PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Cedar Ridge Elementary

4501 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah

Present:           Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding

Council Members: Gary Maxwell, Charelle Bowman, Jim Perry, Eric Richardson, Joel Wright (8:19 p.m.)

                        Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager

                        Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

                        David Bunker, City Engineer

                        Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

Others (public comment): Jena Hancock, Joyce Chandler, Wayne Crab, Terry Boulter, Elaine Boulter, Harvey Crandall, Thayne Rodebaugh, Shirley Condie, Larry Wood, Robert Ogden, Sharlee Rands, Brett Rushforth, Jeff Phillippi, Lowell Hank, Gary Hilton, Kent Seamons, Cato Jones, Nelly Moll, Russ Fotheringham, Darren Simons, Annalee Dimond, Shern Varney, Nick Hudson, Melinda Wallis, David Kirkpatrick, Rebecca Gardner, Marcus Memmott, Stephanie Halliday, Gretchen Huey, Shell MacPherson, Mary Kell, Preston Stinger, Greg Schlenker, Roy Williams

COUNCIL MEETING

1.         This Public Hearing and City Council Meeting of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:19 p.m.

            Invocation given by C. Bowman

            Pledge of Allegiance

2.         Public Comment (7:19 p.m.)

•          Jena Hancock: First, I want to thank the City Council for all the time and effort that they put into going and looking at this and their desire to proceed cautiously. My intent tonight is not to stir more controversy, but to explain my feelings because I’ve been negligent in coming to City Council meetings and explaining how I feel about this. I’m sure that most of the people that are fighting this—that I have seen—are those living directly around the Wal-Mart property to be built. I myself, when I first moved to Utah, I moved to Spanish Fork. I was thinking about buying a house that bordered a commercial property. I did my homework; I went to the City and found out what could be built on that commercial property. I wanted to know what hours it could be open. I did all of my homework, and I chose to buy the house. Then when they went to develop it, I was the only one in my neighborhood that went and fought for it because I had done my homework and I knew this was the house I wanted to live in. That area has been zoned commercial for at least 23 years that I have been told. Therefore people around the area should have known that one day there would be some kind of development there. I looked at homes there before I decided to buy in Cedar Hills, and I chose not to buy in that area for that very reason. Lone Peak High School and Cedar Ridge chose to build in that area knowing that it was commercial property. I can’t understand why the City can’t make decisions in a timely manner. I have lived here for five years, and this has been going on for five years, arguing about what could be built here. A few other points I want to make: Wal-Mart will bring in $600,000 a year in additional sales tax revenue. Cedar Hills only collects $400,000 a year in property tax revenue. Furthermore, once Wal-Mart is built, others stores will be interested in our area, increasing our tax base even more. There is no such thing as a smaller store in Utah these days. The only stores I have seen open in the last few years are Costco, Smiths, and Wal-Mart. Smaller stores like Wild Oats or Harvest Fresh could conceivably come and locate if Wal-Mart was here as a base. They would never come here and locate without something else bigger bringing them in, I don’t believe. From what I understand the proposed Wal-Mart plan goes above and beyond the requirements. Based on Wal-Mart’s response to those requirements, I really want them to build in our community. We should do our best to be good neighbors. It is my hope that approval can be given for Wal-Mart so we can finally have a close and convenient place to shop. Please make it a reality tonight.

•          Joyce Chandler: I just want to thank the Council for all the research and hard work, and thank Wal-Mart for all the effort. I think that they have actually bent over backwards to accommodate us, and I appreciate it a lot. I am in favor of it, and I hope the Council decides that way too.

•          Wayne Crab: I have lived here for three years, and I just want the Council to know that I am very supportive of having Wal-Mart come into our community.

•          Terry Boulter: I would like to speak in behalf of some of my neighbors who were unable to be here tonight. It’s interesting as this controversy has gone on, the people who I have talked with—everyone who I have talked with, including people who do not live in my neighborhood—without exception welcome the Wal-Mart. Maybe that is just because I look like a Wal-Mart guy. I am impressed with the change that Wal-Mart has had and their expressed willingness to listen to the concerns of the Planning Commission, the City Council and our community. They have made changes to their initial plan in order to give the majority of our citizens what they want. It is very common to have a vocal minority try to have a huge influence regarding community issues. That is especially true in our town. It is time for the City Council to listen to the majority of Cedar Hills’ residents and vote for approval of the project. I have confidence in the Planning Commission, in what the Planning Commission has done in evaluating the project and passing that approval on to the City Council. It is time to vote and give at least a preliminary approval as a show of good faith and move ahead.

•          Elaine Boulter: I was for Wal-Mart when it was denied last time. I do hope this time we don’t drag it out so long that they decide to take their store somewhere else. I feel like from the pictures, you can see it is going to be quite a beautiful asset to our community. Today I went to Wal-Mart and I forgot something, and I thought, “Oh, if that Wal-Mart were just in Cedar Hills I would have about two minutes to run over there and get what I need.” So I hope that we can go ahead and make the decision and let them start building.

•          Harvey Crandall: I have lived in the City for about a year. Prior to that I served on a City Council and Planning and Zoning for about twenty years. It is interesting to me the amount of time it has taken to work this through the process. The long-range planning allows for it; the zone allows for it; and I encourage the City Council and Honorable Mayor to take action, move forward and get the project going. I have written comments. I won’t go into those. I’ll leave that with you.

•          Thayne Rodebaugh: I was on the Planning Commission in Provo about forty years ago when a consortium of businessmen went to Provo for a mall. They eventually said no. Two weeks after that they went to Orem. Provo still hasn’t recovered from that mistake that they made forty years ago. We aren’t as big a town as Provo is and cannot stretch. When we have an opportunity to get a tax base here, I feel we need to take it. I do not want to go to Lehi and American Fork and Pleasant Grove and spend my money over there so I can pay their taxes. I would like to spend my money here.

•          Shirley Condie: We have lived in Cedar Hills for two years and all that time we have had to drive to other towns to shop for everything we need. When we moved here we thought surely—as the sign says, “Shopping Center Coming Soon”—it is just a matter of time before we get a grocery store in our city. Now finally we have the opportunity to have a business that not only provides groceries, a pharmacy, a deli, a bakery, and many other kinds of things. We know many other people who feel as we do, and I hope the media will print some positive things about this Cedar Hills Wal-Mart. At one time we lived in an area that had an Albertson’s grocery store close to our property line. There was a junior high school close by. It did not bother any of the families around us. We enjoyed the convenience. You will never be able to satisfy everybody. I hope that you will move forward and do what the majority of the voters wanted in November 2005. I hope that very soon we will not have to go to other towns to do our shopping. We need this store; we need the tax base. Let’s not lose this by driving Wal-Mart away.

•          Larry Wood: I have lived here for five years. I have very much enjoyed it. I want to express my appreciation for all the energy and effort that has gone into the plan, and I recommend that we adopt.

•          Robert Ogden: As the March 20 meeting wound down, it occurred to me that two of my neighbors have two-story homes. Their upstairs bedrooms will be in direct eyesight to Wal-Mart and significant noise sources—the compressors in the case of one family, and trash compactor and delivery truck activity in the case of the other. The sound walls will not be high enough to provide protection. I pointed out these facts to Mr. MacPherson following the meeting. He acknowledged them but said that there is simply nothing that he or Wal-Mart could do. They couldn’t, in his words, build a twenty-foot wall. This has come about because of a direct violation to the Design Guidelines, “land development,” note the imperative mood, “shall be sensitive to adjacent single family housing,” in that, (a) the building is too big, in any case, to be properly accommodated on the site without giving up something, and (b) building placement absolutely ignores the impact on adjacent single-family housing and the stipulated buffering subdistricts in favor of the wishes of the developers, unless, of course, being sensitive only means saying, “Gee, we’re sorry.” While our own home has a low enough profile, we suppose, to hunker down and escape the virtual machine gun fire of these sources, only time will tell. I am disappointed that my neighbors, who I do know and I do care about, will likely find themselves in the thick of it. I am realistic enough to not bother suggesting what I consider to be the best remedy, so I will go on to two that I believe are reasonable and I hope will be enforced and which you have heard before. First, ensure the sound barrier around the compressors is adequately engineered to meet the developer’s guidelines at the property line without the sound wall. And two, impose fair and reasonable restrictions. I don’t consider five a.m. to be fair and reasonable on deliveries and operation of trash compactors. Of course, when the store is in and operating it will be a thousand-pound gorilla and enforcement will be problematic. I hope and pray that future managers will be men and women with good will, because at that time we will all certainly be at their mercy. Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts and for your service to our community.

