Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Public Safety Building

3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah

Present:           Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding

Council Members: Joel Wright, Gary Maxwell, Eric Richardson, Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman

Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager

Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

David Bunker, City Engineer

Rich Knapp, Finance Director

Rodney Despain, City Planner

Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager

Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

Eric Johnson, City Counsel

Others: Caleb Warnock-Daily Herald, Russ Fotheringham, Linda Fotheringham, Kent Seamons, Robert Ogden, Roxy Ogden, Brett Rushforh, Craig Robinson, Carolyn Wright, Elsie Creighton, Ray Hutchison, Lexiane Hutchison, Linda Seamons, Craig Clement, Cliff Chandler, Verl McQueen, Steve Gehrke-Salt Lake Tribune, Dave Lawrence, Brook Richardson, Todd K. Boley, Lisa Durtschi, Boy Scout Troop 1193, Darin Simons, Scott Baird, Boy Scout Troop 1190, Tamsen Boley, Japheth McGee, Rachelle Stubbs, Gary Hilton, Kengie Hilton, Mark Webb, Coleman Webb, Laura Kirsch, Mike Kirsch, Chandra Simmons, Dave Goeres, Rebecca Rushforth, Angie Poulsen, Shell MacPherson, Terry Boulter, Richard Spigogh, Scott Jackman, Brent Hirschi, Boy Scout Troop 839, Ryan Ostler, Gary Smith, Rolland Brown, Glen Dodge, Rollin Boe, Ruth Boe, Jeff Phillippi, Kelly Phillippi, Jerry Braiser, Jerry Lundgren, Michael Stuy, Elizabeth Follett, Cato Jones, Jackie Jones, Shirley Condie, Dolan Condie, Judi Robinson, Ren Woodall, Tayvin Woodall, Amy Choate-Nielsen, Colin Christensen, Glen Christensen, Garth Lovell, Kervin Carlisle, Kathy Allen, Lance Allen, Brent Uibel, Stephanie Richards, Roy Williams, ave Winnie, Courtney Rasband, Jennifer Franke, Aaron Franke, Marsha Gibbons, Elizabeth Nance, Lei Yan, Margaret Li, Becky Richards, Linda Fillmore, Chad Fillmore, Tanner Smith, Klint Armitstead, Jennifer Armitstead, Glazier Wood, Rob Fotheringham


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 7:01 p.m. by Mayor McGee.


Invocation given by C. Maxwell


Pledge of Allegiance

2.         Public Comment (7:04 p.m.)

            No comments.


3.         Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West (7:05 p.m.)


No comments.

4.         Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Wal-Mart (7:07 p.m.)


          Kent Seamons: Thank you, Mayor and City Council Members for your time. I have given each of you a copy of a report concerning quality of life in Cedar Hills. I would like to enter that into the record. It contains detailed information, specific recommendations and my own research and thought on the issues impacting the nearby residents, principally noise and safety. I have detailed a number of unresolved issues and made recommendations that justify all of them according to the diagrams. My report demonstrates conclusively that the current site plan is broken in one significant way. It fails to protect the nearby residents from noise. This isn’t just my opinion, I have demonstrated it as scientific fact. For the record, I wrote, “Wal-Mart was required to explain the noise problem in laymen’s terms. But, the site plan violates the very vision of our guidelines, because it says land development shall be sensitive to adjacent housing.” This is important. From the first moment I saw the plan I was worried about the noise sources so close to the homes, especially the delivery truck route. It is right next to the homes. That land was designated medium density use and is not appropriate for a delivery truck route. I started asking questions—when do the trucks operate, how much sound do they make. I wasn’t really satisfied with the answers. I didn’t get any answers. So the search for answers took me to the Wal-Mart down in Lindon. I listened to a trash compactor and what the trucks sounded like. I learned things that even the store manager didn’t know. When I saw the sound report—the noise study—I reviewed it and wasn’t satisfied and so I contacted a noise control expert who confirmed the study was weak. My experience demonstrates the need for careful due diligence on our part and independent validation. Flaws in the noise study naturally raised concerns about the traffic study. We need to put people first in our decisions. So before you approve any plan, be sure to take time to walk to homes on Carriage Lane and see how far away those trucks are. Visit Lindon and see what is going on there. I did that and then thought long and hard about the need for a correct design and conditional use restrictions that I think might preserve my quality of life if I lived in the homes behind Wal-Mart. So I recommend you do the same. I also recommend tonight that you politely reject the proposal and return Wal-Mart to the drawing board to bring us back a new proposal that is sensitive to nearby homes. Their response should include a much more professional analysis on noise control that their current proposal lacks. Wal-Mart should do this because it is the burden of the applicant; it is not on me or on you. Don’t apply a quick fix tonight or assume we will deal with noise problems later, especially after the store is built. I have outlined for you, for the record, a proven design method to solve this problem. Follow my recommendation. The important thing is that you will send a clear, strong signal to me and to many nearby residents who are really concerned and want to know that preserving the quality of our life is a top priority for you.” Thank you.


