Tuesday, December 1, 2015

City Council Meeting - December 1, 2015

Work Session

Utah Lake Commission Presentation
Eric Ellis presented. Commission was put together to promote the lake as a resource to Utah County residents. A lot has been done to rejuvenation the image and water quality of the lake. They are working on trail development. Murdock Trail connects to the lake, and they are working to connect to Jordan River Trail. Will go through Saratoga Springs trail system as well. Would like to have a trail going around the lake, which is a 75-mile loop. Working to expand and improve marinas around the lake. Utah State gave them $500,000 last year for improvements. American Fork Marina is popular and was approved for a grant to reconfigure some of the loading areas. Will also add a recreation area and beach area. They do field trips at the lake to raise public awareness. They have fourth grade field trips twice a year. They get more applicants than they have space for. They want to put together a nature resource center. They are moving ahead with a site analysis to get an idea of what it would cost. Shoreline has been treated to remove plants that clog up the pumps and area. Also improving beaches and access, as well as adding amenities. Continue to do clean-up projects around the lake. Would like each city to have a representative on the committees so that cities are represented as regulations are discussed and made. There will be a governing board and a technical committee. Technical committee would be a representative from the public works department. Governing board representative would be an elected official. Looking for a contribution of $1500/year from Cedar Hills in order to participate on these committees.

Discussion on Swimming Pool Feasibility Study
Main engineering company that does city pools in Utah is Water Design Inc. Staff reached out to them for information. Debt is about 20-30 years. Here is an idea of the costs associated with a basic pool:



Because it is a public pool, we are required to have certain buildings, such as separate restrooms, facilities for life guards, etc. City pools are struggling because of deals residents can get from private entities, such as Seven Peaks. Annual operational subsidy nearby cities:

  • Pleasant Grove - $175,542
  • Lindon - $217,735
  • Lehi - $111,102
  • Payson - $85,097
  • Orem - $81,084

Average cost to each household to cover debt would be $167-$250/year per. Resident admission cost would range fro $2.50-$4.00. A pool like Lindon would be closer to $10-$11 million, which would increase the annual per household cost even more. Indoor pools are twice as expensive as outdoor only pools. Existing city property available for a pool would include St. Andrews estates (though we would need to install golf nets to protect pool users), Mesquite Park, and the city's 9 acres in the commercial area.

Alternative to building a pool include offering a swimming pool reimbursement for residents who purchase passes to pools in other cities. CM Zappala asked that we discuss with the mayors from Alpine and Highland with a specific proposal to see if they may be interested in again discussing a joint venture between the three cities. Mayor Gygi will arrange this.

Discussion on Library Feasibility Study
Same issues as pool with regards to available locations. There has been some discussions of using basement of the Community Center for a library. Some of the associated costs for nearby libraries:

  • PG has three FT employees (estimated $70,000 per FTE), 27 PT employees (estimated $12,000 per PTE) and many community volunteers.
  • Facility maintenance - janitorial services based on square footage and types of rooms; repairs and replacement of equipment
  • Utilities (currently community services portion of Vista Room is $24,000/year)
  • Purchasing new items and initial collection (PG has approximately 85,000 items including books, audio, and DVD's)
  • Collection maintenance (repair damaged books, supplies, staffing)
  • Programming (various online and onsite programming, children's events, etc)
Highland has levied a specific library tax for their residents that just goes towards the library. Their space is about three times the size of the basement of our Community Center. This will need further discussion.


Council Meeting

Public Comments
Nobody signed up.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD board is meeting this month and will review the budget.

CM Rees - State of the City was sent to residents last week.

CM Crawley - Received a bill from Eric Johnson for work done with Golf Course Committee. He is opposed to paying that bill. He said he was told that Eric was there as a favor to Mayor Gygi. When he asked an attorney to come present to the Council over a year ago we didn't pay that attorney and wouldn't let him present. Feels Eric should have corrected the committee about liabilities that he knew were inaccurate. Said if Eric was representing the city he would have course corrected the committee. Feels this invoice should not be paid.

Review/Action Setting Meeting Dates for 2016
The dates for 2016 were approved. These will be posted to the city's website. For the most part, they will continue to be the first and third Tuesdays of every month.

Review/Action on Resolution Supporting Local Law Enforcement
A similar resolution was passed by Lone Peak Public Safety and other cities and organizations are also considering. The resolution recognizes the role public safety agencies and officers play in keeping communities safe, recognizes that some officers have been targeted simply because of their profession, and resolves that the City Council stands with the officers serving our community. This resolution was approved.

Discussion on Temporary Zoning Ordinance and Completion of General Plan & Design Guidelines
When the City Council enacted a temporary zoning ordinance in November, a six month time period began where the city has to update the General Plan, Design Guidelines, and City Code before the moratorium on development applications ends. These changes are to address the concerns that effect the "countervailing public interest". Because of the enormity of the task and limited time to complete, staff is requesting that the Council issue an RFP to hire a qualified firm to assist with this process. Kirton McConkie will also be involved. The proposed timeline is as follows:

CM Zappala asked if we could just focus on land use in the General Plan in order to eliminate the need for outside help or at least keep costs low. I asked if Kirton McConkie could handle this as part of our monthly retainer with them. Chandler assumes it will cost $10k-$15k per item above to hire an outside firm. David Shaw (our attorney) said Kirton McConkie can help with the writing of code to comply with state law. CM Zappala stated the Council needs to spend a considerable amount of time in January coming up with specifics in order to save the cost of the consultant. He volunteered to be a part of this effort and I offered to help as well. We need to schedule a few special meetings in January as public hearings to get feedback on the updates needed.


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

City Council Meeting - November 17, 2015

Public Comment
Julie Sessions - Thanks the Council for all the time spent on city business. Asks us to consider the General Plan and Design Guidelines when voting on Rosegate. Primary use of that zone is for commercial business. Intended to be a harmonious group of shops. Provides for commercial and retail uses within the community and provides residents with employment opportunities, retail goods, and office space. Should directly benefit the residents of the community. Supposed to be less intense than neighborhood retail. City values tranquil environment and want to keep small town atmosphere. If building goes in place, won't allow her kids in the area by themselves. Council doesn't represent Blu Line, but to represent the community. We should uphold the guidelines. Don't be bullied into making a poor decision that could potentially harm our city. Would donate towards lawsuit and would ask for her brother's (attorney) advice on our behalf.

Consent Agenda
The minutes from the October 20.2015 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports
David Bunker - BYU basketball city night is January 30th and discount tickets are available. Jr. Jazz signups continue through end of the month. Games begin in January. Ski bus signups are also happening now. Story time is happening tomorrow morning. City puts out a weekly update, so if anyone wants the emails, contact the city office.

CM Rees - Planning Commission met and finalized their recommendations for changes to the Design Guidelines. This will now come to the City Council for discussion and review.

Mayor Gygi - Finance Committee meeting but no proposed changes to budget.

CM Augustus - General Plan was supposed to meet Friday but was postponed as no quorum present.

Review/Action on Canvass of 2015 Election
Utah County has completed the canvass of election, including counting all ballots received. The end results were as follows:

Jenney Rees - 1275
Mike Geddes - 1098
Ben Bailey - 1074
Angela Johnson - 1052
Paul Sorensen - 704
Brian Miller - 196

Percentages of turnout:
CH01 50.95%, 404 votes cast
CH02 40.66%, 407 votes cast
CH03 32.43%, 397 votes cast
CH04 40.00%, 466 votes cast
CH05 33.77%, 336 votes cast

Review/Action on Preliminary Plans for Rosegate
Bruce Baird - Attorney for Rosegate developer. Process tonight is somewhat unusual. Usually there is a staff report and staff presentation, and staff will list issues, if there are any. Staff report doesn't list any issues. Feels pity for staff because they are in the middle of a heated issue. Has only commendation for staff actions. They would have responded to issues brought up in staff report, but there were none. Received 4-1 recommendation from Planning Commission that they were in compliance. Has asked how the application is not in compliant with city code. Received a traffic report from the city last night. This is a conditional use permit, and under law it must be evaluated on administrative basis. This isn't legislative. City is saddled with horribly written city code. Has seen this with other cities. Highland recently had to allow development the PC turned down in order to comply with the law. Says we took oath to comply with law and the law is clear. They have never been told with how they don't comply with conditional uses. There is clear Utah case law that you don't look to policy of statute, but the words of the code. City code doesn't list permitted uses, which isn't legal. Conditional uses are strange. Whoever wrote the code didn't do a good job and now the city is facing this issue because of it. City Council already voted that congregate care is substantially similar to assisted living. Now can only determine that there are conditions to apply to remedy any concerns. They have never heard of any.

Corey Shupe - Designer for Blu Line Designs. Gave a history of process. In 2013 they made an application for congregate care. At that time, the city asked them to consider designing this property as well as the city-owned nine acres. They've heard a lot that they did a bait and switch, which is frustrating to them. They were asked what could possibly be done with the entire commercial area. One concept included a movie theater and restaurants, as well as splash pad. They designed it and laid it out, even though that property was not under their control. A petition went out day before their last presentation but feels all points were wrong and misleading. Sure resident meant well, but all items were not factual. Amsource property was approved but street is needed that is currently on Smart property. They are at their current configuration with the congregate care building in the mixed use office/retail zone. Commercial buildings proposed are in neighborhood retail. Outcry from the public has been based on false information. They asked the City Council to table the item when it first came before the Council for approval of preliminary plans. Felt that congregate care label was causing issue, so in October 2014 they made an application for assisted living, which is approved. The Planning Commission and other residents asked them to reconsider congregate care. Developer was willing to do so. Scheduled two meetings, one with PC and one with CC to reconsider congregate care. Wanted a finding of fact from the City Council that congregate care is substantially the same as assisted living. Received that finding of fact in December 2014. They provided their definition to the Council of what congregate care is. City does not have a definition for congregate care. Had they not received this finding of fact, they would have moved forward with assisted living. They proceeded forward with congregate care. Building presented overlapped into the neighborhood retail. Asked for another finding of fact that this building could overlap into neighborhood retail. Received no response from the city. In June he sent a letter asking again for a finding of fact from the City Council. Received no response. Decided to not overlap into neighborhood retail as assisted living is not allowed in that zone. Met with PC, who had issues with the layout of the green space. Agreed to meet offline with members of the PC and two member of the City Council. Had one combined meeting with group, which also included staff, then more design to come up with current configuration. There are a number of options for their commercial buildings to support their congregate care facility. Developer showed computer generated images of what the area could look like with their current proposal. Claim that it is too intense is false. Charleston has 33 units per acre. Rosegate runs between 33-34 units per acre. Code says they should be more intense than the Charleston. Won't design commercial buildings until they have tenants. He is familiar with city code. If anyone says they don't comply, it's because they are reading the wrong sections. They meet 100% of the code requirements. Hope City Council can come to the same conclusion.

Ryan Hales - With Hales Engineering. Was asked by developer to look at parking for project. Completed a study in February 2015. Knew it would be assisted living or congregate care facility. Review ITE Trip Generation Manual, which gives trip generation for various types of facilities. Project has some bleed over between senior adult living and congregate care facility. Went forward based on information received from developer on type of land use. Tried their best to determine type of land use for proposal and based recommendation on that. City hired a different company to review parking and trip generation, which came to different conclusion. Feels he knows the manuals well. Looked at similar facilities and none of them having parking issues. Senior adult housing needs 0.59 stalls per unit, congregate care needs 0.41 stalls per unit, continuing senior living needs 1.3 stalls per unit. Feels this is more between senior adult housing and congregate care and recommends 1 stall per unit.

Doug Young - Doug is the developer. Met with Horrocks Engineering who said they would support the engineering study done by Hales.

Bruce Baird - Attorney presented again. City's parking study is invalid as it doesn't address that this facility is congregate care. Put together a very brief legal analysis and gave the handout to the Council. Addresses standards for conditional uses. Says standard is simple and says conditional uses shall be allowed if conditions can be applied to mitigate issues. Says they have never been told of any detrimental effects of the proposed use. There are no standards for any of the conditional uses in the city code. By definition, parking cannot be a basis for turning it down or reclassifying it the facility.

Public Comment:
Darin Lowder - Thanked Trent for his years of service. Thanked Council for Christmas lights in roundabout. Says developer didn't do a bait and switch because we never saw switch. Said if they brought it down to 100-150 units, we would want this. We are thrilled with another assisted living and love the Smarts and their right to to something on their land. But this is nothing like the Charleston. Guess we are headed to court. We don't want to ignore our guidelines. Wished the PC wouldn't have let it get to this point. We aren't done, It's not about wanting one thing instead of another, it's about the number of units. 300 in this town doesn't pass reasonableness. There is no way the intent was to put 10% of the population on this property. Will find out at the end of the day who wins on technicalities.d

Angela Johnson - Agrees with Darin.

Marisa Wright - This is a hard decision. No matter what is decided, people are going to be mad. If you approve, approve with conditions, don't approve, people will be mad. This is a hard spot and one of the hardest decisions to make as a Council. Thanks Council for being in this seat. Knows Council has done due diligence and spoken with many attorneys. Know all want what is best for Cedar Hills.

Loyal Hulme - Attorney for Cedar Hills. Clarified two points. This meeting and decision is required by state law because applicant filed motion with state to require decision tonight. We are simply responding as quickly as we can to demand made by applicant. We intended to take a little more time, but applicant is pushing for decision tonight. Second, because of tight timeframe Horrocks had to do parking report, questions came up today. He reached out to Horrocks to get responses and provided those to the developer's legal counsel. Parking is one way assisted living and congregate care are not similar as those living in congregate care facility will be more active, as stated by the developer.

Bruce Baird - Asked when the Horrocks study was ordered. PC vote was in September. If parking was truly an issue, then one would assume staff and PC would have brought it up before PC meeting. Feels it is not due process to ambush someone with studies the night before the meeting then try to blame them for invoking state law. State law says you can't arbitrarily cut density without having some detrimental impact. Just because town wants a certain type of community doesn't mean they can deny projects. No matter what Council does tonight, will make some enemies. Asks that Council complies with the law.

