PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Marisa Wright, Ken Kirk, Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman, Eric Richardson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Greg Robinson, Assistant to the City Manager-Planning
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Scott Dansie, David Blake, Cliff Chandler, David Kirkpatrick, Donald Steele, Nancy Steele, Steve Kroes, Craig Clements, Melissa Willie, H.R. Brown, Jeff Lindstrom, Brady Pitcher, Diane Kirk, Tom Garner, Orson Herman, David Crim, Justin Burke
COUNCIL MEETING
1. This City Council meeting of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by Mayor McGee
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Comment (7:09 p.m.)
• Cliff Chandler: Mr. Chandler read a statement from Scott Jackman a member of the Planning Commission. There are two Planning Commission openings. He would like to see Steve Kroes reappointed as the Planning Commission chair. He said that Mr. Kroes is thoughtful in votes, has experiences few commissioners can match, leads fair discussions, and makes wise decisions. Appointing another in his stead while he is willing to serve would be a loss.
• Cliff Chandler: Mr. Chandler recommended that the City Council reappoint Steve Kroes as Planning Commission chair. He said that in working with Steve Kroes on the Planning Commission he has found him to be fair, thoughtful, and respectful toward citizens and staff. There are some underlying reasons why his reappointment is in jeopardy. He urged the City Council to be fair. Some Planning Commission decisions have not sat well with some City staff members. The Planning Commission considers each item and makes decisions after much deliberation. He said that he finds it alarming when a decision is made and a commissioner is threatened with dismissal because the decision is unpopular. To not reappoint a member for personal reasons is unfair.
• Brady Pitcher: Mr. Pitcher is with Northland Design Group, a landscaping firm, representing Thomas Fry. Mr. Fry lives in the Juniper Heights subdivision and would like to fence the entire subdivision in a fence other than vinyl. The code requires an open fence along Bayhill Drive. The proposed fence is for safety and privacy reasons and would withstand impact. C. Perry requested a review of the fencing ordinance be on a future agenda of the Planning Commission.
• Craig Clement: Mr. Clement recommended reappointment of Steve Kroes as the Planning Commission chair. He has worked with Mr. Kroes on the Planning Commission for the last year and has found him to be diligent and fair. He asked the City Council to consider him for reappointment.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Plat for St. Andrews Estates, PRD, Located Between 1950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15) (7:22 p.m.)
• Jeff Lindstrom: I had the opportunity to attend the Planning Commission meeting regarding this. I was on the Planning Commission most of the 70s and all of the 80s. So I got to observe them. They are a phenomenal group. I mean, they did an incredible job. I would like to complement them on that. When I saw the initial layout of things, it looked great. I watched them go through the process. Regarding the lot, you know, it looks like a good idea, but the big blaring thing that doesn’t fit is the commercial zone. I would just encourage the Council to take a serious look at that one portion of this. Basically that will be a rezone. It doesn’t to me, seem like it fits the area. And I guess the one thing I would ask the Council to do is review this through the eyes, as if you weren’t involved in it. Pretend a developer was coming and proposing this, spot zoning one little piece up on the mountain. Pretend how you would, you know, interact with him, what you would require of him. Assume that the City has no financial interest in this decision. That’s what I would encourage.
• David Kirkpatrick: Echoing some of the same things Jeff just said. I also attended the Planning Commission meeting where they thoroughly reviewed and discussed the proposal for St. Andrews. As a resident who lives on that side of the road, I have been concerned about how our area would be affected by this golf course reconfiguration. There were a lot of things I felt very positive about that I expressed to the Commission at that time, especially where you are going to leave the tee box between the two buildings that are currently there, then leaving the 15th hole green there, and putting the 200-yard par three in there. And so I liked what I saw for the residential area. Also as Jeff mentioned, there was this unknown thing that was thrown in, which was this potential commercial use on that north lot, lot 22. It didn’t seem like the Planning Commission, either through staff or where that information would come from, had a lot of information other than that there was this general idea proposed of a reception center. But there didn’t seem like there had been any consideration as far as what the traffic was going to be or how that would impact those that would buy lots and be residents of the St. Andrews proposed subdivision. So that is a concern. You know, it has not been the intent of the City in its master plan and things of this nature that I am aware of, to put commercial on that end of town. That is a real unknown for me working on the board of the HOA up there to say this thing is going to be lit up at night, what kind of noise factors. You know it doesn’t seem like it was really well thought through. Maybe we should consider making that two or three building lots. That should still make, as far as the land value, probably as much as one commercial piece. And so I would urge the Council to look seriously at the concerns the Planning Commission had and not just arbitrarily decide.