          Bob Ogden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. In my mind’s eye I am sitting on our rear deck and contemplating the northeast corner monolith about 60 feet away in the view above the wall. From where I am I can’t tell whether it’s 50,000 square feet or 180,000 square feet. It is just big, and it is there. I ponder these mornings to come when we decide to sleep in until 5:30 only to have our repose interrupted by the persistent beep of a backup warning device. Our vibrant commercial district will become our vibrating commercial district. This impact has been dismissed because, in so many words, “they knew it was zoned commercial when they bought their homes.” This is disingenuous and patently unfair. Yes, in August 2000 we knew and inquired. We were given, in these materials, nine pages from a draft of the design guidelines—then a work in progress—describing with a map showing the subdistricts of a neighborhood retail and so forth. I respectfully request that these be included in the hearing record. We were pleased with what we saw, and we trusted in the integrity of the vision, so we bought the home and became a part of the community. Who would have guessed that the world’s largest retailer would be coming to town and the enforcement of the guidelines would be reduced to little more than discussions on the color of brick, the shape of dormers, and the stucco to brick area ratios on building facades. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we should not have trusted the City to maintain the integrity of the development guidelines then, why should we now trust Wal-Mart to hold to their representations on noise and light abatement. Ronald Reagan said, “Trust and verify.” Can we trust you to verify that the safeguards required to keep our homes pleasant and livable will be and remain in place so that on some future summer evening my wife and I can sit on our deck and enjoy the climbing roses on our side of the wall and still be reasonably oblivious to the activity taking place on the other side? Thank you.


          Rob Fotheringham: In 2001, I was elected to the City Council. Shortly thereafter, I inquired as to some of the thoughts and actions that would take place regarding the commercial district. It was anticipated that we would have a grocery store that would be in the 35,000–40,000 square foot range that would likely expand to the 60,000–65,000 square foot range at some point, not unlike what happened with Kohlers. The main theme of the expectation at that point was a neighborhood grocery store. That was an expectation that was communicated to me and I believe to a lot of people. As a member of the Council, I would communicate that same thing to people who would ask. That expectation I think was confirmed for people when the City Council voted unanimously last time this issue came up—5 to 0—that the previous proposal was inappropriate. They cited two things: size of store and the hours of operation. A significant portion of residents of Cedar Hills moved in during that time frame. You guys can do whatever you want. There is nothing immoral about that. But I think from the expectation standpoint it is fair to assess what kind of an expectation was there. I think it is pretty clear what was communicated to me and what was communicated to a lot of other people. In light of that—I like Wal-Mart; I think they are a good neighbor. If something were proposed that fit in with the feel of a neighborhood store, a smaller store, that would be great. I simply encourage you to consider that in your deliberations tonight. Thank you.


          Brett Rushforth: I have written way too much, which is generally my problem, so I ask that the longer version of my comments be entered in as well. I am here simply to urge the City Council members to adhere to the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects. These guidelines were neither undertaken lightly nor adopted hastily. Expert consultants hired for thousands of the City’s dollars evaluated the size of the lot, the size of the City, its projected growth, the relationship of Cedar Hills to its surrounding cities, and the experience of similar cities throughout Utah and beyond. But, the City also listened to Cedar Hills residents. There were at least six public meetings and hearings on this issue during which our neighbors shared their values and their long-term goals for the future of our town. The result after five years and countless hours of work was the creation of these guidelines. So serious was the City about these guidelines that in 2005 they added a requirement into City Code, Section 10-6A-6, mandating that the Planning Commission shall be guided by the provisions of this document. I understand that it is not binding, but it does suggest just how seriously and how carefully these issues were considered by the City. This document, designed to preserve the quality of life of Cedar Hills residents, contains a beautiful vision for our City that can only be realized through careful adherence to the development guidelines. The question you have to answer tonight is not do we need commercial development, not is commercial development good, but simply this, ‘Does the current site plan proposal meet these guidelines?’ The answer is as simple as the question. No, it does not. I don’t have time to lay out all of the violations of the current guideline as I’ve laid some of it out on the Public Forum. As I count them, there are 14. So, I still have about 30 seconds, so I’ll make a quick list. Section 3.1.1—it’s located too far east. Section 3.1.3—there is no buffer zone to create a transition from more intense use from the surrounding homes. Section 4.2.4—Smaller individual buildings that tend to break up parking areas and create visual interest are required. Note the language required. Section 4.4—buildings shall appear more residential than commercial. Section 2.2—particular emphasis on creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Section 2.3.2—conducive to public gatherings. This one is up for debate, clearly, but I am betting most of you don’t envision anyone gathering in a Wal-Mart parking lot.


          Dave Lawrence: I would like to thank the City Council for giving us this chance to speak about this. I just saw an opening on the sheet there and thought I’d get up and add my voice to those that are of the opinion that the commercial development is needed in this City, and it is a very urgent need. But, the City guidelines do not match the current proposal. Though Wal-Mart would be a great partner to have in our City, if we could enforce the guidelines the City has laid down and find a proposal that would match the size and location requirements that were in there. I just wanted to finish up this outline that Brent put down as far as the violations of the City guidelines: Section 4.1.1D—The store’s entrance does not meet the requirement that entrances to stores shall orient to park, plaza or pedestrian-friendly pathways. The area at the edge of the store does not qualify as a plaza or a pedestrian-friendly pathway. Section 4.1.2E—The current plan violates the mandate that 30% of the land be landscaped. Last I saw it was up to about 24%. Section 4.1.2F—Proposed landscape areas do not create a cohesive network. It is scattered throughout the parking lot and around the perimeter. Section 4.1.5J—There is no sidewalk separating the parking lot from the store. Currently it is a decorative driveway. Section 4.2.4—The walls and roof plans are long and monotonous. One section of the store has a virtually unbroken stretch half a football field in length. And finally, Section 4.4—The area behind Cedar Hills residencies is designed to provide an appropriate buffer between existing residential uses and commercial uses that will be developed. Thank you.