•          Sharlee Rands: At present we donate our sales tax dollars to Alpine, Highland, American Fork, Lindon, to Pleasant Grove, to Orem, to Draper, and to Provo and many other towns that are further away. With those tax dollars, they are able to provide services to their residents that Cedar Hills is not able to provide for those of us who live here. All of these cities are presently, or have been in the recent past, developed and are continuing to develop commercial districts. Why do they do this? They do it to meet the needs of their residents. Now we can continue to pay for their commercial development, or we can begin commercial development here. The surveys that have been taken show the majority of the people want that commercial development. We can continue to pay for American Fork’s library, or Highland’s cemetery or Alpine’s pothole repair, or Lindon’s sidewalks, or Orem’s recycling projects, or Pleasant Grove’s parks, or Lehi’s police, or we can strengthen the tax base for Cedar Hills by allowing commercial development that is controlled, that is planned, and that is approved by the majority of the people. The land has been zoned for many years; let’s move on it.

•          Brett Rushforth: I just want to say a little word about property rights. I believe in property rights, strongly. I believe in the property rights of Phillips Edison. I really strongly know that each of you has taken those rights very seriously. I am a professor of early American history at BYU. One of the basic ideas I try to teach to my students is that property rights are the foundation of our freedom, in some sense. But, along with rights, as we all know, come responsibilities. We have a responsibility, as property owners, to meet the guidelines and restrictions of the municipalities, states and countries to which our property belongs. A year ago in March 2006, Phillips Edison bought this parcel for $5.8 million. At the time they knew precisely what the developer guidelines were. They knew precisely a larger Wal-Mart had failed before. And they obviously made a calculation that even within these guidelines they could make a fair profit. I don’t advocate denying Phillips Edison a fair profit. I do advocate requiring that they meet these guidelines that have been well thought out, carefully evaluated by the City and by experts, and will protect both the property rights of Phillips Edison and the property rights of surrounding homes, and the responsibilities that we all have. Just like I can’t build a swimming pool on my front porch or on my front lawn without the right kind of mitigation, the City has every right, and indeed, I think, the responsibility, to ensure that all property rights are balanced with the required responsibilities.

•          Jeff Phillippi: I have been here for seven years. Love the area. I think it’s an awesome place to live. The only thing is, I’m worried that if we put in a Wal-Mart, we may lose that small town feel that I think we have right now. I’m worried that the streets are going to have way more traffic than we expect. It is going to seem like Cedar Hills Drive is a little more like State Street in Orem if we put in a Wal-Mart. Because Wal-Marts are so awesome, I shop at Wal-Mart. My wife shops there way too much. I love Wal-Mart. There is a Wal-Mart 10 minutes that way. There is a Wal-Mart 10 minutes that way. Every direction it seems like there is a Wal-Mart. I just don’t think it is the best fit for here in Cedar Hills. Every other city has them. I think that this is such a cool place, let’s try to make it a unique town and make it a place where people really want to be. I’m willing to drive 10 minutes to do that.

•          Lowell Hank: I don’t want to take a lot of your time. I just want to add my voice to those who are in favor of a Wal-Mart. I think that if you would have had a Wal-Mart here you probably could have started this meeting at 7:00 because we could have gotten a couple more microphones.

•          Gary Hilton: The compressors will be shooting right into my windows. I’m down from those. I am one of the many of my neighbors who oppose the Wal-Mart who could not be here. I just have a question for the City Council and the Planning Commission. I don’t know if we have ever been given a fair answer as to why the Design Guidelines were set aside or deviated from. I’ve never heard an answer. Maybe they can answer that for us later. I think the guidelines show that this building should be on the west end of lot. That’s how it was originally proposed. I think that Wal-Mart, they are lucky to be here, obviously, but I think you should be held accountable to be in the west end of the lot. The proximity right now is very close to the schools. We are concerned about the peril it will bring to our children as they walk to school. The increased traffic is a great concern. It seemed like the traffic study from the last meeting had—that entity was very much partial to Wal-Mart, as the gentleman seemed to indicate. I would just request that you get a traffic study from a truly impartial entity and one that takes a greater scope than just within a half mile of this Wal-Mart. I don’t think that road infrastructure is adequate to handle the traffic that will be coming our way in this area.

•          Kent Seamons: Thank you City Council for your service to our city. There have been several significant issues that I think are going to impact our residents. That is what I have been concerned about. It is traffic, safety and noise. I will make a few more comments about the noise issue tonight. We got the original noise study about a month ago, and it had a number of problems with it. The experts I talked to have a very simple process for doing noise studies that I recommended to you. They measure the ambient levels. They actively identify every potential noise source coming in. They define a strict standard, and they design barriers to reach that standard. That really is, I think, the approach that we should take. The experts I talked to—there are two types of approach. If we would have the data from Wal-Mart that we could give to an external expert who could verify what Wal-Mart is proposing to us. But neither of the two noise studies we have give us that. Robert Anders could do that for $500 if we have the data. If we have the data, I might even pay for it myself. If I am not going to do that, then my next recommendation to you, which follows, based on my own research what experts have told me, I think we ought to raise the east wall so that it blocks the noise sources from nearby homes, because that is the best thing that we can provide. We should use absorptive material to reduce noise as much as possible. We should set a clear standard and enforce it. We should limit the truck delivery times to eight a.m. or later. That is what I have recommended primarily based on the fact that there is alarming noise. We got a new noise study today. I have looked at it just once. I have seven issues with it, seven areas where questions weren’t answered. So I have detailed the questions. I am going to give you a copy of it, and I hope you will ask those questions tonight. Here are the things I see missing in the current study: page 2 says that direct measurements were made in the field in Cedar Hills. But I didn’t find them anywhere in this study. The compactor doesn’t seem to be under load, just like in the last study. The last study said the compactor was 70 dBA at 90 feet. This study says it is 63 right at the compactor. Why the big difference? Just as Robert Anders told us, he estimates that both of those are too low. Number three, it doesn’t say anything about sound combining. Number four, backing alarms again seem to be missing from this study. I gave you an article last week where you can estimate the levels in the parking lot. I would like you to ask about that tonight. In this current report, there were two things they did. The truck levels are, they said, 68 dBA, you probably noticed that. Then later in the study they did a little simulation to model the trucks turning the corner, right there by the homes. They didn’t measure anything; they just simulated it. In the model, if you look at the numbers in figure 11 of this new study, the numbers are from 60 to 63. Why are the model numbers less than what they actually measured from the truck? I think there is an inconsistency that I would like you to explore. I think the truck noise levels are too low. You saw the numbers I showed you this week. You need to find out why the discrepancy. And finally the noise level criteria is unclear. Number seven in the report they say 50 dBA noise level criteria on page 1, and they reference that several times in the study. They don’t really clearly define what that is. So is that L10 dBA that you talked about last time? The study makes it sound like it is an exact upper limit. So, I would like you to explore that. So, I want you to ask Wal-Mart these tough questions. I think we can resolve these noise issues before we give preliminary approval.