Current proposal is for a 291 unit congregate care facility located on 8.5 acres of SC-1 Commercial Zone, Mixed-Use Office/Retail Sub-District. The proposed height of the congregate care facility is approximately 29 ft to the midpoint of rake of the roof, and 34 ft to the peak. The facility includes 294 parking stalls, and is 120,032 SF in size. The proposed development includes three retail/office buildings totaling 9,460 SF in size which are located in the Neighborhood Retail Sub-District.

Mayor indicated there are three choices. Can approve as is, deny, or approve with conditions.

CM Geddes - Been involved from beginning when he served on the PC. Voted for finding of fact. When this was discussed, we took Blu Line's request even though we didn't legally have to do so. Blu Line has done good job of listening and making changes. They made changes they wanted to make and only hear what they want to hear. Staff recommendations are only that, same with PC. Our code has ambiguities. He has liked some aspects of the project. In some ways it makes sense. What has been ignored is intensity and density. We did not agree to developer's definition, even though it was read. Other definitions were also read. Thanks PC and staff for work done. PC did raise some questions, traffic being one of them. It's fine for city to have reports submitted by developer to be peer reviewed by others in the industry. There are some good things about project. More tax would come to city from this facility than some commercial options. There are a lot of negatives for the city, with intensity being one of them.

CM Augustus - Whatever development occurs will outlast us all, so will have long lasting impact beyond any of us. We have to take info we have, even with ambiguous code, and try to make best we can of it for those living here. Blu Line has been great going through this process. This nothing personal.

CM Crawley - Big proponent of individual rights and private property. Feels cities have right to zone. This zone is meant for commercial and mixed use. Sees we are considering high density residential for this area. We did not say Rosegate was same as assisted living, but that congregate care is substantially the same as assisted living. Doesn't appear that this is substantially the same as assisted living. Our code is not intended for high density residential.

CM Rees - I feel it is disingenuous for developer to claim they've been ambushed as they have appeared 10 times before this Council, at the request of the developer, eight of those times being a discussion item requested by the developer to ask for feedback. Each time we have given feedback and listed concerned, which have been ignored. In the meeting where the developer asked for a finding of fact, there were several questions asked that Mr. Shupe stated he did not have answers for. While I voted against the finding of fact, I agree that the Council did not vote that Rosegate was substantially the same, but that congregate care could be considered the same. I don't believe this developer has proven that their proposed facility is substantially the same assisted living, based upon the information they have provided.

CM Zappala - Created a 12-page document outlining his concerns. Highlights from that document:

  • Intent of commercial zone states "shall be characterized by a harmonious grouping of commercial stores and shops and essential ancillary uses architecturally designed and functioning as an integrated unit. 
  • Size, scale, and density of the development. Code says primary objective is to make it compatible with surrounding residential developments. When Charleston was approved as part of Lexington Heights, it was approved as entire development, which is on 4.5 acres. Density was given to Charleston in return for no density in office spaces. 65 units were approved over 4.5 acres and this was the proposal approved, which is 14.4 units per acre. This facility is nearly twice the density per acre. If we make it similar density over 11.4 acres is 165 units. This makes it similar to density given to Charleston.
  • Intensity of development. Code says this subzone shall be less intense than neighborhood retail and we can restrict use to get this lower intensity. Looked at traffic study provided by Rosegate, which estimates 1002 daily trips for their facility. Two commercial buildings they propose show 710 and 820 daily trips. Clearly their own studies show their facility is more intense than the commercial they propose for neighborhood retail zone. Lexington Heights has an intensity of 186, Charleston has 178, this proposal is 1002. Code requires it to be less intense. Would argue the intensity should be between what is occurring in office zone and neighborhood retail zone. 
  • Burden of proof is on applicant to show that use is substantially similar to assisted living. He contacted Treoo, a congregate care facility in Orem, and found out they provide meals twice a day, which is included in rent; they have a physical therapist onsite; they have a home health care agency onsite five days a week to help with medication and other medical needs. Would expect a certain level of services for a facility of this nature. Council gave clear feedback in December 2014 that what was presented was more like residential than assisted living. 
  • Parking study performed substantiates that this facility is short parking stalls as 1.3 to 1.4 stalls is needed for this type of facility. Clearly, the residents living in this facility will be active. There is not regular public transportation in our city and residents in this facility will need to rely on vehicles.
  • Landscaping and open space standards have not been met. Code states landscape shall create park-like atmosphere and should be open to pedestrians. This is not the case with this proposal.
  • The phasing of this development is concerning. Developer himself has said he will not build commercial until he has tenants, and in previous meetings has publicly stated that even if he gave retailers a million dollars they wouldn't come here. No assurance that developer will ever build the commercial buildings.
  • Public safety impacts will be great. Currently, 5% of EMS calls for city go to the Charleston. This facility will increase demand on those services.
  • Concerned that 55+ will not be met in all unit, and would like to require that 100% of units have at least one resident living there who is at least 55.
  • Lighting and privacy for homes to the south is a concern. Would like conditions placed that will mitigate these issues.
Zappala feels we could either deny or require certain conditions to mitigate the impacts addressed. Went through his proposed conditions:
  1. Residential aspect not constitute more than 50% of the development.
  2. Building should be broken up into two or three separate buildings.
  3. Commercial should generate significant onsite sales for buildings adjacent to Cedar Hills Drive.
  4. No more than 100 residential units.
  5. Must include on-site services for residents or the living aspects should be ancillary to commercial uses. 
  6. Include 1.4 parking stalls per resident unit.
  7. No overnight parking of recreational vehicles.
  8. Landscaping and open areas shall create park-like atmosphere with linked pedestrian corridors to promote pedestrian activity. 
  9. Entire development be constructed in phases that include both commercial and residential development.
  10. Rosegate facility be reduced in scale, size and intensity to mitigate impact on public safety.
  11. Each unit shall be occupied by at least one resident that is 55+.
  12. Lights in parking areas will be mounted low to the ground on bollards, rather than light poles.
  13. Landscaping border on southern edge shall be 25' instead of 15' and trees on southern border shall be evergreen.
  14. All approvals of conditions must be made by PC and City Council.
  15. Conditions must be included in CC&R's recorded with property.
Crawley asked if there would be a central dining area for residents. Mr. Shupe said yes. Again read his definition given in December 2014. Mr. Baird says any ambiguity should be read in favor of the property owner. Ryan said there is a cafe that is for residents only, but is not imposed on residents. It is optional for residents. Cafe is operated by third party company. Crawley said assisted living provides three meals each day as part of monthly fee. Second question Crawley had was if medical services are onsite and available at all times. Mr. Baird said they will be substantially similar to assisted living but will be provided as needed a la carte by outsourced organization. Crawley asked if there are places for gatherings. Mr. Baird said yes, there is a room. 

Geddes said he's done some research on assisted living. He has a brother who owns several. If everything is a la carte, is Rosegate licensed by the state. Third party providers are licensed by the state. State of Utah requires assisted living to be licensed by the state. Mr. Baird said this doesn't change use of building. 

From my perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to give the same level of density to Rosegate as the Charleston as, by the developers own admission, these two facilities are nothing alike. Developer has said that these residents will be engaged in the community, whereas assisted living residents are bedridden. Therefore, it is safe to assume intensity of these residents will be greater than the Charleston simply by the type of resident. I also feel we should be specific as to what the Council means by onsite. Sandy City gives specific examples as to what services are offered to residents by the management of the facility and what support services are outsourced to outside agencies. Simply stating you can have cleaning, medical, recreational, etc. services available if requested does not make this substantially the same as assisted living. Any person can order these services for their home and it does not qualify their home for a congregate care definition. However, based on parking studies, traffic studies, and density already granted in the area, I think it makes sense to approve with conditions to mitigate concerns, with density of 165 granted and the other conditions outlined by CM Zappala.

Zappala says if we look at intensity of traffic, it makes sense to allow 103 units. If we look at density granted to Charleston, it makes sense to allow 165. Traffic study for 165 units would put impact at same as impact of Dollar Tree, which is in the neighborhood retail. 

CM Crawley feels like Zappala's conditions resolve many concerns raised. Augustus agrees. Augustus said no matter what we do, someone is going to be upset. Asks for everyone to be nice, we are doing the best we can. 

CM Zappala made motion to approve with conditions. Read through the conditions provided in his letter (and I will ask him to post the entire letter to his blog so everyone can read it). Conditions include items listed above in 1-15 but with density of 165 units, not allowing anyone younger than 25 to live in the facility, and requiring the owner of the building to return the property to its current state if conditions cannot be met in the future so we don't have a large empty building on the lot. This was approved 5-0.

Developer has stated they will appeal to Board of Adjustment.


Review/Action on a Moratorium to Address Possible Changes to SC-1 Zone
This action places a hold on any new applications for development for the next six months in order to finish reviewing possible changes to the Design Guidelines and General Plan, as was started over a year ago. From the resolution:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Utah Code §10-9a-504(1) and §10-9a-509(1)(a)(ii), the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills (the “City Council” and “City” respectively) has determined it is in the best interests of the city to undertake amendment of Cedar Hills Municipal Code (“CHMC”) §10-4E-1 et. seq. pertaining to the SC-1 Shopping Center Zone (“SC-1 Zone” or “SC-1 Zone Ordinance”), the Town of Cedar Hills General Plan (“General Plan”), Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development, including, but not limited to, sections related to the Neighborhood Retail, Mixed-Use Office/Retail, and Mixed-Use Office sub-districts (collectively, the “Design Guidelines”), and/or any related ordinances that pertain to development in the SC-1 Zone.    WHEREAS, the City has limited property available for development in the SC-1 Zone and the City desires to reassess commercial development in the SC-1 Zone in accordance with the development goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan.   WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the SC-1 Zone Ordinance, General Plan, Design Guidelines and/or other related ordinances in order to accomplish the goals of the SC-1 Zone such as allowing the community to better balance the tax base, providing residents with employment opportunities, retail goods, and office space, and fostering safe and adequate access for public enjoyment of planned commercial development projects in the City.  WHEREAS, the City finds there is a compelling, countervailing public interest in enacting a temporary land use regulation with respect to the SC-1 Zone and that amending the SC-1 Zone Ordinance, General Plan, and Design Guidelines is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.   WHEREAS, the City desires to provide notice to the public that it intends amend the SC1 Zone Ordinance, other related ordinances, the General Plan, and/or the Design Guidelines.

This was approved.

Review/Action on the Release of Durability for the Woodis Subdivision
A final walkthrough of the Woodis Subdivision has been conducted. City staff conducted an inspection and at this time all improvements have been installed per development regulations and agreements. Amount is around $6000. This was approved.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Golf Course Committee Townhall - October 28, 2015

The chair (Rick Stewart) started the meeting by reading bios for each of the committee members. Committee members have diverse backgrounds and many have been owners of companies and/or worked in executive level positions.

Purpose of the committee in 2012 was to shed light on financial issues surrounding the golf course. There has been some controversy over the years over how money was spent. They spent a considerable amount of time going through the numbers and presented their findings to residents. Feels that was successful.

This time around the committee was to look at an alternative to the golf course that was presented by Rob Crawley. Spent a lot of time reviewing the option presented to determine if it was viable and preferable to running the golf course.

Mark Webb went over the financial review presented in 2012 and discussed what was researched this time around. Here is the info from his PowerPoint presentation (and I apologize some are blurry):














Option B wants to create additional parks. Comparison shows there is not a savings for converting to parks. High likelihood that parks would be more expensive to maintain.



Question was asked if golf course was causing a significant burden on residents. Looked at property tax table in the State of the City from last year, which shows our property tax burden is about average for Utah County. We are the lowest of those with median income similar to Cedar Hills. Determined the golf course was not an excessive burden on the city.



This shows history of the golf course debt:



Revenues from the rental of the Vista Room and Community Center are not included in the golf financials. Those are shown in a separate fund, but the city is making a profit from Vista Room rentals.

David Driggs discussed the final report put together by the committee. They met with the city's legal counsel and staff and continued research until everyone on the committee felt they had discussed everything that needed to be discussed. David started working on the report at the end of September. The report includes legal analysis from counsel, Rob Crawley's proposal for closing the golf course, and the committee's findings and votes. Unfortunately, the public comment given at each meeting is not included but can be found in the audio files from each meeting, which are available on the city's website. 

Committee voted on these questions:

  1. Do you believe Rob Crawley's Option B solution as outlined in this report is a viable plan? 7 said no, 3 said yes. 
  2. Do you recommend Rob Crawley's Option B proposal be adopted by the city council? All 10 said no.
  3. Do you believe the current economic status of the golf course is sustainable? All 10 said yes.
  4. Do you believe that, for now, barring any significant change in economic status, the best course of action for the city council is to fully support and promote the golf course and make reasonable efforts to improve its financial viability going forward? All 10 said yes.
  5. As a member of the Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee do you feel you have been given enough time and opportunity to fully express your point of view, share your facts and express your opinions? All 10 said yes.
  6. Even though you may agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of this committee, do you believe that our treatment of the issues has been completely transparent, that there has been no effort to deceive in the presentation of the financial and legal information, and that nothing we know of has been hidden or kept from the public? All 10 said yes.
Here are the recommendations from the committee:






Those who spoke during public comment all expressed appreciation for the work done and supported the findings of the committee. 

Remarks from the committee members:

Priscilla Leek - Appreciates opportunity to serve on committee. Feels they were able to learn, understand, and discuss information. She doesn't agree with everything in the recommendation, but wholeheartedly supports the recommendation to support the golf course and that we appreciate it as an asset. Feels citizens should do all we can to make our city successful, and this includes the golf course. It will now go to the Council as they are the representatives elected to make decisions.

Rob Olsen - Appreciates serving on the committee. It's been a thorough process. Appreciates everyone from the community who has been involved throughout this process. Wishes we could get more involvement from throughout the community. It's important for all of us to be involved in the process, and not just for the golf course, but in the general direction of the city.

Brent Aaron - Appreciates being a part of the committee and the integrity of the committee members. Was one of the few dissenting votes on question #1. There are times something might be feasible but doesn't mean that is the path that should be pursued. Wants to give credit to CM Crawley's significant research.

Trent Augustus - Thanked the committee members for their work and their time and effort. There has been a tremendous effort to be diligent and genuine. Nothing was left undone. He used to be the HOA president for the Cedars and has been involved for some time. Wishes more residents attended tonight but thinks most are fine with the status quo.

Rick Stewart - Feels that if the city were in a financial crisis then we would have to look at selling some of our land and making sacrifices. That is not the case. The city has been good with its finances. Per median income, we do pay less compared to other cities like ours. Feels it would be a sad thing to lose nearly 50% of our open space to new construction. Feels we would be sacrificing big things for small things because return to citizens would not have a significant impact. There would not be a significant financial benefit to residents to implementing Option B. Saying we are replacing the golf course with parks is not true as we are selling off big chunks for development and only leaving some portions for parks. The big issue for him is that 25% of our citizens live near the golf course. Those who fight tooth and nail to keep certain things from being built in our commercial zone don't have same cares for what is built on our open space. The only reason to implement Option B is if the city is financially hurting.

Gary Gygi - Thanked Rick Stewart for chairing the committee. He has been told for many years that there are many residents who want to shut down the course. The committee spoke with one voice that we should continue with the course. The residents who came to the meetings and gave public comment said we should keep the golf course. Thanked residents for coming to meetings. When the Council hears from residents, it means a lot.

Mark Webb - Thanked everyone on the committee. They had their battles but reached a good conclusion. The city is great and can be even better but needs a broad vision. The vision to eliminate the golf course to get something else is narrow. There is no reason the golf course has to go away if we need more park space, if that is a problem that needs to be solved. He voted against the golf course many years ago. We find ourselves with a golf course and it's clear the best course of action at this point is to continue with it. Commends city staff for doing excellent job with limited resources. The burden from a tax perspective is very small. 

David Driggs - When he was asked to be on the committee, he believes he was asked because there are many land use issues and he serves on the Planning Commission. Thanked the Council for approving the release of all the legal documents, it shows a willingness to be transparent. One thing that has been said is that this committee is biased. He doesn't golf and isn't biased towards golf. The goal of the committee was to meet until all facts were assessed and discussed. During public comment they were asked to get this out before the election. They barely made it, but now voters can make an informed opinion. There is a lot of information being tossed around. Encourages everyone to read through the report and make an informed decision. Some will continue to say this committee didn't do enough. He feels they did an excellent job. He wasn't biased at the beginning but is biased now against closing the course. This was after reading through the legal analysis and going through the financials. Hopes the community can move forward trying to make the golf course a success. 

Rob Crawley - We all want peace in the city. They made a lot of strides over the past few years. Bad information was given to residents in the beginning so there are residents who are upset with that. The appearance of not being open with the numbers made more angry feelings. There is a group in the city who don't live near the course and doesn't benefit from it. Understands those who live near it will be most impacted, but there are more who don't live near it and don't benefit from it. We need to see the perspective of both sides. Learned a lot about the legal ramifications. He believes there is a viable option. His analysis shows the land in Highland being sold for $50,000/acre and he's been told that is a fair price. All legal opinions we got said this can be done legally. All promises made to residents in the past should be looked at again. Doesn't feel we have a social contract to keep the course open. He doesn't feel the City Council should make a decision to close the course, but that residents should decide through an initiative process or vote. Until that happens he will be a golf course supporter. Feels the report is biased in how it was written and would like to change it, but may do this on his blog. Would like to see the city come together and either accept the golf course or want it to be parks.









Tuesday, October 20, 2015

City Council Meeting - October 20, 2015

Work Session

Discussion on Sewer on 4000 N and 4000 W
We have some PG residents who have asked to boundary adjust into Cedar Hills so they can access our sewer lines. Tonight we are approving an ordinance to allow this, however, PG has not yet had this on their agenda. One concern PG has is how they service the rest of the PG residents in that area. There is a potential that Wedgewood may become an island if more people adjust into Cedar Hills, and this may not be allowed by State law. We need to think about how to handle this for those in that area that don't want to adjust into Cedar Hills. PG is also looking at creating a special improvement district for this area as they don't want residents to leave their city. They will be discussing this on their agenda. Our policy has always been that if a PG resident wants to boundary adjust in order to connect to our services, we have allowed it. We've also had the policy to allow Cedar Hills residents to boundary adjust into PG, if so desired.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing
Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda
Minutes from the September 8, 2015 and September 22, 2015 City Council meetings were approved.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD met and they are still reviewing sewer rates and updating the capital improvement plan. Oct 28th at 7pm the Golf Course Committee will have an open house to discuss their findings and recommendations. Flag football is wrapping up. Jr Jazz registrations are open. Ski bus registration is also open now and limited space is available. YCC Haunted Creek is October 26th at 7pm. Family night at golf course is on Mondays after 2pm, which includes free green fees and $7 cart fee for residents. Weekly updates are going out through Parlant to residents. 

CM Rees - Planning Commission had a special meeting for the Design Guidelines and still plan on being done by the end of the year. SOTC is almost complete. 

Mayor Gygi - LPPSD is meeting this week.

CM Crawley - Golf Course Committee met and this will be discussed tonight.

CM Augustus - PC discussed driveways, signs in public right-of-ways, and density of assisted living facilities within our city.

Review/Action on Creation of Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee
The Golf Course Finance Citizens Advisory Committee has prepared a final report detailing the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding the evaluation of various proposals for the golf course. It is proposed that the committee is constituted with the following members: Rick Stewart, David Driggs, Mark Webb, Pricilla Leek, Rob Olsen, Brent Aaron, Mark Horne, Mayor Gary Gygi, Councilmember Trent Augustus, Councilmember Rob Crawley, staff members David Bunker, Chandler Goodwin, Greg Gordon, and Charl Louw. This was approved.


Review/Action Golf Course Committee Findings and Recommendations
The Golf Course Finance Citizens Advisory Committee has prepared a final report detailing the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding the evaluation of various proposals for the golf course. This recommendation and the complete report will be available on the city's website and will be presented in the October 28th townhall meeting. The following questions were asked and voted on by the committee:

Do you believe Rob Crawley's Option B solution as outlined in this report is a viable plan? 7-3 voted no.

Do you recommend Rob Crawley's Option B proposal be adopted by the City Council? 10-0 voted no.

Do you believe the current economic status of the golf course is sustainable? 10-0 voted yes.

Do you believe that for now, barring any significant change in economic status, the best course of action for the City Council is to fully support and promote the golf course and make reasonable efforts to improve its financial viability going forward? 10-0 voted yes.

As a member of the Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee do you feel you have been given enough time and opportunity to fully express your point of view, share your fact and express your opinions? 10-0 voted yes.

Even though you may agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of this committee do you believe that our treatment of the issues has been completely transparent, that there has been no effort to deceive in the presentation of the financial and legal information and that nothing we know of has been hidden or kept from the public? 10-0 voted yes.

The Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of the committee. Their report will be available online tomorrow.

Review/Action on Adjusting Boundary Between Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills
On September 22, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 09-22-2015A, indicating the intent to boundary adjust the following properties from the municipal jurisdiction of Pleasant Grove City to the City of Cedar Hills:

D. Gordon and Karen Davies
4583 N 900 W, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Chris and Sarah Eagar
4638 N 900 W, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Tarl W. Taylor
365 S 420 E, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Anthony G. and Patricia D. Erickson
754 W 4000 N, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Rick and Debi Meinzer
818 W 4000 N, Pleasant Grove, Utah

In accordance with UCA 10-2-419, a public hearing was held, and in that no protests have been filed with the city recorder, the code requires that the legislative body adopt an ordinance approving the adjustment of the common boundary. This was approved.