• H.R. Brown: Just real quick, to give you guys maybe a little bit of my thoughts on the St. Andrews subdivision. I obviously voted against the proposal, and not the whole proposal. So, I hope you know that. I appreciate the work you’ve put in. I appreciate the reconfiguration. As you know, I’m not really for developing 15, but I realize for the betterment of the City, that is what we need to do. So that part of it and the way you set up not losing the tee boxes and bringing in the golf course architect, I applaud you for not making a knee-jerk on that and doing your due diligence. I voted against that proposal because of the commercial. I feel it will have a detrimental and negative impact on the safety and welfare of the citizens in that area. And that’s the reason. You know, we vote on land use, what we think would be best, and we felt like it would bring a negative impact to that area. So we didn’t want to do that. I know that somebody approached us with a package deal, and I know that there were probably some good prices. I thought that it was a little strange that we were deciding on that without that person who is building it kind of in there pitching us, for lack of a better term. So I don’t know that we have any agreement or earnest money or anything solid there. I would think, and I’m not a realtor, but I would think that this is some of the last northern Utah County east bench property. It sits on a golf course. It’s at the mouth of AF Canyon. It overlooks the lake. I would think that if we put that out for bid, we could probably do okay, even with the bad real estate market, I would think, and again, I am not a realtor. But .25 acre lots with those kinds of views and a golf course, AF Canyon, east bent, I have a hard time believing that somebody isn’t going to come in and buy some paper lots at a decent price. I would hope that we could turn the area that you wanted to turn commercial into two, three lots, reconfigured into a double cul-de-sac or something like that. I also heard—and we are a small little town—I heard that there may be some political backlash as a result of our decision. I don’t know if that is true of not. And I don’t care. Well, I care. I don’t care about gossip. I want you to know that I support Steve, and I support the other commissioners. I’ve served with him about a year and a half, two years now, and he is a man of integrity. He is a conservationist. He is an environmentalist. He knows that code book forward and backward. We might not know all of the protocol, but we do our best. Just want you to know that I fully support him. I fully support the other commissioners, more than I probably support myself, to be honest with you. They do a great job. They are diligent. They are honest and hardworking men. I hope you would consider another reconfiguration of the reconfiguration, if that makes sense.
• C. Perry: For what it’s worth, I appreciate you and the other planning commissioners doing your duty and not feeling like you had to go along with something just because. I mean that’s your job and I appreciate that you are doing the best you can.
4. Vacation and Re-Subdivision of Juniper Heights, Plat D, Lots 1 and 2 (Cottonwood Hills Estates) (7:30 p.m.)
No comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
5. Minutes from the January 8, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting (7:30 p.m.)
C. Perry said one of his requested amendments did not get changed. It was something like, “if the estimated number of homes at buildout changes, the divisor would be incorrect.”
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve the consent agenda including the one omission from the previous amendment in the minutes. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
6. Review/Action on Golf Course Reconfiguration (7:32 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the golf course reconfiguration bid package is out to bid. Bids are due on February 4 and will be presented to the City Council at the February 5 meeting. The bid package requires that the golf course be completed and playable by April 4. Staff solicited advertising package proposals from several advertising agencies. He stated that it is important to send the message the golf course is better than ever. The original budget for the golf course reconfiguration included money for simulators. Without the simulators there is some money left in the budget.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he is in favor of advertising campaigns, but would feel better if there were more proposals.
MOTION: C. Bowman - To move item 12 before item 7. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright
Nay - C. Kirk Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Bowman - To move item 12 after item 7. Seconded by C. Kirk.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
7. Review/Action on Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Plat for St. Andrews Estates, PRD, Located Between 1950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15) (7:43 p.m.)
