PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman, Joel Wright, Gary Maxwell, Eric Richardson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
David Bunker, City Engineer
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Rachel Brown, Finance Director
Brad Kearl, Chief Building Official
Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager-Planning
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Ken Kirk, Denton Alexander, Kaylynn Hilton, Cliff Chandler, Robert Kirk, Lou Morin, Tricia Morin, Carl Lopez, David Told, Sherri Cook, Mike Cook, Lisa Seppi, Pam Greenfield, Diane Kirk, Mike Stuy, Janelle Lowder, Scout Troop 838, Julie Reeve, Jordan Reeve, Carl Pitt, Scott Jackman
COUNCIL MEETING
1. This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Richardson
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Comment (7:09 p.m.)
• Cliff Chandler: Mr. Chandler said that he would prefer to see all automotive movement prohibited on the Shoreline Trail. Law enforcement and BLM officials have said that off-road, vehicular traffic poses significant law enforcement problems, and that the traffic they have seen is worse than it was five years ago. Mr. Chandler said that the City cannot risk a wildfire on the mountain. The American Fork police department should be asked to enforce any ordinance that is passed tonight. Placing barricades will not stop vehicles from accessing the mountain because the mountainside is accessed through private property (empty lots). No one with property near the trail is happy with vehicular access to the mountainside.
• Carl Lopez: Mr. Lopez said that he supports the ordinance that addresses vehicular use on Shoreline Drive as written. He owns two empty lots. One is being used by trucks to get on the Trail. He is upset that law enforcement hasn’t done anything about it. He walks on the trail daily and sees how trucks and cars have hurt the vegetation. He firmly believes that no cars should be allowed on the trail.
• David Told: Mr. Told supports the ordinance to limit vehicular use on the Shoreline Trail. There have been problems in the past on the trail where he has called police. The police say that without an ordinance, nothing can be done. There are cars going in excess of 50 mph at all hours of the night. He would like to see limitations to time of day in the ordinance. Other cities have ordinances that limit access completely. This ordinance is a win-win for all. It allows recreational access, but prohibits large vehicles. He encouraged the Council to support and pass the ordinance.
• Lou Morin: Mr. Morin said he supports the Shoreline Trail ordinance as written. He understands that the trail has been used for decades, but the situation has changed. There are homes in the neighborhood, and now the trail is undeniably unsafe for vehicles. He supports access to use trails and mountainside, but there is no reason to have cars and trucks driving on the trail. His yard backs up to the trail. Cars and trucks drive too fast on the trail and pose safety risks to those whose homes abut the trail. He is fine with ATV and motorcycles using the trail at reasonable speeds. The trail is unpaved and full of potholes and dips. The City allowed a subdivision to be built in the area and now needs to address the safety concerns that have risen because of development.
• Lisa Seppi: Ms. Seppi supports the Shoreline Trail ordinance. Trucks will find access. At times it has been her driveway while her children are on it. It is dangerous to walk on the trail with trucks on it because there is not enough room for trucks and pedestrians. She has had to pull her children off the trail for vehicles to pass. She installed a fence separating the trail from her backyard because it was unsafe for her children to play in her backyard.
• Pam Greenfield: Ms. Greenfield also supports the ordinance prohibiting cars and trucks on the Shoreline Trail. In a perfect world traffic laws would be obeyed, but this is not a perfect world. There is grit and dust in homes along the trail because of traffic on the trail. The purpose of the trail has been lost. People are voyeurs and look in windows as they drive by.
• Mike Cook: Mr. Cook thanked the Council and Mayor McGee for listening and considering the ordinance to restrict vehicular traffic on the Shoreline trail. He supports what has previously been said. It is a one lane trail. Vehicles cannot pass without going up the mountain or down the mountain. It is not designed for vehicles.