•          Cato Jones: Let me preface my remarks with, I like Wal-Mart. I shop there. Good prices, good selection. I think they are a great store. Second remark: I live near the commercial property, city-controlled property to the south of Wal-Mart. I understand the comment that was made earlier that when you buy property next to commercially zoned property, you are going to have some inconveniences. You are going to have some carryover from the commercial property. On the other hand the City has ordinances to minimize the negatives in that particular carryover. A third item, and a most important item: It seems that in our eagerness to have revenue dollars in the City, we are, to me, kind of like a Jacob and Esau as far as birthright. I like Wal-Mart supercenters. I think they have a place. But over the years, they have come under increasing criticism because sometimes those places are put in the wrong place. In recent years, Wal-Mart has developed neighborhood markets, which are grocery stores that are much smaller than supercenters. For example the supercenter proposal in this community is 124,000 square feet, give or take. Neighborhood markets, such as the one in Mesa, Arizona, where I am from, there are several in the Mesa/Phoenix area—I understand there is one in Draper—run about 40,000 square feet. They are a third as large, less than a third as large, as what is proposed here. I want a Wal-Mart here, or some type of grocery store. I would like the convenience to shop. But I don’t think the fit between Cedar Hills matches with what’s being asked for here of a 124,000-square-foot supercenter. I think a Wal-Mart neighborhood market would be great. Wal-Mart would have the opportunity to be the only game in town. They would have a tremendous amount of business there. They may have told us that they won’t do that—that they won’t build a smaller store. But I think they are working on a weak bargaining position on the City’s part. An unwillingness to say no, move on, and they won’t take that opportunity. Wal-Mart has designed these stores—the one I am talking about is in Mesa, Arizona and is on 5.86 acres of land. That would work, and it would be good for the City. I do not believe a supercenter is. Thank you for your time.

•          Nelly Moll: I have never spoken before a City Council before. So, I am scared to death. But, I feel strongly about this. As a resident of Cedar Hills for seven years now, my husband and I chose this community because it was a small town, farming type area, and we loved that atmosphere. But we also quickly realized that it also lacked a lot of the basic necessities that every community wants: a public library, sports, plans for children, etc. It would be wonderful if it remains that way, and I think everyone in the City thinks that we should be the last one that gets to move here so that it stays a small town and it doesn’t keep growing. And that just isn’t going to happen. Our city needs a tax base very badly. We need to have it for a strong community. Personally, Wal-Mart would not be my first choice for this community. I would rather it be Roberts or Michaels or Deseret Book or a Smiths or a Kohlers. But I don’t see any of them knocking down our door to join our community. Therefore I think we need to take what we are able to get. I think they have worked very hard to make a nice looking storefront for our community. I am a grandmother. I love my grandchildren. I would much rather be talking to them than to you. But my grandchildren have also taught me you take what you get, and you don’t throw a fit.

•          Russ Fotheringham: I have some recommendations from—I think some of the members of the Council have these recommendations from Horrocks Engineers already for what kind of scope that should be included in a traffic study, because the scope of the traffic study done by Wal-Mart, or those they commissioned to do it, was inadequate, it was incomplete and it was inaccurate in important ways. I would like to add that the people who are against what is proposed are not against commercial development, they are against the scope of what is being produced, of what is being proposed because it does not fit. The one way that it doesn’t fit, more than any other, in my opinion, is the amount of traffic that it is going to generate, that it will generate along with the stores that are in the center with it and the stores that are on the other side of the street that have not been taken into consideration, that need to be taken into consideration when you look at the overall impact that commercial development is going to have in the neighborhoods to the east, to the north and to the south. And that has not been looked at at all in the traffic study that has been presented to you. This recommendation from Horrocks Engineers, it quotes the standard that is established by UDOT for traffic studies for this size of a commercial area, this size of a commercial development. The study that has been done doesn’t come close to what they recommend. Some of the members of the Council have said, “Well, if we go ahead and approve this, then we will work out some mitigation for the traffic problems.” How can you work on the mitigation when you don’t even know yet what the impact is going to be? Recently, in the city of Draper, when IKEA made application, they provided a traffic study to the city of Draper also. When members of the City Council realized that traffic study was inadequate and incomplete—just like the one here is—they required that another study be done. That is what needs to be done here, not to oppose any commercial development, but to have the right kind and the right size of commercial development here. I believe that the Council needs to have an independent traffic study that is proper in scope that takes into consideration the neighborhoods associated with the development and not just the intersections out on 4800 West. Thank you.

•          Darren Simons: Thanks everyone for your time and the time you have given us in the past. I also want to say it is probably weird for me to be on the opposite side of the fence as some of you. In the past I was there helping and supporting to make Sunday available, making alcohol be available, making you get elected, helping your wives support what they wanted to do. And if I was doing what was my own best interest, I would have gone against those things because it would have affected where we are today. But I have tried to look at everything from a logical perspective and really look at what I think is best for the community we have. The community we have is a great community. We enjoy living here. We all moved here for a reason. We have two schools. They are there. I agree that the district made a very poor decision. But the district is, unfortunately, in this world number one. We are number two, and there are days when we are probably number three on the totem pole. But the school district is number one. One thing I want to say on the traffic study, I think you should vote no. Not against Wal-Mart. Not against anything. It is that we do not have enough information to truly know that we are going to be able to protect our children. I do not like driving 10 minutes, but if it means I drive 10 minutes and it makes it safer for 1,000 kids who walk across the street, I’m willing to give them 10 minutes of driving time. I only go to Wal-Mart once a week versus them twice a day. The other thing I would like to point out, and as much as this may be bad in this community, we are in a poker game with Wal-Mart. We have cards; they have cards. They are asking us to give them an exception to something that they know is not what we are asking for. They are going to give us things back for that. But we don’t know what we are going to get. They say that if they move it further west, which I would say would help us with the safety issues, it would move the kids further from the traffic. That’s a deal breaker for them. Well, we don’t know if that’s a deal breaker because we haven’t really tried. We have tried, and they told us it is, but just like a poker game, we are not raising our arms and swearing, “we are going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” They are here to represent business; we are here to represent the City. The City is the one that has the rules. They are the ones asking to be an exception to those rules. I appreciate commercial development. I want commercial development. I think the point that everyone is talking about and forgetting is that commercial development is not the issue, it’s the scope of the commercial development. The other thing I would like to mention is the mistake that was made with the golf course was we put in a golf course and took the studies and recommendation from the people that wanted to have a golf course. We took it, we said, “okay, great,” and we went with it. If we take Wal-Mart’s traffic study, if we take Wal-Mart’s sound study, we are doing the same thing we did before, which is accepting what they said and going with that information. I’m saying, based on the information you have tonight, I want you to vote no. Not no to Wal-Mart, but no to hearing what we can do.

•          Annalee Dimond: I wrote a letter to the City Council after I found out that this was not approved. It was my understanding that this was already approved. Dear City Council, I appreciate all the planning and research that has been done by everyone involved in this decision, and I understand the desire to proceed cautiously. My intent is not to stir up controversy, but to say, enough already, just do it. I am not sure of the reasoning to postpone the decision for preliminary approval, but I am guessing that residents directly surrounding the site are fighting it. While I sincerely empathize with them, we all make choices about where we live and we need to live with those choices. One of the first things you do when buying a home is look at the surroundings, the empty spaces and decide if you can live with those future plans. The same thing happened to us and our would-be beautiful view of the temple. There is a house built across from us. It is not like we can oppose that. The same goes for the Wal-Mart site. That area has always been zoned commercial, and people know that one day there are going to be stores there. I think residents who may be fighting the proposed Wal-Mart are forgetting the benefits of having a store so close. They can send their kids with a wagon for a gallon of milk or run across the street when their child forgot to tell them about a poster that was due. It’s all a matter of perspective and attitude. From what I understand the plan goes above and beyond the requirements. We do love being in Cedar Hills, so please feel free to add any more upgrades you want. It is my hope that the approval can be given for Wal-Mart, and we can finally have a tax base and a beautiful, close, and convenient place to shop. Thank you.

•          Burke Diamond: Let me get right to the point. My family definitely wants to see this retail store come into the City of Cedar Hills. We need a tax base. I don’t see any other major development wanting to come in here because of all the requirements we require. I think Wal-Mart has bent over backwards to try to make this a pleasing store to everyone. If we turn it down, we will never get another shot at a major store. We lived in California in a bedroom community for 40 years. Our town had the opportunity to have a major shopping center. They turned it down; the city council did. It took 25 years to recover for another major store to come in to get some tax base. Don’t let that happen to Cedar Hills. The sooner the better, the happier we will be.

•          Shern Varney: I’ve just been here about three years, and I am in favor of the Wal-Mart. We need the business in Cedar Hills. We are a bedroom town. We need to wake up and get some revenue in, rather than travel to American Fork and Lehi. We don’t get a dime back for it. Let’s get this city on the way so that you volunteers can have a budget to work on, so that Cedar Hills can be on the map and be a beautiful city. I’m in favor of it because of the growth. I don’t want to go to American Fork. My wife says, “Go get a bottle of milk.” I have to go to American Fork or Pleasant Grove to get a bottle of milk. That shouldn’t be. Not many towns are isolated like we are. Thank you.