See handouts. Greg Robinson stated that several changes have been recommended for improvement of the subdivision. Staff recommended that the item be tabled so those changes can be considered and made. Some of the Planning Commission’s concerns included lot size, viability of development, and a commercial zone in that area of the City. He reminded the Council that this item is for subdivision approval rather than site plan approval. Subdivision approval involves papering the lots.
Konrad Hildebrandt stated that staff and Mayor McGee have talked to the potential buyer. One issue is traffic flow. Anybody that buys into the cul-de-sac will know the reception center is there. It will be constructed long before any homes are constructed. The potential buyers intend to make a nice subdivision. They intend to make one lot into a clubhouse with a pool.
Mayor McGee stated that one of the recommended changes is the number of lots. The potential buyers would like to remove two lots in order to make bigger lots. The potential buyers contacted the City over a year ago to express interest in a site for a reception center. Mayor McGee showed them several potential locations. They only liked the one east of Canyon Road where it is currently proposed. They are not interested in the development without the reception center.
Council Discussion:
• C. Kirk stated that the City’s General Plan references two commercial areas—at Cedar Hills Drive and 4800 West and at SR-92 and Canyon Road. The proposed Canyon Commercial Zone fits into the second commercial area in the General Plan. He attended the Planning Commission meeting where this was discussed. The Commission had four concerns to address: land use, health, welfare, and safety. Safety is a concern with just one access for both the reception center and the residential area.
• C. Perry wanted to know which of the Planning Commission’s concerns have been addressed, who is the potential buyer, and what is his relationship to the City. Mayor McGee responded that the potential buyer is Bob Wood and he has no previous relationship with anyone in the City. Mr. Wood approached the City. C. Perry said that while Mayor McGee has met with the potential buyer, the City Council has no letter of intent. As fiduciaries, the City Council needs this real information to weigh its options. He would like to see real data and sound opinions rather than anecdotal evidence that the current proposal is good for City. He also stated that more information should have been communicated to the Planning Commission, including C. Kirk’s comments from the General Plan.
• C. Wright stated that she is concerned that the project has never been put out to bid. Mayor McGee responded that by acting through the newly formed development agency, the bid process is no longer required. C. Wright stated that the reception center design seems to be old world French and was concerned about design continuity with the homes in the neighborhood. She understood that the Commercial Design Guidelines applied to all commercial zones in the City. C. Richardson explained that the Design Guidelines apply specifically applies to the SC-1 zone. It doesn’t necessarily apply to future commercial zones.
• C. Bowman asked whether the project could be put out to bid in more than one way—as it is currently proposed and as a residential project with no reception center. Konrad Hildebrandt said it could. C. Bowman would like to see a separate entrance to the reception center and a wall/fence separating it from the residential neighborhood.
• C. Richardson stated that after hearing the Planning Commission’s recommendations, he is not sure creating a Canyon Commercial zone is the best approach. He said the premises occupation ordinance may be a better way because the intended use is more like a premise occupation than a heavy commercial use. A premises occupation is allowed along Canyon Road. Greg Robinson said that a premises occupation requires that residents live there and no one will be living in the reception center. C. Richardson would like the area zoned in such a way that it shows the intent of light commercial use, more similar to a premises occupation, than heavy commercial use. An overlay may be another approach. There seems to be a disconnect between what the City Council intends with the Canyon Commercial zone and what the Planning Commission considered.
• David Bunker said there is potential for a separate access, but one lot may be lost. He will look into it.
MOTION: C. Perry - To table this item and authorize staff to revise the plan and proceed to submit for review a revised plan to the Planning Commission and communicate the discussion concerns to the Planning Commission for their review. Seconded by C. Bowman.
• C. Richardson stated that a specific list of City Council concerns was given in the last meeting. He asked staff what more they want from the City Council. Greg Robinson said that he would like ideas and feedback from the City Council members within the next two days and asked the Council to communicate their goals for the development to the Planning Commission.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
12. Review/Action on Board/Committee Appointments - Planning Commission, Parks and Trails Committee, and Board of Adjustment (8:31 p.m.)