• Tricia Morin: Ms. Morin has three children and will not go on the trail because she has seen too many vehicles speeding. There are trucks speeding at 2 a.m. Cars and trucks do not need to be on the trail. She is scared to let her children play in the backyard. She is scared it will take a death to have something done. She does not want to limit the trail for recreational purposes. The way that the ordinance is worded is a win-win. Please support it.
• Sherri Cook: There is a sign behind Ms. Cook’s lot that says No Motorized Vehicles. It has since faded. Traffic is year round. Her children are not allowed off the property. A few years ago a truck lost control and came spinning into her yard. The yard is now landscaped and used by her family. If that were to happen today, it might injure the family. She would like to see more mountain bikers, horse back riders and pedestrians using the trail.
• Diane Kirk: Ms. Kirk said she understands why people are upset by trucks and cars. She is an avid ATVer. She wants to see the Shoreline trail open to ATVs and thinks the ordinance should be adopted as written. She opposes any ban on ATVs.
• Mike Stuy: Mr. Stuy does not live on the mountainside, but enjoys the trail. He would like to see a ban on all motorized vehicles, including ATVs and motorcycles. They don’t stay on the trails but go up on the hillside and destroy the vegetation and hillside. He would like to see the pristine area kept that way.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) (7:34 p.m.)
No comments.
4. Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 27, Regarding the Requirements for the Installation of Landscape Features on Lots (7:34 p.m.)
No comments.
5. Amendments to the City Code Regarding the Requirements for the Conveyance of Water Rights for Annexation and Development (7:34 p.m.)
No comments.
6. Preliminary Site Plan for Commercial Property Located on the Southeast Corner at the Intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West (Amsource) (7:34 p.m.)
No comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
7. Minutes from the November 20, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (7:34 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Bowman - To approve the consent agenda. Seconded by C. Wright.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
8. Review/Action on 2007 Fiscal Year Audit (7:35 p.m.)
See handouts. Denton Alexander and Kaylynn Hilton from Hawkins, Cloward, & Simister were present to answer questions. Konrad Hildebrandt said that the City has done well in the audit report over the last few years despite turnover in financial directors. The auditors have helped throughout the year to educate the City. It may be time to bid the audit out through an RFQ process. Some small firms may not be as thorough.
Council Discussion:
• Mayor McGee stated that the City has qualified in three of the last four years for the distinguished budget award. The City has also been bond rated, which is difficult for a city our size to do.
• C. Perry stated that in the future if the audit is complete before the meeting, he would like more time to look at it. He also stated that in four years, there have been three different finance directors, yet the City regularly gets clean audits, which is a reflection of the quality of the staff and the financial procedures in place. The City has won budget awards and gets clean audits, yet there are still misunderstandings about the City’s financial situation. The media and citizens need to be made aware of the good financial standing of the City. He is pleased with the service from Hawkins Cloward, & Simister. He wants to ensure that the Council is following all requirements as fiduciaries of the City, and that the auditor’s services are the best available for the needs of the City.
• C. Richardson said that there is benefit in having the same firm do the audit from year to year. The City’s auditing costs have risen, but if the service provided is better, it is worth it. He stated that the GFAO award is largely based on the manner in which the budget is communicated to the public. He would support whatever is needed so that the City can prepare and make available a budget that is readily understandable to the public.
MOTION: C. Wright - To accept the audit as presented. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Wright - To move item #11 before item #9. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
11. Review/Action on Ordinance on Motor Vehicle Trespass on Private and Public Lands (7:48 p.m.)
See handouts. Greg Robinson said that this ordinance has been before the Council previously, and amendments made in previous meetings are reflected here. There was a section added on reckless driving. Type 2 ATVs are not included because their definition went beyond what was intended, including everything but cars and trucks. He feels Type 1 ATVs are sufficient for law enforcement purposes.
Council Discussion:
• C. Maxwell proposed allowing vehicles less than 2,000 lbs with an ATV sticker. As currently written the ordinance prohibits the two-passenger-wide ATVs because they are a few inches wider than 50 inches.