•          Nick Hudson: My concerns revolve around Redwood Drive. I am concerned. I’ve looked at the traffic studies. I haven’t seen any treatment as far as Redwood Drive goes for the traffic studies. I’ve got a little girl; she is about two. She likes to run around the backyard. She likes to run around the front yard. I can’t always get her in the back like I’d like to. I’m really concerned about that. I know a lot of my neighbors are concerned about that as well. It is a big road; it is a wide road. I love my community. I love my neighborhood. People speed on my road. If more people are driving by, traffic will be faster. I would love to see some sort of traffic, some sort of speed control on Redwood Drive associated with this. Anyone who comes in brings something with them. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to address that. Thanks.

•          Melinda Wallis: We are on the corner of Downing and Carriage Lane. My husband and I are in support of development. With Eric, we helped put up signs that say “Help bring in commercial development.” Rah-rah. We also want it to be kind of a win-win situation. For the past 14 years, along with living in Cedar Hills, we have also lived in south Ogden and Las Vegas. We have witnessed firsthand how commercial development of an area affects everyone. Thankfully in both of the two cities prior we have lived in, the city council has made great decisions in creating a good environment for our family and neighbors. This past summer, my family and I, we were victims of theft as someone came up and stole a lawnmower off of our lawn right in front of our kid. There were six other kids standing right there on our driveway, and someone came, threw our lawnmower in a truck and drove off. It is very scary. We have three little kids. I realize that with big development, there is also going to come more crime. When we lived in Las Vegas, we lived within a literal—Lowes was in our backyard and Sears Grand was kitty corner. We did not feel any effects of this because of the great plans of the city. They put in a gated community for us. They put in high walls that were soundproof with a lot of landscaping. It was beautiful. We really felt no bad effects because of the gates that were put up to block our neighborhoods from the traffic coming in and out. It just made us feel safe. Lastly, my husband and I would like to see more effort placed in providing greater separation on the east side of the Wal-Mart. We feel that there are enough unanswered questions concerning noise. We don’t want the loud beeping noises of trucks or air rushing from brake systems to be our bedtime reminder or our alarm clock in the morning. These noises will certainly be heard from our bedroom window, as you know where I live. In Las Vegas, again, we were provided with sound walls and landscaping that was immaculately kept, again, in that gated community. They really took care of us, and that is really all that we are asking you to do. So I hope that we will be able to kind of postpone this and find out more before we accept.

•          David Kirkpatrick: I think I know that the City Council is aware how vital this commercial area is to our city. I also know that you have heard everything under the sun. You have had studies thrown at you. You’ve done extensive work working with the representatives from Wal-Mart. As one concerned about the future of our city as far as property tax—I’m looking at retirement in the future and I don’t want to bear the burden of property taxes—I want to say that I am in favor of this development. And I just want to say to the City, let’s make a decision tonight. Just a reminder that Smith’s Marketplace already has their sign up in Highland.

•          Rebecca Gardner: Obviously this is a very complex issue. It’s apparent that we need a tax revenue here in Cedar Hills to benefit everyone. There is a big concern about the traffic. I teach at Lone Peak High School. I’m concerned about the traffic for the students. I have kids at the school. I’m concerned about their safety and the safety of all children. That issue has been brought up. I actually want to bring up another concern that no one has brought up. I don’t think there is anything that I say that will make any change, but I do want to bring something up and know that I said it. Several years ago when I found out there was going to be a Wal-Mart, I did go up to the City and asked “Why Wal-Mart?” The need for a commercial entity seems obvious. Even for high school students, they would love to have somewhere else to eat, where they can’t be late coming back to school. But, why a Wal-Mart? And they said they are the only ones that have come to us. We can’t really go out and solicit. That is kind of complex. They showed me the plan, and I am actually very impressed with the aesthetics of it. It definitely is very different from any other Wal-Mart I’ve seen. My problem is something else. That has to do with the ethics of Wal-Mart and their business practices. To not say anything about that would be against my own integrity. Several years ago I realized I need to be a principled consumer. I have principles about where I shop. I researched Wal-Mart because of some things I heard. I found hundreds of documented cases that brought me great concern. I do not shop at Wal-Mart as a result. I often want to. It’s cheaper; it’s more convenient. It is going to be here. It is really going to be hard for me to hold on to that principle. I have a document here, every single one of them documented, different credible sources, 14 pages of information that Wal-Mart does in the way it treats its employees. In 2006, 57 lawsuits against them for failure to provide meal breaks, 216,000 hourly workers, class action suit for 150,000 workers where they were required to work off the clock, they have labor standard violations, they provide health care to only 43% of their workers where the average is 66%. Target is 68%; K-Mart is 66%. There have also been a lot of studies of the cost to taxpayers–$2.5 billion in federal assistance in 2004, which was done by a study on the committee on education and workforce.

•          Marcus Memmott: I have sat on both sides of this table and so I think I have a little bit of background and I have certainly formed an opinion of our area and our community. I would like to be able to speak, if I can in two parts. One is as a resident and a citizen of Cedar Hills. I would like to go on the record as being vehemently opposed to Wal-Mart coming to town for the same reasons that the lady before me had. I have some serious issues with Wal-Mart’s policies. The second perspective I wish to speak from that being having served on the City Council and as the Mayor. I would like to encourage you as a Council to continue to heavily weigh the issues that are before you. The reason Cedar Hills is such a nice place and continues to be so is because the City Council was willing to stay at its post until midnight. I can remember city meetings when this area ended right here. The dirt road ended right where this facility is now. That was the end of Cedar Hills. From that time forward, we have seen the same pressures on the City Council and on our elected representatives as we see here tonight. I would encourage you to continue to research and to have the courage to delay, if you need to, to feel comfortable with the decisions you made, and to make those decisions with the concern of those of us who live here—those of us who want to build here, or make money here, or have other interests—the interest of those of us who live here should be of your primary concern. I would encourage you to make your decision from that perspective.

•          Stephanie Halliday: I just wanted, actually, to read a little bit from the Guidelines for the Design and Review for Planned Commercial Developments that I got from the City website. One of the visions that it has is that “The City of Cedar Hills values the tranquil environment and friendliness of the community and would like to preserve the small town atmosphere and feel. The design and planning of and operation within the commercial district shall be primarily for the benefit of the residents of Cedar Hills.” I thought that was a neat little thing. That is why we moved to Cedar Hills. If I wanted to move next to a Super Wal-Mart, I would have stayed in Orem. I just want to say those of us who live near this development are not opposed to commercial development, just the size of it after finding out that the Wal-Mart is supposed to be 132,000 square feet. It is actually bigger than the PG Maceys, which is actually 98,000 square feet. And we’re talking Maceys and all its surroundings. And I thought, “Oh my gosh, that’s huge.”And I just thought, “Okay, whatever happened to the neighborhood.” I’m finding that those that really want the Wal-Mart don’t happen to live right around it. They actually live up on the hill. I find that rather interesting that those... Yeah our property values go down; yours go up, how great is that for you. Anyhow, nothing against anybody, I’m just concerned because I think it really does affect us. There are so many different things. Those are my feelings. I’m mostly just concerned about the size of it. We would like to have some store come in, and I don’t care if it is Wal-Mart right now. I just want to have it be smaller than it is. Because it’s really huge and I’m looking for a small town feel that we have.

•          Gretchen Huey: We call ourselves the forgotten part of Cedar Hills because we are surrounded pretty much on all sides by Pleasant Grove. I remember when we had the substation put in our backyard that was supposed to be in Cedar Hills. It got put in Pleasant Grove; it got put in our backyard. Our property values probably went down too. We are definitely in favor of having Wal-Mart come to Cedar Hills. Yes, we do not live in Wal-Mart’s backyard. We will not have to deal with the noise. You guys don’t have to live with the buzzing and the lights that the substation put into our backyards, in our bedroom windows. But you still get power. So, we want a store, and I think most of my neighbors want a store too, or most of the neighbors I have talked to. You know, any big company, if you look at it, is going to have been sued by a lot of people because they are huge companies. I think the design that Wal-Mart has set up is more than adequate. They have really, really tried to do what our city wants and to do and have it look the way we want it to look. I just want them to know that some of us really do appreciate that.