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Regarding Driveways
Current City Code does not allow for circular driveways to be built in a side setback. This provision only applies to corner lots. By allowing for circular driveways to be built an additional layer of safety may be added by giving homeowners a second egress option in the case that they live on a busier street. The proposed code requires that a landscaped area of at least 15’ in depth from the front property line to the inside of the drive be placed. Staff will ensure that all clear view areas are maintained in order to be free from obstruction. This was approved. 

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Regarding Signs in Public Right of Way
Staff was instructed to review the code regarding signs in the public right-of-ways. Current city code allows for exemptions to be allowed in the public right of way for free speech purposes and for government uses (i.e. street signs, lights, public safety signs). An additional exemption would be added, allowing for the right-of-way to be used for governmental purposes that are informational in nature (rec events, city events, elections, etc.). The City Council could determine that certain areas and right-of-ways are to remain free from this type of signage. Signage in the right-of-way would be limited in the time that it may be placed prior to and after an event, and certain size requirements would also need to be followed.

The proposed language is as follows:

Exempt Temporary Signage: Temporary signage used for government purposes that is informational in nature, or related to events, elections, recreation, or other city programming may be placed on public property or in the public rights-of-way. Such temporary signage shall be limited to three (3) feet in height, and five (5) feet in length.  Signage may be posted no more than thirty (30) days before the occurrence of an event and shall remain for no more than seven (7) days after the occurrence of an event; and where said signage presentation does not block public rights-of-way, disrupt the peace, incite to violence, or cause any other public disturbance.


I recommended that we change it to allowing the signage no more than 14 days before the event and 3 days after; otherwise, a sign could be up for over a month in a public area. I would also like to see a limitation to no more than one sign at a time in that area, and a required break of 14 days between signs so there isn't a sign in those areas at all times. 

The motion was made to not allow more than 14 days before the event and 1 business day after the event, only one sign in a public right-of-way allowed at a time. It passed 3-2 with CM Zappala and I voting nay. My reason for voting no is that I feel it would have gone a long way for the residents in that area who are opposed to the signs to have some sort of break in between signs so that there wasn't a feeling of a constant advertisement in the roundabout, which has been the main area of concern.  

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Related to Board of Adjustment
Based on staff recommendation and advise received from Meg Ryan, a Land Use attorney for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the proposed ordinance removes 9-1C-1 (C) (1) “Ex Officio Member” from being an appointed member of the board of adjustment. Based on Utah State Code 10-9a-701 (3) (b) the board of adjustment “may not entertain an appeal of a matter in which the appeal authority, or any participating member, had first acted as the land use authority.” By removing the ex officio member from being officially appointed, the board is free from the perception that a participating member may have acted as a land use authority prior to participating in any board of adjustment hearing.


Additionally, the proposed ordinance changes 9-1C-2 (G) and uses the language from Utah State Code on when a decision becomes effective. The prior ordinance made the decision effective at the time of the meeting was held and a decision was made. State code changes that to be when the final decision is reduced to writing. The language is taken from 10-9a-708. This was approved.

Review/Action on Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Utah County for 2015 Election
In response to the concern over the decision made by the Utah County Commissioners to not allow cities that had implemented an all vote-by-mail election to place the County’s Proposition regarding a local sales tax increase on mailed ballots, a meeting was held with representatives of the vote-by-mail cities, county officials, and the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor’s office worked with the county clerk’s office to come up with a proposal for a coordinated County/Municipal November 3rd Election. The proposal allowed the vote-by-mail cities to be able to continue with the vote-by-mail process. The ballots will be a combined City/County ballot. The county would be in charge of administering the election, including the processing and counting of the ballots. The cost of the election will be shared between the county and the individual cities, and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement would be entered into that sets forth in writing the agreement regarding the joint administration of the 2015 General Election. The amount we will need to reimburse the County will be equivalent to what we would have spent if we did this on our own, and the amount we budgeted for. This was approved.

Review/Action on Allowing Food Trucks to Operate in SC-1 Commercial Zone
Genki food truck has made an agreement with Chase Bank to operate their food truck in their parking lot on a biweekly basis. Genki will operate during the lunch hours, and will target Lone Peak High School students for their business. Based on the Development Agreement with Chase Bank, any outdoor sales would require a conditional use permit from the City. Our code stipulates that the Planning Commission is responsible for issuing any CUP; however, the Development Agreement stipulates that the City Council may set parameters based on the size, location, duration and appearance of the outdoor sales area. Currently, the food truck will operate approximately once, every other week. They will set up on the north side of Chase Bank during the LPHS lunch hour. The sales area will only include a food truck and any temporary signage necessary to operate the business.

CM Zappala made a motion to approve with the following conditions: only one truck at a site at a time, temporary signage for the truck, hours of operation 10am-9pm, and that all garbage will be cleaned up. This was approved. I would have preferred that we not limit to one food truck but allow Chase Bank to regulate what made sense for their business and coordinate with the food trucks accordingly. They know better than we do what makes sense for their property with regards to hours of operation and number of trucks allowed at any given time. Food trucks have benefited our community and I dislike making it hard for them to do business here.

Review/Action on Allowing Food Trucks to Operate During Months of October-March at Community Center
Based on the success of the trial food truck rally that began in July of this year in Heritage
Park, there has been a desire expressed to continue the food truck rally through the winter months. Cameron Burr has indicated that he would be willing to waive the exclusivity clause of his agreement with Cedar Hills in order to be able to host this rally at the Community Events Center. The food truck rally would be held on Wednesday nights, and would be coordinated by Cameron Burr, and Tom Karen. The event would run from the end of October to the end of March. Once again, vendors would be responsible for site cleanup and scheduling the participating vendors. The City would generate some point of sale sales tax revenue from the rally. This was approved.

Discussion on Bayhill Park
Following the recommendation of the Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails Committee, the new proposal for Bayhill Park was sent to Bowen Collins to give the city a cost estimate. The Bowen Collins study has come back, and they have provided an updated cost estimate for the original proposal, a cost estimate for the Parks and Trails Committee proposal, and cost estimate of a modified version of the Committee’s proposal. The Committee’s proposal includes the construction of large retaining walls that significantly raised the cost estimate for the construction of the Park. The Bowen Collins proposal took elements of the Committee’s proposal and tried to incorporate those ideas in a more cost effective manner. The Beautification, Recreation, Parks & Trails Committee reviewed the proposals and found that Bowen Collins proposal would serve the needs of the residents by moving the pavilion, altering the play area, and adding a grass play area. The next step is to get final engineering and send it out for a bid.

Discussion on Issues Regarding Golf Course Driving Range
Public Comment - Cookie Hart is building a house to the south of the driving range. Concerned with the amount of golf balls coming over fence onto their property and the park. They knew there would be some, but had no idea the extent. They started collecting golf balls over the past 3-4 weeks and already have almost 200. Concerned for their kids, for those on the sidewalk, and those at the park. Know this won't be a quick fix. Has seen that other courses have extended their nets higher. 

