Public Comment
Bill Cohen (couldn't hear his name well) - Moved here in 2007 and Murdock Canal wasn't yet built. He is a biker and used Canyon Road to get to Provo. There are massive holes in the road. Wants it safer and would like to have a shoulder on the road. There are only two roads to the Canyon, this being one so there is a lot of traffic. There isn't much more development occurring in Cedar Hills. Repaving that was done was shoddy. Hopes new road will be better and ideally in the future the road will have some shoulders. Scary place to ride a bike.
Peter Henderson - Lives on Canyon Road. Not opposed to the direction that the city and county are trying to go. If he could ask for changes, he would request that Canyon Road be used less. Because the road doesn't have many stop lights or police, people use if more often. He would like to slow down traffic and reduce traffic. Add more stop lights and stop signs. Would be concerned if there were talks on increasing traffic on Canyon Road by adding additional lanes.
Barbara Ramos - Lives on Canyon Road. Isn't opposed to lower speed limit. Understands stop signs and lights can't be added. Cars drive very quickly on Canyon Road. Curb and gutter is definitely needed. Her house and neighbors get flooded. All the salt gets into their homes and destroys property. Have had black mold that had to be removed because of all the water coming in from Canyon Road. Every time it rains they have to remove water from their garage and basement. Curb and gutter would help water go in different direction. In winter they have cars slide off the road into their yard because it takes awhile for Canyon Road to be cleared of snow.
A brief summary of how we got to this point can be found at https://jenneyrees.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/canyon-road/
Unfortunately, neither Commissioner Ivie or Graves showed up to this meeting.
C. Crawley asked why street lights can't be added. Commissioner Lee explained the County's position in that they inherited this road as part of a swap with the State and never wanted to keep the road. They are willing to maintain as a county road but county roads don't usually have lights, stop signs, and similar amenities.
I explained the proposal we made to the County. The original proposal that was presented to the Council multiple times had the County using funds that had been set aside by UDOT for Canyon Road, some County funds, and a $5m contribution from MAG to repair the road and make some improvements. JUB Engineers put together a plan with everything south of Murdock Canal being considered PG and everything north being Cedar Hills. The Council decided to take one more approach with the County. We proposed that the County accept the funds from MAG and do the upgrades as designed by JUB. We understood that the curb and gutter and storm drainage were items that the County never installs on a County road and doing so now without a transfer in ownership could cause issues for them later on. We proposed that once the funds were used to fix the road and install the upgrades we requested, we would take on the ongoing maintenance of those upgrades (curb & gutter and storm drainage). Our city manager estimated this would cost our city approximately $9k per year. The County would be responsible for all other maintenance as the owners of the road (snow removal, pothole repair, repaving, etc.). The benefit to both the City and the County is that having curb & gutter and storm drainage makes this a safer road and prolongs the life of the road. When there is nowhere for the water to go after snow and rain, the road is damaged and in the long run the County will be out here doing repairs more often than if the curb & gutter and storm drainage allow for water to drain off of the road.
A concern that came up was that PG already agreed to take ownership of their portion and might be upset if we come to a separate agreement. We explained that our situation is different. When the State agreed to take on North County Blvd, it was with the understanding that they would give up Canyon Road, which would be taken over by the County. In negotiations with the County, PG agreed to take on their portion of the road but also gave up their ownership and responsibility in their portion of North County Blvd. We were never owners of North County so haven’t given up any road in order to take more on. Additionally, if you look at a map of Cedar Hills and PG there are several PG residents north of Murdock Canal, so we would hope PG would support a proposal that benefits their residents north of the canal as much as those south of it.
Another concern was not increasing the budget for the County Public Works Dept. We explained that with the upfront money coming from the County and MAG and with the city handling the ongoing maintenance of the upgrades, this shouldn’t affect their budget at all as they will only be responsible for the items that they already are as owners of the road.
Chandler Goodwin presented and explained that we don't have the manpower, equipment, or budget to handle Canyon Road. Had Bowen & Collins come out to do a study and what it would take to maintain road as owners moving forward. They estimated $2.8 million to maintain this road.
Commissioner Lee said we need to put proposal in writing and submit to the County so they can have further discussions. They meet weekly and can discuss as it's in the design phase. Commissioner Lee said he understands the urgency in making a decision soon.
Council Meeting
Public Comment
Nobody signed up.