MOTION: C. Perry - I move that the comments made tonight be entered verbatim into the minutes. Seconded by C. Richardson.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Richardson                                     Motion passes.

PUBLIC HEARING

3.         Capital Facilities Plan for Culinary Water, Sanitary Sewer and Transportation Facilities (8:19 p.m.)

            No comments.

CONSENT AGENDA

4.         Minutes from the March 20, 2007, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting (8:19 p.m.)

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

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                Abstain-          C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

MOTION: C. Bowman - To move item 7 before item 5. Seconded by C. Richardson.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

7.         Review/Action on Landscaping Plan for Bridgestone, Plat D, Detention Pond (8:20 p.m.)

See handouts. David Bunker stated that the Bridgestone HOA has approved the revised landscape plan from McMullin Homes. The plan calls for a variety of low growing plants on the slopes that are steeper than 3:1. Any slope of 3:1 or less will be planted in sod and maintained by the HOA-appointed maintenance group. Staff recommended approval.

C. Perry stated that he is pleased that the HOA and developer worked together on this plan.

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve the landscape plan, as amended. Seconded by C. Bowman.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

MOTION: C. Bowman - To move items 10, 11, and 12 to the next scheduled items. Seconded by C. Richardson.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

10.       Review/Action on Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West (8:24 p.m.)

See handouts. David Bunker stated that the subdivision plat includes three outlots as shown. Lot 1 is the main lot for PacLand. It is proposed that a retention basin be placed in the northeast corner. Staff recommends it be an actual lot on the plat. Full right-of-way for 4800 West would be dedicated at this time. Right now it is six feet short of full right-of-way width.

C. Richardson said that he feels that there should be no subdivision approval without a site plan approval.

Kim Holindrake stated that you should have the boundaries of the subdivision along with a site plan.

MOTION: C. Bowman - To move items 11 and 12 as next scheduled items, and then item 10 following those. Seconded by C. Richardson.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

(11:34 p.m.)

MOTION: C. Richardson - To table this item. Seconded by C. Perry.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

11.       Review/Action on the Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Wal-Mart (8:28 p.m.)

See handouts. Shell MacPherson stated that PacLand, developer for Wal-Mart, is proposing a community center, which will include a full grocery, general merchandise, and a garden center. The site features include a one-acre storm detention basin area, decorative pedestrian walkways, a pedestrian plaza, and heavy landscaping. A screen wall will run along the north property line to the detention area and along the east side to the ingress/egress. The parking lot has 590 parking stalls. The light fixtures are fully shielded. There will be three outlots for office buildings and retail. A “Welcome to Cedar Hills” sign will be built on the corner of 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. There is no traffic ingress or egress proposed from Redwood Drive. Signage will prohibit trucks from using Cedar Hills Drive. The security plan includes cameras on the building and on light posts, 24-hour surveillance, and unidentified associates that monitor the site. The community store is designed in the Early American Colonial Design with cornices, slate roofs, dormer, faux second story windows, and decorative columns. The 18-acre site, less 1 acre for the storm facility, would support 185,000 square feet of developable land. That ratio can come in one building or multiple buildings. Wal-Mart is proposing a smaller store than was proposed in 2003. Further size reductions will create other developable areas on the site. The store is designed with state-of-the art sustainable features, including day lighting, high efficiency HVAC systems, white roofs and ozone friendly refrigerants. Wal-Mart has a three-minute, truck-idle rule. Once a truck sets its parking break, it will automatically be shut down after three minutes, eliminating excessive use of fuel and idling noise. Wal-Mart has instituted the Acres for America program, preserving one acre of priority habitat for every acre of building footprint.

Preston Stinger, traffic consultant with Fehr & Peers, gave a presentation on the traffic study. A Horrocks Engineering review that was cited in the public comments stated that the traffic study was inadequate. The UDOT standards are for a development on a state route. The commercial development is not on a state road. The traffic study meets UDOT standards nonetheless. The scope of the study was passed through the City Engineer, David Bunker. The study looked at projected traffic from the opening day of the project through twenty years after opening. The analysis was performed at p.m. peak hours because it was determined through traffic counts that p.m. traffic was the daylong peak. The accident report shows that there is an average of 29 accidents per year in the area based on a four-year average with zero fatalities. The four-year average severity is 1.52. The actual values are lower than what is expected. Of total accidents in four years, 29% (34 of 116) were from the intersection at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. Trips generated per day from Wal-Mart were estimated at 6,000. The trips generated from a mix of smaller stores that make up same square footage would be approximately 10,000. Raising traffic projections by 50% at 20 years brings the level of service D, within UDOT’s standards but beneath Cedar Hills minimum standard of C. Raising the projections by 30% brings it to a level of service C. The traffic study cannot project traffic studies for the commercial zone south of the Wal-Mart development because it is not known what type of commercial development will go in. The MAG traffic projections include growth analysis and full buildout of the commercial development in that area. This traffic analysis added Wal-Mart on top of the MAG projections to be conservative and then added another 30% (level of service C) and 50% (level of service D). Traffic growth in the last four years has been zero.

Greg Schlenker, noise consultant with Kleinfelder, Inc., gave a presentation on the noise study. For comparison sake, noises range in decibel levels from rustling leaves (20 dBA) to a jet plane engine (130 dBA). A quiet street has ambient noise of 50 dBA. Cedar Hills has no noise ordinance. Cedar Hills has asked Wal-Mart to reduce noises to a level of 50 dBA at the property line. The biggest noise generators at Wal-Mart are the compressors on the north side, the compactors on the east side, the truck wells, and the parking lot. This noise study got decibel readings from the Lindon Wal-Mart SuperCenter. It is a larger store with two truck wells. The measurements were taken at or near the equipment at the Lindon store. Measurements were also taken inside the perimeter noise wall and outside the perimeter noise wall. Measurements were taken for the duration of five minutes, except where there was a short duration such as a truck passing by. The compressor (approximately 12 feet x 12 feet) was behind a 12-foot high perforated wall and a 6-8 foot noise wall, 50-feet away. The noise measurements from the compressor were: at the compressor, 63 dBA; at the perimeter wall, 60 dBA; outside the perimeter wall, 46 dBA. The noise measurements from the compactor, which was open at the front and top were: In front of the compactor: 63 dBA; at the perimeter wall: 56 dBA; outside the perimeter wall: 45 dBA. Noise measurements from the truck bays (below grade) were: Truck backing next to noise monitor, 68 dBA; outside the perimeter wall while backing, 54 dBA; outside the perimeter wall without backing beep, 48 dBA. Parking lot noise measurements were: inside perimeter wall, 52 dBA; outside perimeter wall, 48 dBA. Based on the Lindon numbers, the study projected noise measurements for the Cedar Hills store. The compressor at Cedar Hills would be less than 63 dBA because it would be behind a solid enclosure with sound blocks and a 16-foot high wall. Sound blocks would roughly drop the sound 20%. At the wall the compressor noise would be less than 60 dBA because of the solid 8-foot wall on top of a four-foot berm. Because of the improved noise reduction, the measurements outside the wall would be less than 46 dBA. The estimates for the compactor at the Cedar Hills store were less than 63 at the compactor less than 63 dBA because the compactor enclosure does not open toward the residential properties, less than 56 at the perimeter wall, and less than 45 outside the perimeter wall. The estimates for the truck wells are the same as at the Lindon store, 48 dBA ambient, 54 dBA with a large truck backing and 48 dBA at the wall, though there is a greater distance between the residential properties and the truck well in Cedar Hills. Higher walls do a better job of absorbing truck noise. The noise projections in the Cedar Hills parking lot were 54 dBA, at the perimeter wall it is projected that decibel levels will be higher than 52 dBA because there is a shorter distance between the lot and the fence. It should be less than 50 dBA outside the wall. The noise study did a truck traffic noise estimate using a model with 20 trucks per hour at 15 mph (higher than expected). Outside the wall, levels ranged from 46.5 to 50.3. Inside the wall noises ranged from 60.6 to 63.9 on an hourly rate. Conclusions: noise mitigating structures should adequately mitigate noises to lower than 50 dBA. Lindon’s perimeter wall is cinder block; Cedar Hills has a concrete perimeter wall. The noise industry standard mitigates for the average person standing on the ground; not for two-story structures.

C. Richardson said the line of sight over the 15-foot wall would be 55 feet.

David Bunker stated that staff recommends establishing sound limits at the property lines as part of approval. There are times that trucks will exceed the 50 dBA. Those times can be limited to daytime hours. Staff recommends maximum permissible noise levels for daytime and nighttime. At nighttime, at no time would the maximum noise exceed 50 dBA. During the day, L90 would be less than 55 dBA, L10 less than 65 dBA and L1 less than 75 dBA.

C. Maxwell stated that he bought a sound meter and spent time measuring noise levels. He measured a refrigerator trailer in Macey’s bay at 79 dBA; outside their wall it was 62 dBA. Lindon Wal-Mart measurements were 62 dBA at the compressor and 52 dBA outside their wall. Parking lot readings were 54 dBA to above 60 dBA with larger cars. Redwood Drive measured 61 dBA with cars going by. Readings at 4800 West were 65-77 dBA. Ambient noise of conversation inside was 61 dBA. He stated that he feels that Wal-Mart can get to 50 dBA.

C. Richardson stated that he would like to see the trees moved from off the street on Redwood Drive and a double layer of trees created against the wall. He would like to see the wall along the east higher, at 12-feet tall. Shell MacPherson said they would do what they can to maintain the 12-foot wall on the east side to the southwest portion of the retention basin. C. Richardson would like to see more on safety standards on traffic studies. He would like to see an agreement that includes cost sharing on speed bumps and/or speed tables on Redwood Drive, Cedar Hills Drive and Forest Creek Drive. Shell MacPherson agreed to participate. C. Richardson also asked that Wal-Mart participate if post development traffic requires more mitigation than predicted in the study. Shell MacPherson said that would not be a problem. C. Richardson suggested blocking the access to the parking lot at the inlet from 4800 West forcing traffic right or left. David Bunker opposed any impediment to traffic off 4800 West. He would like the compressors further enclosed. Mary Kell proposed moving the doors to the compressors to the side.

C. Perry would like to see the seasonal outdoor sales area removed. It was agreed to be removed at the last meeting. Shell MacPherson said the site plan shows that area is marked as CUP (conditional use permit) required.

C. Bowman would like to see the outside seasonal sales area moved to another part of the parking lot. She would also like to see all outdoor sales areas removed. She does not want the storefront covered with play sets and salt bags. Shell MacPherson said that the garden center should remove the need for the outdoor sales area purposes. Those areas need to be close to the garden center. Other outdoor sales limitations can be addressed through the conditional use process.

MOTION: C. Richardson - In regards to the preliminary site approval for Wal-Mart, I move that:

1.         Architecture - elevation plans be accepted and to make a finding that the proposed architectural plans comply with the intent of the design guidelines, specifically, that the motif is an expression of the approved American Colonial style, and that the proposed building is harmonious and cohesive with the existing building in the SC-1 zone, subject to:

            •          An approved mortar/grouting plan.

            •          All utility and access doors colored such as to blend with the exterior brick walls.

2.         Landscaping - A landscaping plan be accepted and make a finding that the combined landscaping quantity of 25% and quality level (3” caliper trees, inclusion of increased bushes and trees) meets the intent of the Design Guidelines, and successfully mitigates the hard surface and visual impact of the development, subject to:

            •          Modification of the tree placement in the retention basin to include two rows of evergreen trees, spaced as to allow for a solid barrier. Cost of tree placement in the retention basin to be paid for by the City of Cedar Hills if the retention basin is dedicated to the City at the time of plat recording, otherwise full cost to be incurred by the applicant.

            •          Tree placement along the northern and eastern stamped cement walls shall be verified to be primarily evergreen in nature.

            •          Placement of the easternmost stamped cement wall at a similar elevation to the northernmost wall, top of the wall approximately 12 feet above the finished grade through the edge of the retention area. A detailed plan shall be submitted for final approval.

            •          Retention basin slope area to be modified to allow for maximum flat “playground” area and eliminate standing water. Kentucky bluegrass sod or a substantial equivalent is to be installed by the developer in tandem with an automated irrigation system (including permanent power).

            •          Verification and acceptance that proposed plants and trees comply with the approved species list. Evergreen trees shall be Scottish Pine.

3.         Traffic - A traffic study to be accepted and make a finding that the traffic capacity appears to be appropriate for the proposed project and the traffic safety and calming can be appropriately mitigated, subject to:

            •          Acceptance by the City Council of a Livability and Safety Standards Plan. A Livability and Safety Standards Plan shall be recommended by a created Traffic Safety and Livability Oversight Committee (TSLO) consisting of the standing Site Plan Review Committee, two at-large representatives from developers and two at-large Cedar Hills community members. The TSLO at-large committee members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. The TSLO shall be chaired by the chairman of the standing City Site Plan Review Committee. The TSLO recommendations shall be made by majority vote. Allocation of costs associated with the Livability and Safety Standards Plan shall be allocated as follows: City of Cedar Hills: 1/3; south development: 1/3; north development: 1/3. Suballocation shall be based on equivalent residential units vs. anticipated project plan as projected by the City Planner.

            •          Submission and acceptance of a UDOT Category III traffic impact study.

            •          Verification of MAG 2030 projections for 4800 West and remodeling of the Level of Service projections, and City Council acceptance of additional mitigation if required after remodeling.

            •          The north ingress/egress on 4800 West should be aligned with the High School exit on the west side of 4800 West. The applicant is to meet and coordinate with the Alpine School District to facilitate this.

            •          Review of the need for extended left-turn staging lanes on westbound Cedar Hills Drive.

            •          Traffic related exactions were based on a Fehr and Peers 2/15/2007 Traffic Impact Study. Exaction adjustments are to be based on an accepted development agreement calling for post construction traffic measurement and study conducted by the applicant at a period one year after issuance of occupancy. If empirical observations of post construction measurement and studies indicate additional mitigation required, they shall be installed at applicants’ expense, proportional to project ERUs as determined by the City Planner. The City Council may also, at their option, accept a cash bond in lieu of installation of mitigation devices.

            •          No truck ingress/egress shall be permitted from Cedar Hills Drive or to Cedar Hills Drive.

            •          Access cross easements shall be recorded as part of the CC&Rs associated with the subdivision between the southeast outlot and the proposed project. Traffic access to the southeast outlot shall not be allowed from Cedar Hills Drive or from the Wal-Mart parcel.

4.         Site Plan - A submitted site plan be accepted, and to make a finding that:

            •          The proposed site plan complies with the purpose and intent statement of the Guidelines of the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (Design Guidelines), and that the allowed latitude is necessary for individual use within the Plan area. Considered factors include density, diversity, and design. Also complies with the City of Cedar Hills Code 10-6A-31A, a harmonious grouping of buildings.

            •          The planned development meets the minimum standards of the Community Vision section of the Design Guidelines and the Cedar Hills General Plan.

            •          Building placement and subdistricting is in harmony with the intent of the Design Guidelines, taking into account the requirements for a human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly development that is sensitive to the surrounding residential areas, and placement of the intense retail side of the building (front and south) away from nearby residential areas and less busy sides of the building nearest the adjacent residential properties.

            •          In compliance with 4.2.3 and 4.3.3, the building size was reviewed by the City Council and approved based on a determination of compliance with at least the minimum standards for items such as building placement, aesthetics, noise control, lighting design, traffic control, etc., to give the feel consistent with the overall development, as well as the community as a whole.

            •          Building height, setback and facades are in harmony with the intent of the Land Use section of the Design Guidelines, and exceed all minimum standards.

            •          An August 2003 independent noise analysis determined a preconstruction daytime ambient noise of 52 dBA. 2007 Kleinfelder measurements of 46-49 dBA at property line.

            •          All residential and commercial development is expected to contribute to increased ambient noise levels.