Here is the note from staff:

A resident who is building a home on Cottonwood Drive recently approached the City Council to ask for some help in protecting their home once it has been built due to golf balls that apparently are still being found in their yard. Staff recently met with Mr. Bunker and discussed some different options to help alleviate some of these concerns and brainstorm some ideas. One thing discussed was to limit all golfers to only be able to use irons. This would hopefully prevent the majority of the balls from flying over the fence because an iron will not travel as far as a fairway wood or driver.  We recently posted a note advising our clients that we may be going this direction and so far the feedback has been very negative from them and many of them have explained that they will take their business elsewhere if that is the decision that is made.

Staff also discussed moving the tee boxes from one end to the other. We could have a problem with golfers in the fairway of hole #18 getting hit by an errant shot from the tee box because there are currently no fences on that side. They could also get hit by a golfer that is teeing off on the 18th tee box. This really doesn’t make sense from staff’s perspective.

Another idea is to install new poles again like we did last year; however as we saw last time it will cost the City approximately $38,000 to do 5 more poles and netting, last time this was paid out of the 
Capital Improvements plan. Our revenues for the driving range last year was just over $28,000. One thing to think about is by doing so the City is opening itself up to having other homeowners that border the golf course coming and expecting the Council to do something to protect their homes also. Typically people that live along a golf course know what they are getting themselves into when purchasing a home/land and they will do whatever they have to protect their investment.

CM Geddes said part of the problem is that driving range cannot be seen from the clubhouse. Feels we need some video surveillance. Has heard from residents that they've seen golfers trying to hit balls into the park.

I asked about staffing the driving range, especially if this is being done intentionally.

CM Crawley asked about restricting irons to the areas furthest north.

Staff has been asked to research and provide three things: cost for surveillance and effectiveness if we go this route, cost for staffing driving range, and cost of extending poles for entire driving range. My only concern with the surveillance cameras is we installed one for our sign that has been vandalized and have yet to catch anyone, so I don't want to spend the money if it won't be effective.



Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Council Meeting - September 22, 2015

Public Comment
Julie Sessions - Commenting also for Angela Johnson. Does not support high density in our commercial zone. This facility does not provide commercial. Zone intends for shops and retail uses. This subzone is intended to have less intense uses. Also says Cedar Hills values tranquil small-town environment. Says this is a residential facility and will be taxed accordingly at the lower tax rate. This is not less intent as it has 300 living units. Wants to encourage commercial. Asked that the Council visit the Sandy facility, which is half the units being proposed for Cedar Hills.

Russ Fotheringham - He and his wife are opposed to the development. Doesn't fit guidelines. Ordinance says this should be used for commercial entities. General Plan says this land is meant for retail uses and office space. 300 units does not meet design guidelines, which says to preserve the small town atmosphere. It is an apartment complex, regardless of what developer calls it. The more commercial uses we have, the more it will draw others. Be patient and don't approve something that doesn't meet the zoning, general plan, or design guidelines.

Marshall Shore - Water is a precious resource. Our ancestors were lucky when they moved here and found the water resources. The easy water is gone. Resources we have now have to be stretched and we can't afford to be wasting them. He has reported water violations to the city and doesn't want them to be ignored.

Darin Lowder - Opposed to Rosegate. We've had a wonderful relationship with the landowners. He appreciates the foresight of those who put together a general plan. Things have been changed, but what hasn't changed is the primary objective being commercial and less intense use. This is a residential building with 300 apartments. This was not anticipated. He wants this to be shut down and something else come in its place.

Jason Hart - Building a house on Cottonwood Drive and Mesquite Way. Concerned with the large number of golf balls on his lot and on Mesquite Park. Feels it is a safety issue for his family and those in the parks. Would like to discuss possible solutions to eliminate not all, but many of the golf balls coming over the fence. He loves the golf course and understands the sensitivity. Wants to address the safety issues.

Russ Smart - Owns the land in the commercial area and has been working on this project for 2.5 years. He thought it was going to be shut down. Mayor said he had no problem with the building, just the five stories. There have been several meetings for the residents. He tried to trade his property for the land the city owns, but was told it was horrible property. Also offered to sell it to the city but was told no. He feels he was given a recommendation to move forward.

**On a side note - I've never heard of this land trade or potential to buy. I will find out who had these conversations with the Smart family.

Nanette Stevenson - City has already changed the development by Deerfield from 55+ to allow anyone to live there because they couldn't fill the units. She can see this developer using a similar tactic. If they can't get 55+ then we will have to allow for an apartment complex open to anyone.

Amber Bonner - There are problems with the size of the building. It is too large and too tall. It's supposed to be less intense use. Density is more intense than any of the surrounding properties. Has concerns with traffic and parking, especially if this is for active adults.

Kim Groneman - Doesn't want to see this building and doesn't want exceptions to the rules.

Sean Lorchesider - Doesn't fit use of zone.

Mark Bennett - Residential is only ancillary to commercial use. Only second level should be used for residential. Wants to see a complete list of services provided onsite and offsite to see how it differs from apartment complex.

Ben Ellsworth - Does not meet the vision statement of the design guidelines. This is not a place residents will want to gather. Need to preserve small town feel. Encourages developer to reduce height and density to meet vision of city and design code.

Deborah Gibbons - Has a petition that was circulated yesterday and today and has been signed by 350 residents opposed to the congregate care facility. This is not a personal attack against the Smarts. We are proud of our city and feel passionately about the guidelines that have been put forth. Feels the people who are impacted by the development, who live in this area, don't want this. Asks the Council, who are representatives, to realize this petition is a good representation of the will of the people. It's not the right development for this city.

Tom Cantrell - Not in favor of Rosegate development. Biggest concern is the impact of having 300 apartments on Cedar Hills Drive and 4600 West. This will increase traffic on 4600 West. Apartment complex of this size is too big. Feels we should wait, be patient, and things will come that are more suitable for the city.

Bobby Seegmiller - He is pro development and feels Rosegate in Sandy is beautiful. Frustrated we are here tonight and feels we are here due to an oversight by the Planning Commission. Feels this violates the intent of the general plan, design guidelines, and zoning ordinance. Wants PC members to read land use booklet given by ULCT. Wants them to understand bias, conflicts of interest, and when they should abstain from a vote. Wants to know if any of the PC, staff, or Council has provided any consulting services to the developer or discussed with them this building outside of city meetings. He is concerned about parking. If this is a 55+ community, there is not adequate parking. There is a study Hales performed and site the other Rosegate facility. He has talked with other city officials from other cities, who have denied development because there were fewer than two stalls per unit.

Candice Smart - Owns the land being discussed. If she is building a house and wants it pink, the city can't stop her. You can see houses that don't fit. She has the freedom to build this building. She feels the Planning Commission is educated and made sure everything was perfect. Feels they have met all the guidelines and within the laws. Commercial has been sought by the city and by her developer and they are not coming. She's owned the property for 30 years and has been patient. Amsource came in and they were approved without any discussion about what they would bring in. The bank they are bringing in won't bring in as much revenue as the Rosegate facility. Said they were willing to trade property and was told no. If people want it to be a field, then someone should pay for it and let it be a field.

Public Hearing
Comments were given in public comment.

Consent Agenda
Steve Thomas was appointed to the Planning Commission. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD is considering a user rate change, which would be a decrease in rates. They are performing study to see what rates should be.