Legislative Update
Representative Mike Kennedy presented. Budget for the State is $16.2 billion. Tax reform was one of the key things discussed but nothing was done with this. Our needs outstrip the money that comes in. More discussion of tax reform will occur. Feels State shouldn't do tax reform until the Federal government does. Doesn't want to see a tax increase on food. Budget was passed. Murdock Connector Road is important and feels he has an excellent partner in Senator Hemmert in getting this done. This has been in the works for 10-20 years and continue to get all parties on board. Committed to action being taken. CM Zappala reached out to him with concerns on short term rental policy changes (Airbnb). City Councils have to continually debate on what to allow and restrict on property within, but he did vote for the bill. Said when voting between the individual and City Council he will always choose the individual. Appreciates hearing from the public during the legislative session.
I expressed concern whenever I hear State reps say things like "individual over City Council". As members of a City Council, we represent the individuals of our community and were elected to do so. On the short term rentals, we were hearing from residents who were concerned about the impact things like Airbnb can have on their neighborhoods. Those are important conversations to have at the city level so we can determine what restrictions should be in place to protect the rights of neighbors, if zoning needs to be updated to allow for these types of businesses in some areas, etc. I stated that I often hear State reps complain about the overreach of the federal government and argue for local control, but then turn around and dictate to cities what is and isn't allowed and remove the most local control. While I was fine with the final version that was voted on when it comes to short term rentals, I also encouraged Rep. Kennedy to care about local control at the city level as much as he wants it at the State level as City Councils are working to create ordinances based on the desire of the community overall. Rep Kennedy clarified that for the most part, he doesn't want to dictate to a city what is and isn't allowed, but will at times when it goes against some items such as property rights. CM Zappala asked if he was opposed to cities having zoning regulations, which can limit what can be done on property throughout the city, and Rep Kennedy said he wasn't opposed to zoning laws.
Senator Dan Hemmert presented. Pushing for the connector road. Board for State Developmental Center will be meeting in May. Encourages everyone to reach out to the Board in a respectful manner requesting that the road be recommended for approval.
CM Crawley said he looked at their voting record. Said Mike votes 67% of the time for less government. Said Dan got a 30%. Senator Hemmert said he learned there are 1000 scorecards and he knows he won't be a good legislator if he manages based on scorecards. Won't let someone else define what it means to him to be a conservative.
Consent Agenda
The minutes from the February 7th and March 7th City Council meetings were approved.
City Reports
Chandler Goodwin - Several recreation programs are starting soon. A window in the Vista Room was broken by a golf ball and staff is working on getting that fixed. This Saturday the final portion of the service project will be done, which includes planting vegetation. Looking for volunteers. Thanked those who put on the Easter Egg hunts last weekend. Staff applied for a community development block grant and was given money to develop some ADA items in two parks.
CM Geddes - Attended ULCT meeting in St. George. Felt it was worthwhile.
CM Rees - Please signup to volunteer for Family Festival.
CM Zappala - State of the City was published.
CM Crawley - Planning Commission met and approved a conditional use permit for the Moore's to operate a bed and breakfast and a reception center in their home.
Mayor Gygi - Presented a thank you gift to Courtney, who has been serving as our transcriptionist since 2004.
Review/Action on Conditional Use Permit for Marco's Pizza
Marcos Pizza is a national pizza chain specializing in carryout and delivery. The proposed location is part of the Amsource development and will be adjacent to Great Clips; the approximate address is 4800 W Cedar Hills Drive. A CUP is required for commercial uses in the SC-1 Zone, to be approved by the City Council with a public hearing. The proposal involves no changes to the exterior façade of the structure, and City Code 10-5-37 (E)(2) states, “the designated land use authority shall approve with conditions, or deny the application, or may defer action if there is insufficient application information provided.” The Marcos site plan includes no changes to the approved Amsource development from 10-22-2014. This was approved.
Review/Action on Amendments to City Business Licensing
Recently passed legislation SB0081 states: “A municipality may not require a license or permit for a business that is operated only occasionally; and by an individual who is under 18 years of age; or charge a license fee for a home based business, unless the combined offsite impact of the home based business and the primary residential use materially exceeds the offsite impact of the primary residential use alone.” As a result of this legislation, Cedar Hills staff is in the process of drafting changes to Title 3 of the Cedar Hills Municipal Code that will take into effect the changes from the legislative session. The proposed code was provided in the City Council agenda packet and can be found on the city's website. It changes/updates definitions for what constitutes a home based office, a home based business, and when a business license will and won't be charged. There are some additional changes staff would like to work on, so requested this be tabled for further discussion.