See handouts. Mayor McGee recommended appointing Melissa Willie to the Parks and Trails Committee. He could not contact the other applicant because the phone number was not listed.
MOTION C. Bowman - To affirm Mayor McGee’s appointment of Melissa Willie to the Parks and Trails Committee. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
C. Richardson stated that he was under the impression that the City was going to do away with the Board of Adjustment and create an appeal board. Mayor McGee said that there was talk of making the City Council the appeal board, but it was decided that it would be difficult to have someone appeal a City Council decision with the City Council acting as the appeal body. Kim Holindrake stated that state law requires an appeal body but cities can maintain that body as the Board of Adjustment. Greg Robinson pointed out that having a separate appeal body ensures separation of powers. For the same reason the legislative body and judicial body are separate. C. Perry said that the Council would be the best appeal body because they know the legislative intent. C. Perry would like to revisit the discussion of having the City Council act as the appeal body. Mayor McGee recommended appointing Thomas Troxel and Norman Walker to the Board of Adjustment.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To affirm Mayor McGee’s appointments of Tom Troxel and Norman Walker to the Board of Adjustment and direct staff to make any updates to the Board of Adjustment bylaws to ensure that it is in full compliance with the Land Use Development and Management Act of the State of Utah and put on the next agenda to assign a City Council representative to the Board of Adjustment. Seconded by C. Wright.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review/Action on Vacation and Re-Subdivision of Juniper Heights, Plat D, Lots 1 and 2 (Cottonwood Hills Estates) (8:47 p.m.)
See handouts. Greg Robinson stated that the City needs to vacate the previous plat as part of the approval process for Cottonwood Hills Subdivision. There needs to be a finding that by vacating this subdivision there is no adverse effects to any landowners.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance 1-22-2008A, an Ordinance Ordering the Vacation of a Portion of Juniper Heights, Plat D, of the City of Cedar Hills. Seconded by C. Kirk. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To take a break until 9:00 p.m. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
Reconvened at 9:03 p.m. C. Bowman excused.
9. Review/Action on a Contract for a Telecommunication Transmitter Located at the Golf Course Clubhouse (9:03 p.m.)
See handouts. Justin Burke and Dave Crim of Rapidwave stated they would like to construct a tower on the golf course clubhouse site to provide high speed internet to residents of Cedar Hills. Rapidwave has about 20 wireless customers in the City. Over the past year they have turned down about 60 customers in Cedar Hills because without a closer tower they would be unable to provide adequate service. The tower would potentially service 200 customers. The proposed tower would be 40 feet high and about 1.5 feet in diameter. They would be willing to provide free internet to the clubhouse and the city building. They would not be able to locate on the existing tower because of different frequencies. They do not rent space to other providers. Mayor McGee stated that there will be opposition to a tower on the golf course. He suggested a tower on the water tanks above Sage Vista or the lower Water tank.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that the clubhouse is a double-wide trailer and at some point will be rebuilt. The contract has no provision for what happens to the tower during the construction of a clubhouse. Rapidwave does not want to construct a tower that will need to be moved in the near future. They would like to collaborate as much as possible with the placement of the tower so it fits in with a new clubhouse. C. Perry also stated that he feels the proposed $100 per month lease is low. Cell phone providers have offered much more.
• C. Richardson stated that the existing telecommunications ordinance is specific on location and design. The proposal doesn’t meet the requirements of the ordinance, for instance the ordinance does not allow lattice towers.
C. Bowman returned. (9:36 p.m.)
• C. Bowman stated that she does not like the proposed location, but is open to other suggestions.
MOTION: C Kirk - To table the Rapidwave contract subject to a site inspection by the representatives and the City Engineer at an alternate site other than requested at this time. Seconded by Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
10. Review/Action on Park Maintenance Agreement (9:42 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that he made the requested changes to the park maintenance contract, including reducing the terms to four years and adding an hourly man hour rate of $35 per hour, which does not include equipment.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he does not see the per acre rate when new parks come on line.