CM Rees - Planning Commission met last week. Mr. Levine's plans to subdivide his lot were denied as they don't comply with city code. He will now appear before the Board of Adjustment to request an exception. The Planning Commission has expressed they will approve his plans if he can get the exception. The PC also discussed additional changes to the Design Guidelines. They are going to review Pleasant Grove's code with regards to density and meet again next month.

The State of the City report is currently with the graphic designer and I'll send it to the Council and staff when she's finished.

The Cultural Arts Committee has planned a dinner and dance date night for this Friday at the Community Center. Tickets are $10/couple and includes a catered dinner and salsa dancing instruction taught by a professional dancer.

CM Augustus - North Pointe Solid Waste working on budget and final budget will be approved in December. Rates may need to be increased. Golf Course Finance Committee has been meeting on Thursday nights to discuss a proposal that has been presented. They are meeting again Thursday night at 8pm.

CM Crawley - Golf Course Finance Committee putting out a list of FAQ's in next few weeks. ULCT was last week and several Council members attended.

Review/Action on Preliminary Plans for Rosegate Facility
The proposed Rosegate facility located at approximately 4600 West Cedar Hills Drive, has met with the Planning Commission on 8/18/2015, and received a recommendation to present their preliminary plans to the City Council. The proposed plans have been processed through engineering, zoning and public safety reviews. My notes from the Planning Commission meeting can be viewed here.

Mayor Gygi read the wording of the petition signed by the 350 residents, which is as follows:

On September 22, 2015, the city of Cedar Hills will be holding a public hearing on the Preliminary Plans for the Rosegate at Cedar Hills Development. We the signers of this petition ask that the council reject this development proposal for the following reasons:

1.  This development does not fit with the general plan and zoning ordinances of our city. The development is primarily an apartment complex for senior citizens, whereas the general plan states that the commercial zone is intended primarily for commercial uses. Past councils have focused intently on bringing commercial development to our commercial zone. The only previously approved assisted living facility in this zone, the Charleston, was part of a larger Lexington Heights development, comprising less than 50% of a plan that was overall a commercial development. This plan is nearly 100% residential.
2.  The size of the building is not in keeping with our development guidelines. The Charleston assisted living facility is only 65 beds, whereas this apartment complex is 291 units, each with potentially two residents. That represents a size that is nearly 9 times that of the Charleston. The sheer size and scale of the building will overwhelm the nearby single-family homes. Our development guidelines state that “smaller, individual buildings that tend to break up parking areas and create visual interest are required.”
3.  The developer is claiming that this apartment building is a congregate care facility. However, in our experience these facilities offer onsite dining, nursing care, transportation, and other services that help senior citizens to live comfortably during their active senior years. The developer has indicated he will not provide those services on site, meaning this is an apartment complex, and not a congregate care facility. It is certainly not “substantially similar” to an assisted living facility as the development guidelines require.
4.  A high density apartment complex will impose significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods that can only be limited by significantly reducing the size and scale of the apartment building. Impacts include increased traffic and increased noise from the large parking lot surrounding the facility. A large apartment complex is not compatible with single-family homes and our small town atmosphere.
We feel particularly misled by this developer, because he initially came to the city proposing a major commercial development, including theaters, shops, restaurants, a splash pad and park space, with a senior living facility comprising only a smaller portion of the development. Over time, he gradually removed most of the commercial elements of his plan, converting the plan into a single, very large apartment complex with just a few retail pads. At one point Mr. Shupe, a representative of the developer, exclaimed that even if he gave a restaurant owner a million dollars that nobody would build a restaurant in Cedar Hills. He does not even intend to build the retail pads initially, and may never come through with any commercial development. That kind of about-face indicates that the developer truly intended to only build residential from the beginning and was using excitement about commercial development to try to slip a primarily residential project into a commercial zone. We plead with the council to preserve our commercial zone for commercial development.
This item was tabled for a future meeting based on the recommendation of our legal counsel. 

Review/Action on Intent to Adjust Boundary with Pleasant Grove
The city has received Requests to Initiate an Adjustment of a Common Municipal Boundary forms from D. Gordon & Karen Davies, Chris & Sarah Eagar, Tarl W. Taylor, Anthony G. & Patricia D. Erickson, and Rick & Debi Meinzer. The Davies property is located at 4583 N 900 W; the Eagar property is located at 4638 N 900 W; the Taylor property is located at 365 S 420 E; the Erickson property is located at 754 W 4000 N; the Meinzer property is located at 818 W 4000 N. They are all requesting that their properties be transferred from the municipal jurisdiction of Pleasant Grove City to the City of Cedar Hills. They all have also completed and filed a request to initiate with Pleasant Grove City.

Pleasant Grove discussed this last week, but we do not yet know what was discussed. It will be a review/action item for them in October. These residents want to boundary adjust into Cedar Hills in order to receive sewer and other city services. This was approved.

Review/Action on Refinancing Excise Tax Revenue Bonds
This item was discussed in depth at our last Council meeting and my notes can be found here. Jonathan Ward from Zions presented. Asked JP Morgan Chase to give us a firm bid, which they have done. Savings are approximately $205,000 net present value, or 11.6%. If approved tonight, they can lock in interest rates. Cost of issuance is roughly 10% of the savings. His recommendation is to take a little less savings and keep option to prepay or to refinance with lower interest rates at a later time. Current negative arbitrage is about $24-$30k. If we don't refinance now, the risk is rates go up and we eliminate any potential savings. This was approved.

Discussion on Canyon Road
Many discussions have taken place in regards to the condition of SR-146/Canyon Road, including which entity will own and maintain the roadway. At this time, Utah County will continue to own and maintain SR-146. However, without the participation on some level from Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove, the County Commissioners have relegated the roadway to be maintained as a County Roadway, which is a lower standard than that of a municipal roadway. A discussion with the County Commissioners suggests that if the two cities participate in the maintenance of the roadway to some degree to be negotiated, that the County may be open improving the roadway to a higher standard using a variety of funding avenues. Due to the limited resources of Cedar Hills to provide adequate snow plowing efforts to the County arterial road, Pleasant Grove has offered to assist Cedar Hills in the snow plow efforts from the Murdock Canal to the mouth of AF Canyon for a fee of $80/plow trip. Based on this figure and the costs of minor other maintenance items that the County would not typically perform, staff has generated the following estimate of annual costs associated with aiding the County in maintenance of an upgraded roadway:

  • Snow Plowing: $6,500 - $8,500  
    • 15 Plow events per year
      • 5 Heavy events  45 trips    
      • 10 Regular events  60 trips        
  • Storm Drain Maintenance:  $4,500  
    • Quarterly cleaning:  $2,500   
    • Street Sweeping:  $2,000     
  • General Maintenance/Rock cleanup $1,000   
    • 10 events per year @ $100 each  
  • Sign Maintenance:  $500   
An estimated amount of $12,500 to $14,500 should be allocated for potential annual average outlay for maintenance activities of these items. Full ownership of the roadway with associated maintenance costs exceed $100,000 per year.

I would like to know exactly what the County is willing to do in exchange for this. Specifically, what improvements will they make, what the will ongoing maintenance schedule look like, what will response time for issues be like, etc. 

David Bunker (city manager) will take all of our questions back to the County and this will be on a future agenda.