          Darren Simons: I am going to talk really fast because I have never said anything in three minutes. I am a finance guy. I’m a numbers guy. I understand that this boils down to about $625,000 in revenue versus the $390,000 we get from all of our property taxes. I also understand that we have about a $500,000 problem between ourselves and the golf course in the bond as well as upkeep. I look at it and I just told you I am a numbers guy. I look at the numbers from the sound study. It leaves me concerned if we have things like that that we don’t know, and that I’ve gone through and you guys have gone through. We need more numbers. If the sound study was wrong, what is wrong with the traffic study? With that, I would hope that tonight that you don’t make a decision on something that may not be the right decision based on information you have been provided. I think you guys have done a great job. One of my biggest concerns with Wal-Mart is that as an investor they are a great stock to buy. You know that if they have a problem with their building, they will realize that they need to cut their losses and run away. You guys have done a great job in saying, “Hey if you do that in the first ten years, we want a bond. We want you to demolition it. We want it back to the raw ground it was.” But, I also think we need to make sure there is more than that. I have told you I am a numbers guy, but there is no amount of money that can make up for a lost child. I think we have really close proximity to an elementary school and high school. That is not a problem you guys created. It is a problem that was created by the school district but we can’t knock those buildings down. Where are we going to have all those kids go? Right now Wal-Mart isn’t built, we can deal with that at the current moment and see where might be the best solution. I understand the 15th hole might solve our golf course problem. Well, if that is the case, that gives us a way to not have as big a concern at the current moment. Let’s find a good plan. Maybe Wal-Mart is the best partner, but is it the best partner the way we have the information? Also, I don’t care if we put Wal-Mart on the 15th hole. There are no schools there. I told you my concern is about where the kids are. I’ll tell you my brother was killed when he was a senior in high school. There is no amount of money that you can get back for that person’s life. At this point in time I would hope that you guys, unless you have more information than has been shared, I would hope that you make the decision—not against Wal-Mart, but against the information they have provided. They can come back with more information and more accurate studies because we know that there is at least enough hesitation on the sound study. What about the traffic study? What about other things that we haven’t looked into? Worse case scenario, let’s put it to a public vote and look at $400 a family per household. We would actually end up making our $500,000 in golf debt, give everyone a golf membership, whether you use it or not and you end up positive.


          Tamsen Boley: As I live in close proximity to the proposed development, I am obviously concerned with the potential adverse effects it may bring. I am concerned about noise problems, traffic issues, and the safety and peace of my family and my neighbors. However, I am equally concerned with how this development will affect my fellow citizens. Whether they live near or comparatively far away, they too will be living with any potential negative effects. I don’t believe the studies produced to date give us adequate assurances that the problems will be minimal. Like it or not, this development alone will be how others view the City of Cedar Hills. I urge you to make any and all demands necessary to meet the design guidelines criteria, which will help us maintain the beautiful, safe, and peaceful community we are all proud to be a part of. Thanks.


          Rachelle Stubbs: I wanted to voice my support of the City Council and the Planning Commission for all their hard work to get us a thriving commercial zone. I would like to voice my support of the Wal-Mart development for several reasons. I believe that we need a strong, thriving commercial district, and we need it now. We need the City revenue, especially when our City will soon no longer be growing and developing like it currently is. I personally and I bet if you take a poll you would find that most City residents are not interested in increasing their property taxes $100 a year just to preserve a field. I would like to see the City have some sales tax revenue that would help increase City services. I believe we need the tax base. I believe we need the jobs. I believe we need closer shopping to home. We need a strong anchor that can attract other businesses to our commercial zone. We need a store that offers an alternative in the Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills area to Kohlers. Many would like to shop where there is more convenience and more value, and that is what Wal-Mart offers. I don’t know if a smaller local market could compete head-to-head with Kohlers and be an instant success. Wal-Mart would not be in direct competition with Kohlers as they approach the shopping/business model differently and offer shoppers choices and different style of shopping. Very important, I believe Wal-Mart offers a proven business model that is exceptionally successful, more so than any other supermarket chain nationally. We know that they will come in and succeed. They will attract other successful businesses to make our commercial zone thrive. I hope the City and Wal-Mart can find an equitable solution to be able to work together.


          Russ Fotheringham: Mr. Mayor and City Council, as a result of questions arising out of the Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding the Wal-Mart anchor shopping center, an update to the original traffic study was requested. The update to the study that is posted on the City’s website raises more questions than it answers. Lacking expertise to analyze or judge the traffic impact study myself I contacted the Utah Department of Transportation—UDOT—to ask help from their traffic engineers to analyze the study. The UDOT engineer recommended Ron Mortimer, a traffic engineer with Horrocks Engineers in American Fork, who agreed to act as a consultant to review the study. Mr. Mortimer made several observations and some specific recommendations. He said, ‘The scope of the study used for the current traffic impact study is very narrow and does not meet scope recommended and employed by UDOT for this size and type of development. The study posted on the City website is far beneath the minimum standard established by UDOT for this size development.’ He also added, ‘The proposed shopping store will generate approximately 10,000 trips per day designating it as a high-end level three development. In addition, the magnitude of the impact of this development on surrounding neighborhoods has not been demonstrated and should and can be shown. Therefore, we submit the following four specific consultant study recommendations: (1) Traffic generated by this shopping center will have an impact on the amount of traffic and the quality of life in the neighborhoods to the north, south and east of the development. Following UDOT level three minimum traffic study standards, the scope of study for this project should be expanded to include six intersections not shown on the maps,’ that are shown on the maps in your packets that Kim is passing out now. ‘Expansion of the study to include these intersections will show how the 10,000 trips generated by this development will be distributed throughout the Cedar Hills neighborhoods and how they impact the quality of life in those neighborhoods. (2) The study scope needs to be expanded to include analysis of conditions created by weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, Saturday peak hours, special event peak hours at Lone Peak and Cedar Ridge Elementary. These times and conditions were not previously addressed. (3) After growing the traffic on 4800 West at 7% per year for eight years as projected by the Mountainland Association of Governments, reassess the level of service at all intersections and development accesses. (4) Apply and assess impact of all eight UDOT level three traffic study recommendations.’ And finally, ‘The current traffic study is wholly inadequate to inform public officials and residents of the facts upon which they can make or support a decision on the proposed development.’ Those proposing the project have the financial and disclosure responsibility to provide professionally accurate and complete impact studies. City officials should not accept less than this kind of traffic impact study and should not rush to approve a project until its full impact is known and made available to the residents of Cedar Hills for their consideration. To do less than this would not be either prudent or responsible.