MOTION: C. Bowman - To approve the Park Maintenance Contract with Wilkinson Outdoor Maintenance for the annual amount of $67,724.00. The duration of the contract will be for a period of four years from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2011, with an annual increase of 2% and subject to the per acre rate as additional parks are brought on line. Seconded by C. Wright.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
11. Review/Action on Hiring a Full-Time Deputy City Recorder (9:50 p.m.)
See handouts. Kim Holindrake stated that this item is a request for a full-time Deputy City Recorder. It has been very difficult keeping up with the workload. Gretchen left because she couldn’t deal with the stress of the workload. Gretchen took the executive assistant position in the Public Works Department. Kim Holindrake feels a full time employee is needed. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that a lot of functions are required of the Recorder’s Office. As a small city, every department wears many hats. His recommendation is to maintain the part-time Deputy City Recorder but remove some of the responsibilities that do not relate to the Recorder’s Office.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he feels strongly that it is Konrad Hildebrandt’s job is to allocate resources and manage personnel and to come to the City Council for approval. He knows every member of the staff and their responsibilities and work load. The City Council does not and should not do Konrad’s job. He also requested to see a higher level of service on imaging documents.
• C. Bowman stated that she would like to see the budget and costs of a full-time employee versus job sharing for the executive assistant position. She suggested that some of the extra responsibilities be done by interns.
• C. Kirk stated that from his experience when a company grows, there is more work to do. In the past eight years the city has grown from 3,000 residents to 9,000 residents while staffing in the Recorder’s Office stayed the same. With more residents, there is an increased amount of work.
• C. Wright stated that she feels that if the deputy recorder is part-time with the same responsibilities, the City Council needs to be more forgiving and less demanding of the Recorder’s Office.
• C. Richardson stated that he has tremendous respect for what Kim and Gretchen do. Whenever you make budgetary decisions outside of the budget, you lose track of priorities. He would prefer to see staffing stay the same for now and revisit the issue during budget season.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To continue this item until budget season and include this item in the budget discussion. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
13. Review/Action on Appointment and Swearing in of City Treasurer and City Recorder; and Appointment of Finance Director/City Accountant, Community Services Director, Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator, and City Engineer/Public Works Director (10:31 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that state code requires that the mayor appoint a qualified person to the offices of City Recorder and City Treasurer. The City Manager appoints a Finance Director/City Accountant, City Engineer/Public Works Director, Community Services Director and Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator. The following appointments were made to staff.
Finance Director/City Accountant: Rachel Brown
City Engineer/Public Works Director: David Bunker
Community Services Director: Ashley Vogelsberg
Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator: Brad Kearl
City Recorder: Kim Holindrake
City Treasurer: Konrad Hildebrandt
MOTION: C. Wright - To approve the recommended staff appointments. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
Kim Holindrake was sworn in as City Recorder. Konrad Hildebrandt was sworn in as City Treasurer.
14. Review/Action on Employment Contract with City Engineer/Public Works Director (10:35 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that this is a contract for the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Staff recommends that the City Council by motion designate the mayor to enter into a contract with David Bunker.
MOTION: C. Perry - To authorize the mayor to enter into a contract with the City Engineer/Public Works Director as stipulated. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
15. City Manager Report and Discussion (10:37 p.m.)
• Second quarter financials are in the packets. Any questions can be addressed to staff. Building revenue is low. C. Perry said he appreciated the background and findings section. He would like even more detail and an analysis of what the financials mean in terms of cash flow. C. Richardson would like an agenda item to discuss the financials, and he would like a digital version of the financials. Mayor McGee requested that the financials be placed on the next work session agenda.
• Dan Avila from UDOT has arranged an opportunity for interested people in the City to look at the SR-92 proposed plan at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 30 at the City building. They can have up to six people in the van.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
16. Board and Committee Reports
• C. Perry: Youth City Council talked about its upcoming plans and met the new Community Services Director.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
17. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (10:52 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Perry - To go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 to discuss character/competence and/or pending litigation and /or purchase or sale of property. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *
18. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting (11:13 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Kirk
C. Perry
C. Richardson
C. Wright Motion passes.
ADJOURNMENT
19. Adjourn
This meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. on a motion by C. Bowman, seconded by C. Kirk, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
February 5, 2008