• C. Perry said that he liked the 2,000 lbs approach because ATVs are clearly less than 2,000 lbs, while jeeps and vehicles are clearly more than 2,000 lbs.
The Council would like to see the following amendments:
• Section 1-1-A: Title should be changed to All Terrain Vehicle and should read, Any motor vehicle having an unladen, dry weight of 2,000 pounds or less, traveling on three or more tires designed for or capable of travel over unimproved terrain.
• Section 1-2-A: Include the state code citation and the title of the state code reference. The rest of the paragraph should be deleted.
• Add Section 1-2-B, “Permitted Vehicles” that should read: This section does not prohibit the use of such property by the following: 1) Emergency vehicles, 2) Vehicles in the course of normal business or governmental operations, 3) Vehicles being operated on property where permission for such operation is implied or expressly given by the person in possession of the property, 4) Off highway vehicles.
• Add Section 1-2-C, “Non Permitted Vehicles” to: 1) Motor vehicles that are not expressly permitted in Section 2B.
• Add Section 1-4-C to read: Operating a motor vehicle more than one-half hour before sunrise or more than one-half hour after sunset.
• Add Section 1-4-D to read: Violation of either (A) or (B) or (C) will result in the standard fines for violation of the ordinance.
• Remove letter “D” from Section 1-5.
• Removed section 1-7.
MOTION: C. Wright - To adopt Ordinance 12-12-2007A, as amended on the written copy that C. Richardson will provide. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Further Discussion:
• C. Richardson stated that usually residents show up to meetings when they feel an issue isn’t clear cut, or they are passionate about it. This ordinance attempts to address many different needs. He only believes in adopting ordinances that can be enforced, though no ordinance can be enforced perfectly. The problem will not go away completely.
• C. Perry stated that he agrees with C. Richardson’s comments. He lives in the area. He recognizes that before he lived there, the area was used differently. He feels that this ordinance recognizes and protects people’s rights to use the area responsibly for recreation.
• C. Maxwell stated that he feels it is logical to put a weight limit at 2,000 lbs. It protects property owners’ rights, protects public access to those that can enjoy it, and makes the ordinance enforceable.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
• Mayor McGee encouraged helmet use but feels an adult should have the right to make that decision.
C. Bowman excused (8:27 p.m.)
9. Review/Action on Amendments to the 2008 Fiscal Year Budget (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) (8:27 p.m.)
See handouts. Rachel Brown stated that these budget amendments address decisions that have already been discussed, including the golf reconfiguration (sale of Cottonwood Hills Estates lots at $1,400,000 and expense for golf course reconfiguration at $525,310), the impact fee study/land purchase ($25,000), and park equipment replacement for Heritage Park ($18,775).
Council Discussion:
•
C. Perry stated that the sale of the Cottonwood Hills Estates lots should not be placed in the golf course fund because it comes from the sale of a City asset unrelated to the golf course.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To adopt Resolution 12-12-2007A, a resolution adopting the amended 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Budget for the City of Cedar Hills. Seconded by C. Richardson. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye-C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
• C. Perry stated that he would like to see the budget amendments topics included in the agenda. He has had residents call him for clarification. Kim Holindrake said that if specifics are listed, other items cannot be discussed legally.
• Mayor McGee and the Council directed staff to be more descriptive in the agenda.
• C. Richardson said he would like to see the electronic packets available and he would like to have document imaging done with the most recent documents imaged first.
10. Review/Action on the Preliminary Site Plan for Commercial Property Located on the Southeast Corner at the Intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West (Amsource) (8:38 p.m.)
See handouts. Carl Pitt of Amsource presented the Amsource site plan. It is a three-acre piece of property at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. The site plan calls for development of two parcels - retail A and a bank parcel. Amsource has entertained the idea of a fuel center. The problem with the fuel station is that the stations wanted their front door and canopy facing 4800 West. The Design Guidelines stipulate that canopies face Cedar Hills Drive. Currently there is no interest from a fuel station. Amsource requested that they not be required to provide a sound study. The lighting required in the Design Guidelines does not meet the requirements for a downward, dark sky streetlight. Amsource would like to use the same shoe-box light that is being used with Wal-Mart.