          Mark Webb: I have been asked to make one clarification for Darren Simons. The $400 dollar tax number he mentioned is only a $150 increase over the current amount. I would like to thank the City Council Members and Mayor and City staff for all the work they put in. I know it takes a lot of time and I appreciate that. Since the last time a Wal-Mart store was proposed for the commercial development, I don’t see that a lot has changed. The store is, in square-foot-terms, a little smaller than it was before. Some of the appearance issues have been addressed. The one thing that may have changed is perhaps our desperation for revenue for the City. I’m not sure if that is a primary driver or consideration in this process or not. As has been mentioned before, last time the City Council voted on a Wal-Mart, it was turned down because it was not a great fit for the City. It was a poor fit then, and it is still a poor fit now, in my opinion. However, if money is the primary driver in getting a commercial development in sooner rather than later, let’s please address the important issues of noise, traffic, appearance, the hours of operation and the days of operation, I think are very important considerations. Many of those have been touched on already. Also, the studies have been addressed in conversations. I would just advise us as a City to be careful. We were fooled once with the golf course. Some of the studies done there did not turn out to be remotely right. Let’s not be fooled in this case. So let’s take precaution there. Finally, as has been addressed too, this is not the type of development that I had in mind or really was presented in the guidelines, as you are all aware. I don’t support it. I would be against it as stands. But, if my view doesn’t win the day, please take into consideration all the other issues.


          Terry Boulter: I would like to thank the City Council and the Planning Commission for what they have done. About 20 years ago the commercial property was set aside. And over the last 20 years there have been some efforts to develop the property. I don’t think we can wait another 20 years for us to develop the property. I appreciate the efforts of those who have tried to make this work. What I hear is a lot of negative thought about why the thing does not fit, but I have not heard any solutions as to what the alternative is. We have waited the last three years for alternatives to come. We ran off Smiths. I think we are fortunate Wal-Mart is back to talk to us again. What are the options and how long do we have to wait for another option to appear to fill the property that is there? It is obvious to me that there are not a lot of retailers who are interested in bringing a small store into that commercial property. So I think we ought to thank Wal-Mart for the efforts they have made, have confidence in our City Council and the Planning Commission and accept their decision.


          Ryan Bybee: I don’t have much more to add, so I will be really short. What I will say is that it sounded to me as we have been listening to neighbors and people that there were solutions that were offered in regards to the size and the design guidelines that could be looked at and maybe could be middle ground between what has been presented and what could be built. I will also say that as someone that lives in close proximity and the amount of traffic that comes down, the safety concern is huge. I just want that on the record for us. I agree with Darren that no amount of money or no amount of anything could compensate for any accident that could occur or happen there. I understand that things are changing, but I think that if we use common sense and we look at it, we really don’t need a 150,000 square foot Wal-Mart in our little neighborhood and our little town.


          Mike Stuy: First of all I would like to thank the City Council and the Planning Commission for the work they’ve done on the project. I would also like to apologize in advance for any comments that I might make tonight that may offend them. I have been to several meetings in regards to Wal-Mart. The thing that concerns me—and I do agree that we need a commercial zone for tax revenue purposes—the thing that concerns me the most–and I have been very vocal on this in the past—is the size of the store. My comments, which I hope do not offend—the Planning Commission and in part the City Council, in the meetings I have attended, have appeared to be somewhat reluctant to ask Wal-Mart specific demands as far as size and appearance of the store. What I can observe, Shell is a representative. He is not an employee of Wal-Mart. He is part of the team that is developing and coming up with the plans. What I have observed is that when the Planning Commission would even hint to asking Wal-Mart for a different size of store, the push back was that it could be a deal breaker. The Planning Commission and City Council would tend to fear away from that. So what I would propose and ask with all diligence is that the City Council and the Planning Commission do make the demand for a smaller store and do make the demand for 30% landscaping. If the representatives here tonight say that could be a deal breaker without even talking to Wal-Mart, they should be ashamed and they should respect the demands of the City considering that we are about to embark on what could be the third blunder of the City. I think we know what the first two would be.


          Elizabeth Nance: This is off the cuff but I was really compelled to call and come to the meeting. My name is Elizabeth Nance. I am a realtor with Prudential Utah Real Estate out of American Fork. I want to share with you a professional standpoint for real estate perspectives. I’m going to make this really short. I had some buyer clients that we found the perfect house for on Carriage Lane, which is located directly behind the proposed Wal-Mart marketplace. It was perfect for my family. We made an offer, got it under contract. They were thrilled about it, but we still wanted to do our due diligence. We knew it was a commercial area. I called City Hall and said, “Hey, what are you guys really planning on putting in there,” because my clients were opposed to any large commercial development, doctors’ offices they could live with. The small 8 to 5 businesses that weren’t huge traffic, they could live with. City Hall said, “You know what, there is really nothing solid on the books.” With good faith I told my clients, “You know what, I don’t think you have anything to worry about.” But I always have my clients do their due diligence. So she door knocked the neighborhood. She talked to some of the area residents and they said, “It is beautiful. We love it. It’s great here. It is a great place to raise a family. But, you know what, Wal-Mart is coming in.” So we cancelled the contract on this house. They have since made another offer on another property in an undisclosed area. But my whole point is, I think that the City Council really needs to realize the impact it will have on the residents that are in close proximity to this Wal-Mart. I don’t care what size it is because it will have a detrimental value for the real estate areas that are close to it. Then on top of that, appraisers take the appraised values of all the homes that are like yours within a six-block radius. So guess what, even if you are not right behind them, it will have an impact on your property value. I just urge City Council to, with due respect to you guys because I know you work really hard, but to listen to the residents that have hired you to protect their interests and to do what Cedar Hills residents really want you to do.


          Elsie Creighton: I will be brief. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have been very, very concerned about the traffic and noise. The traffic has already increased down Redwood Road when we had the road open up above to the extent that it is very noisy in the morning. I know exactly when the school bus goes by and I know exactly when motorcycles go by whether it’s late at night or early in the morning. It will be much more, multiples of that increased, if we have Wal-Mart go in that piece of property. Since I live kitty corner just across from the corner, I am most concerned about the safety for the children. I have grandchildren that go to Cedar Ridge Elementary and the high school. Some of them walk; some of them drive. They are young and their judgment isn’t as good as it will be later. That is a safety issue. I am also extremely concerned about property values because I know it will be hard to sell our homes. As people try to move away and try to sell, it will lower their prices. It will affect the property values all around just as the lady before me mentioned. I know that this is the last house probably I’m ever going to buy. The equity in my home is what I have as a future need. I do not wish to see the value of it go down. I think that it is not only my property value, but anywhere in that area. So I ask you to take that into consideration because as Mayor McGee mentioned earlier, he didn’t believe in subsidizing one group of people and taking money from others, and that’s exactly what will happen because my property values and those around me will go down, while those near the golf course will go up. I don’t think that is an equitable thing. Also, last time we were talking about Wal-Mart going into the site, I found an article in the Idaho Falls paper, and I brought it home with me. It was about the Wal-Mart that went out on one of the busiest streets in Idaho Falls. They moved to another site that was easier to get into for traffic, but they left the building vacant for several years. Everyone who considered it as a location for their business said, ‘We can’t go in there. If Wal-Mart can’t make it, nobody can.’ It eventually had to be raised and some other building was built there for business.


          Daniel Zappala: I had some time to read the City Code today. It was a slow day. In the City Code it states the intentions of the commercial zone. There is a phrase there that says that the zone should be made in such a way that in makes maximum accommodation for the residential area nearby. I just wanted to emphasize that phrase and ask the City Council to commit their maximum effort to make this development, if it is approved, compatible with the residential area. And that, for me, means taking care of any safety concerns and any noise concerns and traffic concerns. Those three are paramount, and I don’t consider those to be concessions that are negotiated with the developer. Those are requirements that must be met. I respectfully ask that you consider those as stringent requirements that must be met, and I don’t feel the current proposal has been adequate in that regard.


          Margaret Li: A few weeks ago I went on the Cedar Hills Forum and asked a question that was like, “Why do we need a Wal-Mart if it is not about the money?” The answer from Jim Perry, one of the City Councilmen, he said it is because the developer, for whatever reason, needs to make a store so they can make money. It is not about the City, and I quote, he said, “It is not about the City making money, it is about the developers.” I don’t know much. I’m a 9th grader at Mountain Ridge Junior High. I don’t really know much about the traffic studies and the noise experiments or whatever. But I do ride the school bus to school every day. My sister goes to Cedar Ridge Elementary. I know that little kids, they walk to school, and it is not going to be safe there once a Wal-Mart comes. Think about how much traffic is going to be there. If you look at the road—the Lone Peak Parkway—there are so many crashes there. If Wal-Mart comes, don’t you think that there will be more? Back to the money thing, it is not about the City getting money. The City Councilman said it is not about us getting money. So why are we so desperate, because we could be asking for something better, maybe a smaller store, maybe something that fits our City better.


          Brent Uibel: Appreciate being able to take the opportunity, thank you Mayor. I’ve sat here and listened to a lot of you bring up thoughts and ideas which are good. There’s no doubt. It bothers me a little bit that you only come to these meetings when there is something you want to complain about and bring up suggestions. It bothers me a little bit that you have only your own considerations in mind instead of those of the entire City. I live in an area where there are 3,000 cars a day that go past my home at 55–65 miles an hour, at times. The safety factor is such that the school people decided to move the bus stop from Canyon Road to another location because the danger is there. A car, just a little while ago, coming up the street, hit an icy spot, going too fast, crashed through a wall designed to withstand a wind barrier of 130 miles per hour, and yet none of you came by to see what was happening or were concerned about the people on 3,900 West, Ironwood Drive, or the people nearby. I am concerned about the noise as well as anybody else. We have a noise factor that reverberates off the mountainside. Did any of you come to my defense or those that live on my road? No, not a one of you concerned yourselves about it. We went to the extent ourselves of spending approximately $9,000 just to sound attenuate a room for in my house so my wife can have peace and quiet when she has her migraines. I’m not saying that to flatter myself or put a feather in my cap. I’m just telling you that there are things that can be done for you if you want to stand up and create a viable situation for your house and still have a marketable atmosphere. None of you like it. It is a complaint on most of your parts. I can see your heads shaking. But it is a viable situation. Maybe you don’t have to do it. Maybe you want to have something else that is for yourselves. But I am telling you, the biggest thing I would like to see you do is come to these meetings on a regular basis, participate. Find out what is going on in the whole town, not just your neck of the woods. Right now, I don’t care about you guys. I care about myself and those around us. I care about what is happening with the golf course. If Wal-Mart comes in, more power to them. They will do the best job they possibly can as merchants. I’m hoping we do our due diligence to make it favorable for everybody.