            •          The submitted revised sound study of the Lindon, Utah, Wal-Mart location is roughly similar in design and construction, and is similarly located near residential neighborhoods. The actual sound readings of the Lindon Wal-Mart location, submitted by Kleinfelder West, were found to be similar in level and intensity. Empirical evidence shows the sound mitigation features at the Lindon location, similar but inferior to those proposed for the Cedar Hills location, were sufficient to successfully mitigate the noise. The Proposed Cedar Hills site noise mitigation plan exceeds those observed at the Lindon Wal-Mart site.

            •          Cedar Hills’ noise ordinance is nontechnical in nature. Still, the submitted site plan, sound engineer’s testimony, and revised sound study appear to adequately predict a commercial environment that is sensitive to the adjacent residential areas.

5.         Site plan acceptance is subject to:

            •          Acceptance and review of a revised main middle/west access that creates a safer and more logical traffic flow in harmony with the recorded sketch.

            •          Review of pedestrian flow paths between the Wal-Mart site and the outlots, specifically at the main middle/west access, in harmony with the recorded sketch.

            •          Adoption of a development agreement and conditional use permit demanding maximum daytime commercial activity, L1, L10 and L90 levels of 60, 55, and 50 dBA, respectively. Further more, maximum nighttime commercial activity L1, L10 and L90 levels of 50, 40 and 45 dBA respectively.

            •          Soundblox product specs are to be entered in the record as part of the approved site plan.

            •          No compressor enclosure openings on the sides facing residential areas.

            •          Final review and acceptance of the placement and construction of shopping cart collection stalls.

            •          Bale and pallet storage shall not be permitted higher than the adjacent wall, and shall be screened from residential areas.

            •          The acceptance of traffic deterrent devices to the south truck egress. Also acceptance of appropriate traffic speed control devices along the north side to slow truck speeds and reduce decibel levels in proximity to the residential zone.

            •          Signs shall be subject to all provisions of the Cedar Hills sign ordinance.

            •          Outside storage, container storage, and overnight parking shall not be allowed as outlined in the Design Guidelines.

            •          Final review and acceptance of senior citizen, disabled persons access and parking (ADA) and sick child parking locations.

6.         Final engineering and verification, including, but not limited to a finding that:

            •          PacLand drainage calculations substantially conform to the City’s design requirements, meet preliminary design criteria, and that final design of the site will dictate final sub-basin design and should be subject to final engineering review.

            •          A storm water management plan must be submitted for pre and post construction runoff control. The plan should include applicable BMPs and details.

            •          Lighting plan verification and acceptance. Lighting adjacent to residential areas shall not be higher in elevation than the stamped cement wall whether on the building or mounted on separate structures.

            •          Construction access via 4800 West only. Streets shall be kept free of dirt and debris during construction.

            •          Verification and acceptance of security camera location, ensuring video surveillance of the property on all four sides of the building and the parking lot area with recordings stored and available to Cedar Hill’s public safety officials upon request for a minimum of one week.

            •          Curb and gutter alignments for Redwood Drive and 4800 West shall be verified for Right of Way width. An approved subdivision plat shall verify the proper right of way dedication. Sidewalks shall be completed by applicant.

            •          All utilities for complete site improvement shall be included as part of subdivision requirements.

7.         Grant preliminary site approval further subject to:

            •          Fire Marshall and Police Chief Approval

            •          Legal Review

            •          Verification of Water rights submitted

            •          The issuance of a conditional use permit and acceptance of a conditional use permit by the City Council.

            •          The acceptance by the City Council of recorded CC&Rs providing for the construction, completion, reasonable maintenance, upkeep and cleanliness, and surety of the combined project site in accordance with the City’s subdivision ordinance and section 4.5 of the Design Guidelines. Said CC&Rs shall allow for the inclusion of adjacent development as a future phase and association member.

            •          And forward this matter to the Planning commission for further consideration.

Seconded by C. Perry.

C. Wright wanted to ensure that Wal-Mart agreed with all the requirements in the motion.

C. Perry said that everything in the motion has been talked about but one item, which was that there would be no access from the outlot 1 parking lot into the Wal-Mart parking lot. C. Maxwell said that the reasoning behind cutting off access is that outlot 1 is a proposed office complex. It has low trips generated per day as compared with Wal-Mart. The Council does not want to have the thru traffic using Redwood Drive. From an overall safety standpoint, it would be safer if cars didn’t cut through the outlot 1 parking lot. Roy Williams of Philips Edison said that access point involves the developer and not Wal-Mart. It should not be imposed on Wal-Mart. C. Perry said that if it bothers Phillips Edison now, it can be deferred until a site plan that includes outlot 1.

AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To strike the right of way on 4800 West and access between the Wal-Mart site and the southeast outlot. Accepted and seconded by C. Perry

Shell MacPherson said that from a physics standpoint the access points between the school ingress and egress and the Wal-Mart ingress and egress cannot line up. David Bunker recommended approval as shown. Coordination needs to be addressed with the school district. C. Richardson said the motion calls for coordination. That coordination may need to happen between the City and school district. The traffic engineer said that the movements of traffic do not cross and it is not a problem.

C. Perry stated that there has been a lot of prior discussion in past meetings. He apologized for emotions flaring at times. This motion is a culmination of all the discussions and issues.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

12.       Review/Action on the Preliminary Plan for Commercial Development - Two Commercial Outlots (10:45 p.m.)

See handouts. Roy Williams with Philips Edison stated that Phillips Edison acquired the property in March 2006. They are retaining the three outlots. This is a site plan for the two outlots fronting 4800 West. The total square footage is a little over 18,000 square feet. There could be anywhere from 10-15 stores, depending on store size.

C. Wright stated that he would like to see something like Harvest Fresh or Wild Oats. These stores seem too small for something like that. Roy Williams said that they are limited by the store footprint. They might not be all individual tenants. They may take a few storefronts or several storefronts.

C. Bowman stated that she is concerned about the lack of brick. She feels that there is more brick on the backside than on the front of the store. Roy Williams said an earlier site plan review had a building with a lot of brick and a colonial feel. As a result the storefronts didn’t appeal to retailers. C. Bowman wanted to ensure the quality of the signs is the same on both sides of the building.

C. Perry noted that the retention basin will have native buffalo grass. He would rather see it lined with rocks. Philips Edison said that the buffalo grass would provide low maintenance greenery without the hardscape of rocks.

C. Richardson stated that he would like to see some pictures or renderings of the buffalo grass. He stated that the Design Guidelines call for berming. The retention basin at lot 2 is where berming is most needed. Philips Edison said that the retention walls will provide a type of berming effect because the outside wall (against the road) will be about 3 feet lower than the inside wall. C. Richardson would like to see a rendering of the retention wall and landscaping at that wall. At final, he would like to review pedestrian walkways.

MOTION: C. Richardson - In regards to the preliminary site plan approval for Phillips Edison, outlots 1 and 2, I move that:

1.         Architecture - the elevation plans be accepted subject to:

            •          City Council acceptance of revised elevation plans more harmonious with the American Colonial style, and compatible with existing and proposed developments.

2.         Landscaping - plan to be accepted, subject to:

            •          A future finding by the City Council that the combined quantity and quality of landscaping meeting the intent of the Design Guidelines, and successfully mitigates the hard surface and visual impact of the development. The finding shall include a verification of quantity counts and does not include row dedication in calculation.

            •          Review of retention basin design installed by developer in tandem with automated irrigation system (including permanent power).

            •          Approval of additional drainage features such as dry sumps and rock channels to be included.

            •          Verification and acceptance that proposed plants and trees comply with the approved species list.

            •          Installation of physical or virtual berming per Design Guidelines standards so as to shield the view of parking lots.

            •          Evergreen trees shall be Scottish Pine.

3.         Traffic - Joint Fehr and Peers 2/15/2007 traffic impact study be accepted and make a finding that the traffic capacity appears to be appropriate for the proposed project and the traffic safety and calming can be appropriately mitigated, subject to:

            •          Acceptance by the City Council of a Livability and Safety Standards Plan. A Livability and Safety Standards Plan shall be recommended by a created Traffic Safety and Livability Oversight Committee (TSLO) consisting of the standing Site Plan Review Committee, two at-large representatives from developers and two at-large Cedar Hills community members. The TSLO at-large committee members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. The TSLO shall be chaired by the chairman of the standing City Site Plan Review Committee. The TSLO recommendations shall be made by majority vote. Allocation of costs associated with the Livability and Safety Standards Plan shall be allocated as follows: City of Cedar Hills: 1/3; south development: 1/3; north development: 1/3. Suballocation shall be based on equivalent residential units vs. anticipated project plan as projected by the City Planner.