David Bunker stated that a concern is with the connectivity between this project and the next project to the east. The City is asking Amsource to pave into phase 2 with an easement for utilities to allow for access to any development on the Smart property.
Greg Robinson said that there needs to be a shared parking agreement among the tenants. Carl Pitt is working on that agreement. Greg Robinson said that the ordinance requires a concrete wall on land bordering residential land. The Planning Commission felt that because of the berming, the fence does not need to be stamped concrete. David Bunker suggested making a finding that allows for a deviation from the requirement for the stamped concrete wall.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that there are provisions in the code that say that development needs to be planned in 10-acre increments so that the development is cohesive. Amsource has used a conceptual site plan for the adjoining land, though there is no assurance that it will develop as planned. He is concerned that the site plan that is under consideration doesn’t even include the entire portion of the Amsource land. Carl Pitt said that the adjoining land is owned by the Smart family. Amsource cannot develop the entire portion because there is no demand for the two additional buildings. With the current lending environment, the entire portion cannot be developed. Staff has worked with Amsource to identify how the connection between the Amsource piece and the neighboring piece can occur.
C. Bowman returned (9:03 p.m.)
• C. Richardson stated that the code also allows for development of the entire parcel. There are two separate ordinances at play zoning and subdivision. He likes the elevations. He would prefer to see a three-lot subdivision as opposed to a four-lot subdivision because only two of the lots are going to be developed at this time. The phasing plan doesn’t match the lot lines. The landscape requirements are 30%. With other developments the Council has allowed for a quality in lieu of quantity. He does not like the layout of the bank. It feels like it is stuck in the middle of a parking lot. Carl Pitt said that Amsource would prefer a four-lot subdivision and make a meets and bounds adjustment rather than amending a plat. The phasing plan doesn’t match the lot lines because Amsource is the owner of all four lots and there will be some cross-lot improvements. Amsource has tried to match the quality of the landscaping across the street with larger caliper trees and clustering of trees and shrubs.
• C. Maxwell said that he feels the development is cohesive because of the drive access on the east and the flexibility it allows. He said that aesthetically there may be a better layout, but this layout works for efficiency and usability.
• C. Richardson stated that preliminary approval is more important than final. At final the City Council can only require what was required at preliminary. He is not ready to give preliminary approval.
C. Richardson excused (10:05 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Perry - To consider this action after number 15. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Wright Motion passes.
12. Review/Action on Golf Course Reconfiguration (10:05 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the City has been moving forward on the golf course reconfiguration. He has worked with the City attorney, and there will be an item on property acquisition in a closed door meeting. There is a copy of the redesigned layout with 22 lots in the packet. The potential buyer likes the new layout. He would like a signed letter of intent as soon as possible. David Bunker said that moving forward quickly is important to the construction schedule.
13. Review/Action on Release of Durability for Renaissance PRD (10:14 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that the Renaissance PUD has been inspected. They are ready to be released from their durability bond.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To approve final acceptance of the subdivision improvements of Renaissance at Cedar Hills, subject to payment of any outstanding balance with the City. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Further Discussion:
David Bunker said that the inspection process happens on two levels. Public Works checks valves and manholes. Civil Science inspects curbs, gutters, and streets.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Wright Motion passes.
14. Review/Action on Release of Durability for Canyon Heights, Plat G (10:17 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker said that Canyon Heights, Plat G, has been inspected. Improvements meet the City’s design and construction standards. There is a cut slope that has been vegetated twice, but the soil needs to be augmented, reseeded, and irrigated. He recommended that they be released from durability for the subdivision, but that they post a new $3,000 bond for landscaping.