          Ann Roach: I don’t live in close proximity to the proposed Wal-Mart. However, prior to living in Cedar Hills, I lived in Holladay and lived very close to a grocery store. Sometimes I wonder if the true impact of what that means will resonate—the large trucks that will be coming in on a regular basis, the banging bread trays at night, noise of people gathering in the parking lot at night, I could go on and on but I won’t take the time. I come from a situation where I lived next to that. Although I don’t live in close proximity, I deeply sympathize with those that do and really want to see the best thing done for the entire City. I know that the traffic coming off of Canyon Road will increase greatly, and that the traffic, considering the children in area, is very important. It will impact them greatly. I would like to see the right decision made about the commercial area. I think we have a beautiful place here, and I would like to see it stay that way.


          Nancy Shwartzman: I moved here three and a half years ago from St. Louis, Missouri. I had always lived in a big city. There are areas in a large city that look like State Street—lots of them. There are also communities that don’t. There is an area in St. Louis called Webster Groves. Homes that are a hundred years old—in excess of a hundred years old—sidewalks, lots of shade trees, people out jogging, walking, people with strollers, which is exactly why we all moved to Cedar Hills. The community of which I am speaking had a battle with a McDonalds. They have prohibited that type of commercial development in order to keep the charm of that beautiful old city and what it stands for. I understand that Cedar Hills needs a viable district where we can have a tax base. Wal-Mart has put every other type of independent retailer out of business across our entire country. This is a small bedroom community. We see our neighbors out jogging, walking and visiting. We don’t want to keep the children from walking home from school. We don’t want to keep people from enjoying the neighborhood. We don’t want to have noise that prohibits us from enjoying our backyards—the whole reason why we bought our homes. Why can’t we put a retail development—my brother is in commercial real estate in St. Louis and has developed dozens and dozens and dozens of commercial retail strips that don’t have Wal-Marts? Why can’t we bring in a beauty salon, a little café, unique shops similar to Gardner Village? People from all over the valley drive to Gardner Village for those unique, little shops. Why can’t we create a unique, special area that people can come to that will not risk our peace and our safety. I haven’t been significantly involved in the studies. But, I do know that they don’t have enough information for us to invite Wal-Mart as it stands right now. I do respect all the work that the City Council has done and I would hope you will be willing to listen to what residents’ want and we can come to an agreement that pleases us all.

5.         Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Two Commercial Outlots (8:01 p.m.)

            No comments.



6.         Minutes from the February 27, 2007, Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting and the March 6, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (8:02 p.m.)

MOTION: C. Bowman - To approve the consent agenda. Seconded by C. Perry.


Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.



Mayor McGee introduced Greg Robinson as Assistant to the City Manager. Greg received a degree from the University of Utah in Planning and is working on an MPA from BYU.


7.         Review/Action on Annexation Petition for Property at 3048 West Canyon Road, Pleasant Grove (8:04 p.m.)

Staff Report:

See handouts. Kim Holindake stated that this annexation is similar to two previous petitions. The petitioner is interested in being included with the Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills boundary adjustment agreement if it works out. If not, he would like to annex into Cedar Hills.

Council Discussion:

          Mayor McGee said that a preliminary agreement was made with Pleasant Grove City that properties would not move in or out without the other city’s approval. The City can get both sewer and water to the property.

MOTION: C. Perry - To accept the Annexation Petition for further consideration noting that we are in ongoing discussion with Pleasant Grove that will decide the fate of this case as well as many others. Seconded by C. Richardson


Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

MOTION: C. Perry - To move Item #8 until after the discussion on “Review/Action on Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development-Wal-Mart and Review/Action on Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development-Two Commercial Outlots.” I see no reason to discuss the subdivision if we don’t have site plans necessitating a subdivision. Seconded by C. Richardson.


Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

9.         Review/Action on the Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Wal-Mart (8:08 p.m.)

Developer Presentation:

          See handouts. Shell MacPherson, David Goeres (traffic engineer), Mary Kell (architect) and Rolland Boe (acoustical engineer) were present to give a presentation on the Wal-Mart development. Shell MacPherson said that Wal-Mart has listened to the community and City Council comments from 2003 and has responded with a smaller community store that will serve the needs of the local population. The store will feature a grocery, general merchandise section and a seasonal garden center; it will not include a tire/lube express.

Site features include adequate parking (591 stalls), a 1-acre landscaped storm detention area that Wal-Mart will design and deed to the City, decorative pedestrian walkways from 4800 West and along Cedar Hills Drive, a pedestrian plaza with ornate landscaping, and bermed landscaping along the property line. The landscaping will be dense with a mix of deciduous and evergreen 3-inch caliber trees. There will be three outlots that will be developed by Philips Edison. The site will feature a “Welcome to Cedar Hills” sign at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. The architecture is unique to the community and follows the early American colonial design as specified in the Design Guidelines with varied roof lines, cupolas and faux second-story windows. The Lindon store is 220,000+ square feet. By comparison, the Cedar Hills proposal has a much smaller garden center and general merchandise section. The groceries are of similar size.

In 2003, Wal-Mart was unwilling to go down in size and did not leave space for additional outlots on the 18-acre site. This store will feature a couple of tenant spaces. The garden center will not be built of semi-transparent fiberglass. It has walls that match the rest of the building with large roll up doors. The building employs energy-efficient features, including day lighting, night dimming, energy efficient HVAC units, white roofs, LED lighting and ozone friendly refrigerants. Additionally, trucks do not idle for more than three minutes, reducing pollutants and noise. Wal-Mart has also committed to preserve one acre of wildlife for every acre of footprint development. The dock for refrigerated trucks is recessed and walled to reduce noise. There has been discussion of whether Wal-Mart would vacate a store. In the past, Wal-Mart has vacated because the store is too small. This store has been designed for a longer duration (20 years). Wal-Mart is committed to the site.


