study, by not updating the impact fees, the City loses more. The impact fee revision needs to be adopted by resolution at a later date. The Council would also like to include monthly escalation to keep up with the rise in land value and construction costs.
11. Review/Action on Resolution Adopting Fees (9:59 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that a few of the City’s fees need to be updated. There is a nuisance ordinance that has two fees that were not on the fee schedule. A business license inspection fee has been added at $25. The peddler/vendor license is a base plus a $10 annual fee. Solicitation (door-to-door) license is base plus a $20 annual fee. A new fee of $5 for business license replacement/duplicate certificates has been added. If an applicant applies for a business license and then does not complete all the requirements, the fees are forfeited with the forfeiture fee. The Council suggested a re-inspection fee if business license applicants fail the inspection twice. The last updated fee addresses GRAMA requests. The first 15 minutes of staff time filling GRAMA requests are free; $15 will be charged for every hour thereafter. State law says that you can only charge as much as the lowest paid person who can process the GRAMA request.
• C. Richardson stated that he would like to see a peddling/vending/soliciting without a license fee of $100/day. He also suggested a fee that would help the City recoup the cost of street cuts. David Bunker suggested the $75 fee per street cut plus $2/square foot within the cut that is made. He will bring a revision for the street cut fee to the next meeting.
• C. Richardson would like to look at the water fees and the differences between no PI available and PI available and a more progressive schedule for increased water usage. He feels there is no use for winter water usage for the sewer now that the City is on electronic meter reading. Business license fees for home occupations should say home and premise occupations. Every resident should get to see the annual City budget for free. A printed copy of the annual budget should cost the same as other copies.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 2-20-2007A, as amended, a resolution adding and/or amending certain fees to the official fee schedule of the City of Cedar Hills. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye - C. Wright Motion passes.
12. Review/Action on Water Conservation Plan (10:34 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that the Division of Water Resources requires that a water conservation plan be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources every five years. The State is actively trying to get cities to quantify the amount of water they are going to conserve. The last plan was written in 1999 and was one page. This report quantifies a few more things. It is the plan for the next five years.
• C. Perry said that the best of intentions doesn’t always translate to the best results. The City needs to find ways to fix the problems that will arise.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To retroactively and in perpetuity approve Resolution 2-20-2007B, a resolution adopting the Water Conservation Plan for the City of Cedar Hills, Utah. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye - C. Wright Motion passes.
13. City Manager Report and Discussion (10:42 p.m.)
• The Lone Peak recreational district survey should be out soon. Highland and Alpine consented to participate in the survey and the process of statistical analysis.
• The spring conference of the Utah League of Cities and Towns will be April 11-13. Council members that are planning on going to this conference need to notify Konrad Hildebrandt.
• C. Perry is now certified in Incident Command 100 and 200. C. Maxwell attended the session. Konrad Hildebrandt has extra books on Incident Command and tests are available online.
• The document imaging program has been ordered.
• The police/fire report was not received from the police department. They have been patrolling different areas of the City.
• C. Richardson requested that Brad Kearl review signs in the commercial zone for compliance with the sign ordinance.
• C. Wright would like the City staff to prepare a comprehensive report with options for preserving the land on the hills behind the City, particularly the Bonneville Shoreline Trail area.
• C. Wright would like to look at pricing for garbage cans and recycling bins in the next budget session. He would also like to increase the salary for the Mayor and Council and look at hiring a code enforcement officer. C. Perry would like to add a salary for the Planning Commission.
• C. Bowman would like to see a golf course report in the Monthly Management Report.
• C. Perry said that a resident complained about the retention basin at the bottom of Timpanogos Cove. He would like staff to ensure that it has been addressed.
• C. Richardson asked about the sewer swap with regards to the Pleasant Grove City boundary agreement. David Bunker clarified that the sewer swap was off the table.
MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL
14. Board and Committee Reports (11:01 p.m.)
• C. Wright: The Utah League of Cities and Towns has worked out a compromise on the sales tax issue. C. Wright has been sworn in on the state charter school board. If there are any conflicts of interest in the future, he will abstain from voting.
• C. Bowman: Suggestions for what the Council would like to ride in the Family Festival parade should be sent to C. Bowman.
• Mayor McGee: The Murdock Trail is moving forward.
• C. Richardson: The Planning Commission will look at the WalMart proposal again on Thursday.
15. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5
16. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting
No Executive Session.
17. This meeting was adjourned at 11:15 on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Maxwell and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
March 6, 2007