Council Discussion
• C. Perry stated that the storm water detention basin has been a problem. David Bunker said they regraded the bottom of the basin and put a sump in the low spot. It has been working well since last winter. C. Perry recommended requiring additional money in the bond to ensure that the detention basin is working properly.
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve final acceptance of the subdivision improvement of Canyon Heights Plat G, the release of the durability bond with an additional bond of $6,000 required for the vegetation of the cut slope on the east side of Timpanogos Cove Drive and the proper drainage, maintenance of the storm water detention basin and associated landscaping around it, and subject to payment of any outstanding balance with the City. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
• C. Perry said that the street sunk and it had to be torn out and repaired. David Bunker said they repaired it twice and it complies with what is required.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Wright Motion passes.
Council Break (10:25 p.m.)
Reconvened at 10:28 p.m. with all Council Members present.
10. Review/Action on the Preliminary Site Plan for Commercial Property Located on the Southeast Corner at the Intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West (Amsource) - CONTINUED (10:28 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - In regards to the preliminary approval for Amsource, I move that
Architecture - elevation plans be accepted subject to:
1. All utility and access doors colored such as to blend with the exterior walls.
2. City Council acceptance of complete set of color elevation plans and sample boards that are deemed harmonious with the American Colonial style, and compatible with existing and proposed developments.
Landscaping - landscaping plan to be accepted, subject to:
1. A future finding by the City Council that the combined quantity (18.9%) and quality of landscaping (to be 3”+ caliper trees, 5 gallon+ shrubs) meets the intent of the Design Guidelines, and successfully mitigates the hard surface and visual impact of the development. City Council finding shall include a verification of quantity counts. Also acceptance by the City Council of special landscape features towards the landscape requirements.
2. Retention basin shall have Kentucky bluegrass sod or substantial equivalent installed by developer in tandem with an automated irrigation system (including permanent power).
3. Verification and acceptance that proposed plants and trees comply with the approved species list.
4. Installation and acceptance of physical or virtual berming per Design Guidelines standards so as to shield the view of parking lots.
5. Acceptance of a fencing plan or a determination of landscaping in lieu of City required fencing.
Traffic - a UDOT Cat III traffic impact study to be submitted and accepted by the City Council, including MAG 2030 projections for 4800 West and modeling of LOS projections; and a future Council finding that the traffic capacity appears to be appropriate for the proposed project and the traffic safety and calming can be appropriately mitigated.
Additional requirements include:
1. Acceptance by the City Council of a Livability and Safety Standards Plan as recommended by the Cedar Hills Traffic Safety and Livability Oversight Committee. 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 (ERUs) vs. anticipated project plan as projected by the City Planner.
2. The east ingress/egress on Cedar Hills Drive should be verified to be aligned with the ingress/egress of the northern commercial development.
3. Submission of a combined Lone Peak Public Safety District and American Fork Police Department five-year accident report for the areas of:
a. 4800 West in proximity to Cedar Hills Drive
b. Redwood Drive
c. 4600 West
d. West Cedar Hills Drive
e. East Cedar Hills Drive
4. Traffic related exactions to be based on a TIS. Exaction adjustments are to be based on 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 mitigations 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.
5. Development is to be human scaled and pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian access corridors to be reviewed and included.
Site Plan - submitted site plan is accepted, and to make a finding that:
1. 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.
2. The planned development meets the minimum standards of the Community Vision section of the Design Guidelines.
3. In compliance with 4.2.3 and 4.3.3, the building size for building “Retail A” 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.
4. Building height and setback are in harmony with the intent of the Land Use section of the Design Guidelines, and exceed all minimum standards; building facades subject to final review.
5. An August 2003 an independent noise analysis for a nearby commercial development determined a preconstruction daytime ambient noise of 52 dbA.
6. All residential and commercial development is expected to contribute to increased ambient noise levels.
Site Plan acceptance is subject to:
1. Acceptance of a main access plan that creates a safer and more logical traffic flow.
2. Acceptance of pedestrian flow paths between the proposed site pads, specifically at the main access route.
3. Building placement and sub districting to be reviewed, and subject to a future finding that the placement is in harmony with the intent of the Design Guidelines, taking into account the requirement for a human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly development that is sensitive to the surrounding residential areas, and placement of the intense-retail uses away from nearby residential.
4. A sound study for this project is to be submitted.
5. Cedar Hills’ noise ordinance is nontechnical in nature. Still the submitted site plan and anticipated sound study are subject to future acceptance by the City Council, and a finding that the site plan and sound study appear to adequately predict a commercial environment that is sensitive to the adjacent residential areas.
6. Adoption of a development agreement and conditional use permit demanding maximum daytime commercial activity, L1, L10 and L90 levels of 68 dbA, 60 dbA, and 52 dbA, respectively; furthermore, maximum nighttime commercial activity, L1, L10 and L90 levels of 50 dbA, 50 dbA and 45 dbA respectively.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Final review and acceptance of senior citizen, disabled persons access, and parking (ADA).
10. Outside storage and sales and overnight parking shall not be allowed as outlined in the Design Guidelines.
11. No compressor enclosure openings on sides facing residential areas.
Final engineering and verification, including but not limited to:
1. A site plan showing the east/west road all the way through the eastern boundary.
2. Water and sewer lines to the eastern boundary.
3. Submission and acceptance of a GEOTEC report.
4. Development of a shared parking agreement.
5. Lighting plan verification and acceptance. Lighting adjacent to residential areas shall not be higher in elevation than a 6’ tall, stamped cement wall whether on the building or mounted on separate structures. Plan shall show City approved lights on the accepted lighting plan, and also show the street lights along Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West.
6. Construction access via 4800 West only. Streets shall be kept free of dirt and debris during construction.
7. Approval of a drainage plan
8. Approval of the determined location for the moved sewer meter.
9. Site improvements: curb and gutter alignments for 4800 West shall be verified for right-of-way (ROW) width. An approved subdivision plat shall verify the proper ROW dedication. Sidewalks to be installed by the developer, or at the City Council’s discretion a cash bond may be accepted.
10. All utilities for complete site improvement shall be included as part of the subdivision requirements.
Fire Marshall and Police Chief Approval
Legal Review
Verification of Water rights submitted
Final Subdivision Approval
Execution of a Development Agreement
The issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP) and acceptance of the CUP by 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.
Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
15. Review/Action on Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 27, Regarding the Requirements for the Installation of Landscape Features on Lots (10:37 p.m.)
See handouts. Brad Kearl stated that in an effort to achieve enforcement of landscaping, staff felt it necessary to clarify the verbiage in the ordinance.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry said the intent of the ordinance was not to nail people with penalties, but to get landscaped front yards. With these amendments, residents lose their $1,000 bond as a penalty for not installing landscaping.
• C. Richardson said that he would like an ordinance constructed that offers incentives to residents to landscape rather than penalize those that don’t.
• C. Maxwell said that he would like the landscape administrative bond to be $2,000.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To approve Ordinance 12-12-2007B, an ordinance amending Title 10 of the City Code by adding requirements relating to the installation of landscape features on lots and that the bond fee be set at $2,000. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Further Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he does not want the bond to be punitive and the money to be forfeited if the landscaping isn’t in.
• C. Richardson said he would prefer to see the bond as a cash escrow account.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Maxwell
Nay-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Perry - To have staff consider all discussion and come back with an ordinance to include collection of $2,000 that is refundable in the event the landscaping is installed and completed, and that the bond go with the property not just the person who posted it, and after 12 months there is a fine of $50 a month for those who have not completed landscaping. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Nay-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance 12-12-2007B, an ordinance amending title 10 of th City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, adding requirements relating to the installation of landscape features on lots, as amended. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Further Discussion:
• C. Richardson said that the clock starts ticking at final inspection approval.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
16. Review/Action on Resolution Adopting Fees (11:29 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that the landscape installation fee is a $2,000 bond. Most of the non residents on sewer were under a contract but the non-resident fee was added to the fee schedule. The water/sewer lateral reinspection fee of $50 is changed to a general reinspection fee of $100.