          Dave Goeres, traffic engineer, gave a presentation on the traffic study. A typical traffic impact study identifies the traffic in the area at the time; counts are taken during peak hours. The level of service is determined by the amount of delay at a signalized or unsignaled intersection. An acceptable level of service is D; Cedar Hills requires level C. A standardized trip generation rate is used from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. It is based on trip generation for an average supercenter. The degree of variability is +/- one standard deviation. The number used for the proposed Cedar Hills Wal-Mart is 6,000 trips generated. Of those 6,000, 15% are pass-by trips—people who are on the roads already. 4800 West carries about 6,000 trips/day. For evaluation purposes, peak hours were used. In this case, p.m. hours were the peak hours.

4800 West is scheduled to become a 5-lane road. This study grew traffic 3% for 23 years. Currently, many areas of Cedar Hills have an “A” level of service. Dropping to a level of service C will be a decline, but it will be within the City guidelines and will not get to gridlock. The radius of the study is within ½ mile of the site. C. Richardson expressed concern that the model doesn’t take into account any commercial development on the south side of Cedar Hills Drive. Dave Goeres explained that the traffic growth of 3% per year takes into account some ambient traffic from future commercial development. C. Perry would like to see the accident count on 4800 West. Dave Goeres said that of the studies that he has gone back and monitored, the worst variance he has seen was about 20% in traffic. C. Perry asked how the traffic scenario would change if Wal-Mart was half as big and there were more outlots. Dave Goeres said that traffic scenarios depend on many variables. It would depend what type of stores were in the outlots. This study estimates 49 trips per 1,000 square feet. By comparison, a McDonalds generates 97 trips per 1,000 square feet; other types of businesses generate much less.

Recess taken - 9:44 p.m.

Meeting reconvened - 9:54 p.m.


          Rolland Boe, acoustical engineer, gave a presentation on the noise study. He went to a larger Wal-Mart in Harrisville, where there were not many sound mitigating measures and took a sound measurement 60 feet away–the distances from the compressors to the north property line at the proposed Cedar Hills Wal-Mart. Typical ambient background noise is 50 dba, and Mr.Boe made recommendations based on the sound generated and the 50 dba goal. On the north side, the truck route is below grade with a berm and a sound wall. The maximum amount of noise reduction is needed at the closest locations. The ambient dba of the open field changes when there are buildings. Some is reflected, diffused or otherwise blocked. The safety factor added into the study is typically 5 db. The compressors will be behind a full masonry wall with sound blocks, and will be located 60 feet from the property line with an 8-foot wall at the property line with landscaping and a berm. Trees and foliage can mitigate any echo effect. The sound blocks drop 80% of the sound that first hits them, what goes through the wall is about 15 db. Roland Boe said that he would expect the dba to be around 45 dba on the other side of the wall at the property line. Mayor McGee said that he is interested in mitigating the sound of the backer beep. Mr. Boe stated that currently there is no sound-attenuating block in the loading bays. The higher frequency sounds of the beeping are easier to mitigate than lower frequency sounds. The higher frequency directional sound of the backing beeps are mitigated by the wall. The wall on the east side by the retention pond drops several feet. The berm is no longer necessary from an acoustical standpoint. There are trees planned for both sides of the wall. Rolland Boe said that equivalent compressors behind an enclosure 60 feet away was measured at 62 dba. Adding the sound blocks would decrease it by 8 db, the 14-foot wall (with berm) would drop it an additional 15 db. Mayor McGee, C. Perry, and C. Richardson said that they were disappointed the noise study was not more thorough with exact numbers and scenarios. They would like to see a more thorough study. Mayor McGee said that the Council can give approval dependent on reaching 50 dba at the property line; the condition must be met before a certificate of occupancy. The Council feels the best approach to noise is to set limits for Wal-Mart to meet. Wal-Mart would pay for a study at completion to prove compliance.

Staff Presentation:

David Bunker stated that the drainage analysis has changed. He needs a final updated drainage study showing those changes. Pre and post construction runoff plans with BMPs for taking care of runoff also need to be submitted. Currently, the landscape plan is at 25% versus 30% in design guidelines. Wal-Mart proposes to plant more mature landscaping in lieu of the extra 5%. The retention basin is designed at a 3:1 slope, making it mowable.

Council Discussion:

          The Council would like the retention basin designed and positioned to maximize the flat area. The Council would like trees along the interior walls of the retention basin and no trees on the street side. The Council does not like the idea of the outdoor seasonal sales area in the parking lot.

          Shell MacPherson stated that the security design is not finalized. There will be security cameras mounted on some lamp posts. There will also be video surveillance on all four sides of the building. The fixtures on the lights are flat, not convex.

          C. Richardson would like some deterrent so trucks don’t continue out to Cedar Hills Drive. David Bunker suggested an aggressive speed bump with signage painted on the road “Not a Truck Exit.”

          C. Maxwell estimated building size to acreage of several developments. Kohlers and Maceys have 10,000+ square feet per acre; Wal-Mart has 9,030 square feet per acre. There is little difference between Maceys, Kohlers and Wal-Mart. Traffic generated will be similar if it were Maceys or Kohlers with their accompanying outparcels. He feels the Council should prohibit overnight vehicles. He stated that it is important to clarify that the commercial development and the golf course are separate issues.

          C. Perry stated that the decision for the commercial zone was made 20 years ago. The owner has development rights on that property.