            •          Submission and acceptance of a UDOT Category III traffic impact study.

            •          Verification of MAG 2030 projections for 4800 West and remodeling of Level of Service projections, and City Council acceptance of additional mitigation if required after remodeling.

            •          Review of the need for extended left-turn staging lanes on westbound Cedar Hills Drive.

            •          Traffic related exactions were based on a Fehr and Peers 2/15/2007 Traffic Impact Study. Exaction adjustments are to be based on an accepted development agreement calling for a post construction traffic measurement and study conducted by the applicant at a period one year after issuance of occupancy. If empirical observations of a post construction measurement and study indicate additional mitigation required, they shall be installed at applicants’ expense, proportional to project ERUs as determined by the City Planner. The City Council may also, at their option, accept a cash bond in lieu of installation of mitigation devices.

            •          Development is to be human scaled and pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian access corridors from the east to be reviewed.

4.         Site Plan - Submitted site plan be accepted, and to make a finding that:

            •          The proposed site plan complies with the purpose and intent statement of the Guidelines of the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects (Design Guidelines), and that the allowed latitude is necessary for individual use within the Plan area. Considered factors include density, diversity and design. Also complies with the City of Cedar Hills Code 10-6A-31A, a harmonious grouping of buildings.

            •          The planned development meets the minimum standards of the Community Vision section of the Design Guidelines and the Cedar Hills General Plan.

            •          Building placement and subdistricting is in harmony with the intent of the Design Guidelines, taking into account the requirements for a human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly; development that is sensitive to the surrounding residential areas, and placement of the intense retail side of the building (front and south) away from nearby residential areas and less busy sides of the building nearest the adjacent residential properties.

            •          In compliance with 4.2.3 and 4.3.3, the building size was reviewed by the City Council and is approved based on a determination of compliance with at least the minimum standards for items such as building placement, aesthetics, noise control, lighting design, traffic control, etc., to give the feel consistent with the overall development, as well as the community as a whole.

            •          Building height, setback, and facades are in harmony with the intent of the Land Use section of the Design Guidelines, and exceed all minimum standards.

            •          An August 2003 independent noise analysis determined a preconstruction daytime ambient noise of 52 dBA. 2007 Kleinfelder measurements of 46-49 dBA at property line.

            •          All residential and commercial development is expected to contribute to increased ambient noise levels.

            •          The submitted revised sound study of the Lindon, Utah, Wal-Mart location is roughly similar in design and construction, and is similarly located near residential neighborhoods. The actual sound readings of the Lindon Wal-Mart location, submitted by Kleinfelder West, were found to be similar in level and intensity. Empirical evidence shows the sound mitigation features at the Lindon location, similar but inferior to those proposed for t Cedar Hills location, were sufficient to successfully mitigate the noise. The Proposed Cedar Hills site noise mitigation plan exceeds those observed at the Lindon Wal-Mart site.

            •          Cedar Hills’ noise ordinance is nontechnical in nature. Still, the submitted site plan, sound engineer testimony and revised sound study appear to adequately predict a commercial environment that is sensitive to the adjacent residential areas.

5.         Site plan acceptance is subject to:

            •          Review and acceptance of a main middle/west access that creates a safer and more logical traffic flow in harmony with the recorded sketch.

            •          Review of pedestrian flow paths between the Wal-Mart site and the outlots, specifically at the main middle/west access, in harmony with the recorded sketch.

            •          Adoption of a development agreement and conditional use permit demanding maximum daytime commercial activity, L1, L10 and L90 levels of 60, 55, and 50 dBA, respectively. Further more, maximum nighttime commercial activity, L1, L10 and L90 levels of 50, 40 and 45 dBA respectively.

            •          Final review and acceptance of the placement and construction of shopping cart collection stalls.

            •          Final review of dumpster and storage locations. Bale and pallet storage shall not be permitted higher than the adjacent wall, and shall be screened from residential areas. Outside storage and containers storage and overnight parking shall not be allowed as outlined in the Design Guidelines.

            •          Signs shall be subject to all provisions of the Cedar Hills sign ordinance. The City Council will make a finding at final site plan approval as to which facades of the building(s) will be determined to be the building front.

6.         Final engineering and verification, including, but not limited to:

            •          Drainage analysis revised: A finding that Phillips Edison drainage calculations substantially conform to the City’s design requirements, meet preliminary design criteria, and that final design of the site will dictate final sub-basin design and should be subject to final engineering review.

            •          A storm water management plan must be submitted for pre and post construction runoff control. The plan should include applicable BMPs and details.

            •          Lighting plan verification and acceptance. Lighting adjacent to residential areas shall not be higher in elevation than the stamped cement wall whether on the building or mounted on separate structures.

            •          Construction access via 4800 West only. Streets shall be kept free of dirt and debris during construction.

            •          Site improvements: curb and gutter alignments for 4800 West shall be verified for right of way width. An approved subdivision plat shall verify the proper right of way dedication. Sidewalks to be installed by developer, or at the City Council’s discretion a cash bond may be accepted.

            •          All utilities for complete site improvement shall be included as part of subdivision requirements.

7.         Grant preliminary site approval further subject to:

            •          Fire Marshall and Police Chief Approval

            •          Legal Review

            •          Verification of Water rights submitted

            •          The issuance of a conditional use permit, final approval of a lighting plan along 4800 West, and acceptance of a conditional use permit by the City Council.

            •          The acceptance by the City Council of recorded CC&Rs providing for the construction, completion, reasonable maintenance, upkeep and cleanliness, and surety of the combined project site in accordance with the City’s subdivision ordinance, and section 4.5 of the Design Guidelines. Said CC&Rs shall allow for the inclusion of adjacent development as a future phase and association member.

            •          And forward this matter to the Planning commission for further consideration.

Seconded by C. Perry.

Aye-C. Bowman

                                                                        C. Maxwell 

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

10.       Review/Action on Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Commercial Property Located at Approximately 10000 North (Cedar Hills Drive) Between 4800 and 4600 West - CONTINUED (8:24 p.m.)

C. Richardson stated that the preliminary subdivision is not required to come before the City Council but if the Planning Commission wants the Council’s feedback he would be happy to do that.

MOTION: C. Richardson - To table this item. Seconded by C. Perry.

Aye-C. Bowman

                                                                        C. Maxwell 

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

8.         Review/Action on Resolution Entering into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Highland City for North Utah County Water Replenishment

See handouts. C. Perry requested an amendment on page 2 of 2, the last paragraph, strike, “the use of any grant funds.”

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Resolution 4-3-2007A, A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Highland City and the City of Cedar Hills for North Utah County Water Replenishment, as amended. Seconded by C. Richardson. Vote taken by roll call.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

9.         Review/Action on Resolution to Execute an Agreement to Extend the Sewer Treatment Service Contract with Timpanogos Special Service District (11:32 p.m.)

            See handouts.

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Resolution 4-3-2007B, A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement to extend the sewer treatment service contract with Timpanogos Special Service District. Seconded by C. Bowman. Vote taken by roll call.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Wright

                                                Nay     -          C. Richardson                                     Motion passes.

MOTION: C. Perry - To table all other items. Seconded by C. Maxwell.

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Maxwell

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                        C. Wright                                            Motion passes.

5.         Review/Action on Ordinance Adopting a Capital Facilities Plan for Culinary Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Transportation Facilities (11:32 p.m.)

            Tabled.

6.         Review/Action on Resolution Adopting Fees

            Tabled.

13.       City Manager Report and Discussion

            Tabled.

MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL

14.       Board and Committee Reports

            Tabled.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

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.

ADJOURNMENT

17.       Adjourn

This meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. on a motion by C. Perry, seconded by C. Maxwell and unanimously approved.

/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

Approved by Council:

   May 1, 2007