Council Discussion:
• C. Richardson stated that the fees for the motor vehicle trespass of $200 for first offense and $750 thereafter needs to be added to the fee schedule
MOTION C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 12-12-2007B, a resolution adding, amending, or deleting certain fees of the official fee schedule of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, as amended. No second. Motion dies.
Further Discussion:
• C. Wright said that he talked to Rachel Brown about garbage collection and she said the City lost $9,000 last year on garbage. He feels the cost of the second can should be raised to $10.60. Konrad Hildebrandt said that the City did not lose any money on garbage.
• C. Maxwell said that he thinks the fees for motor vehicle trespass should be changed to $50 first offense, $250 second, $750 third offense. The rest of the Council agreed.
• C. Bowman said the cost of the second toter should be raised to $10.60 to entice residents to recycle. No consensus from the Council.
MOTION C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 12-12-2007B, a resolution adding, amending, or deleting certain fees of the official fee schedule of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, as amended. Seconded by C. Perry.
Further Discussion
• C. Wright said he would like to see the first and second toter be $11.00 with a free recycling toter for those with two toters. No consensus from the Council.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
Nay - C. Wright Motion passes.
17. Review/Action to Purchase The Cedars, Plat A, Lot 19 (11:41 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that this item has been discussed previously. Lot 19 is on the corner of Bayhill Drive and Sugarloaf Drive. It was bought by developers as a residential lot. The lot was made unbuildable when a large turnaround was constructed to get the pedestrian tunnel up to grade.
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve the Mayor to finalize an agreement for the purchase of Lot 19, The Cedars, Plat A, from Lone Peak Links. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
Abstain- C. Wright Motion passes.
C. Wright stated that he recused himself because his law firm represents Lone Peak Links.
18. Review/Action on the Final Subdivision Plat for Cottonwood Hills Estates (11:43 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that Cottonwood Hills Estates is a 7-lot subdivision. Water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation laterals are required to each lot. The trail in front of lots 5, 6, and 7 will be rebuilt with concrete. There is curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the other side of the street. There is a proposed water line easement between lots 3 and 4. Each lot is required to have its own geotechnical reports with consideration for piers. The Planning Commission recommended that the lots have driveways that would facilitate a pull forward onto Cottonwood Drive. David Bunker isn’t sure a pull forward is necessary. The road is 25 mph and will have a flashing speed limit sign that would tell drivers their speed.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the Final Plans and Plat for the Cottonwood Hills Estates Subdivision as recommended by staff. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
19. Review/Action on Ordinance Setting the Time and Place of City Council Meetings for 2008 (11:48 p.m.)
See handouts.
MOTION: C. Perry - To adopt Ordinance 12-12-2007C, an ordinance setting the time and place of the regular meetings of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah. Seconded by C. Wright.
Further Discussion:
• C. Bowman said she would like to move the January 8 meeting for her daughter's birthday due to the fact that the December meeting was moved. She would also like to see a provision in the ordinance that meetings not go past a certain time.
• Kim Holindrake said that moving the meeting affects the public. A scout troop showed up for the last meeting that was moved.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
20. City Manager Report and Discussion
No report.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
21. Board and Committee Reports
No reports.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
22. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (11:55 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Perry - To go into Executive Session pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 to consider and discuss the purchase and sale of real property and competence of personnel. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *
23. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting (12:37 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Bowman - To Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Maxwell
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
ADJOURNMENT
24. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned 12:38 a.m. on a motion by C. Bowman, seconded by C. Maxwell and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Council: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
January 8, 2008