          C. Bowman stated that there is no other area for commercial development. The way the City is laid out, everything is in somebody’s back yard. She feels that the revised elevation is much better. She feels that the main roof line of the building is too long and continuous. She would like to see the lower roof line raised to block the upper flat roof line. Mary Kell said that colonial architecture has a parapet that the lower roof line ties into.

          C. Wright said that he feels a substantial portion of the negative impact of the development is pushed off on the City’s neighbors. As a representative of Cedar Hills, he is okay with that.

MOTION: C. Richardson - To continue this item until a future meeting. Seconded by C. Perry.

Additional Council Discussion:

          C. Wright stated that he is opposed to continuing the item. C. Richardson said that he feels this meeting is a violation and it is too late in the evening to make a decision.

AMEND MOTION: C. Wright - That Jim Perry and Eric Richardson, who probably spoke at least 80% of the time tonight, meet with the Wal-Mart representatives and work out every single thing they want to, and then bring it back to the Council. It would be a better use of time. No second. Motion amendment dies.

Additional Council Discussion:

          C. Richardson stated that he felt that the meeting should have been scheduled in a larger room so people could participate, and past midnight is too late for people to attend.

          Mayor McGee said the Public Hearing has ended and this portion of the meeting is not the Public Hearing.

          C. Perry said that the public needs the chance to attend and rebut.

          C. Bowman asked that any additional information that is needed be communicated to the developers.

          C. Richardson refused to pass any information along to the developers outside a public meeting.

          C. Wright felt that tabling the item is a waste of time.

          Mayor McGee said it is reprehensible to not let developers know what items need to be addressed in the future. There were several issues mentioned tonight that need to be addressed: storm water plan, accident history on 4800 West, and a drainage analysis.


Shell MacPherson stated that he feels that they have met all the requirements for preliminary approval. The noise study addressed the request to get to 50 dba at the property line; additional analysis can be provided at a later date.

Rodney Despain said the action to approve a preliminary plan establishes vesting. Some of the problems are management items. For instance, decibel levels can change based on store management. Some things can only be solved with a management agreement. That can be done at final plat.

C. Bowman and C. Maxwell said that they want to be sure that they have all the issues addressed before voting.

City Staff will review what has been discussed tonight and pass it along to the developer. The next discussion will be at the next Council meeting. The next meeting will be scheduled at the elementary school. C. Richardson would like to reopen the Public Hearing for the next meeting.

Roy Williams of Phillips Edison asked for clarification that this is being continued because the Council is scared they might miss something. Also, that the public was not allowed to participate fully. He asked the Council to clarify that the City decided to hold the meeting in this location and six hours later decided that the meeting was invalid because of the location. Eric Johnson, City Counsel, said that the meeting is an open, valid public meeting. If a member of the City Council feels that he would like greater public participation than he saw, he can ask for it.

Konrad Hildebrandt asked the Council if there are any comments from the community that the Council feels it did not hear making it necessary to reopen a Public Hearing. Mayor McGee emphasized that everyone that signed up was able to speak and even a few that did not sign up were allowed to speak. C. Perry agreed that everyone had the chance to speak. He is tired and wants to continue. C. Richardson said that he does not think there is anyone that spent more time trying to craft the Design Guidelines, he is not willing to make a decision this late.


Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                            Nay     -          C. Wright                                Motion passes

MOTION: C. Perry - To table Items #8, #10, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16 and #17. Seconded by C. Bowman.


Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                            Nay     -          C. Wright                                Motion passes


10.       Review/Action on the Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Two Commercial Outlots



8.         Review/Action on Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West



11.       Review/Action on Resolution Authorizing the Lease of Golf Carts (12:41 a.m.)

Staff Presentation:

See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that there were some questions regarding the golf cart warranties in the last meeting where the lease was discussed. The lease is from CitiCapital Commercial. The warranties were not in the lease because the warranties on the used windshields and used tires are under Intermountain Golf. The warranties for onboard computers and controllers, frame, various components, battery chargers and batteries are supplied by Club Car.

Council Discussion:

          C. Wright stated that he feels that there is a risk in making a five-year commitment. He would prefer to pay more and have it be season to season.

          Mayor McGee said that the risk is minimal. If the City doesn’t keep the golf course, there is still value in the carts and they can be sold.

          C. Wright would like something formally added to the lease to allow the City to cancel the lease.

          Mayor McGee said that the contract could not be approved tonight if the contract is reworked.

          C. Maxwell feels the risk is appropriate.

MOTION: C. Wright - To table this item until we have a clear ability to exit this contract for a clear dollar amount at any time. No second. Motion dies.

Additional Council Discussion:

          C. Maxwell stated that he feels the commitment has already been made.

          C. Perry said that he appreciates C. Wrights’s efforts, but given the current Homeowners Association situation and current commitment level to the course, he feels it is an acceptable risk.

MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 3-21-2007A, A resolution approving the form of the lease/purchase agreement with CitiCapital Commercial Corporation, Irving, Texas and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof. Seconded by C. Bowman. Vote taken by roll call.


Aye-C. Bowman

                                                            Aye     -          C. Maxwell

                                                            Aye     -          C. Perry

                                                            Aye     -          C. Richardson

                                                            Nay     -          C. Wright                                Motion passes.


12.       Review/Action on Resolution to Execute an Agreement to Extend the Sewer Treatment Service Contract with Timpanogos Special Service District


13.       Report on Fiscal Year 2008 Budget (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008)


14.       City Manager Report and Discussion



15.       Board and Committee Reports



16.       Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 

            No Executive Session held.

17.       Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting



18.       This meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Bowman, approved by C. Bowman, C. Maxwell, C. Perry and C. Richardson and opposed by C. Wright.


/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

Approved by Council:

    April 3, 2007