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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment