Public Comment
Barbara Ramos - Wants to start a bicycle shop on her property, which is about 3/4 of an acre. She has a building on her property that she wants to use as a bicycle shop. Other neighbors have accessory buildings that they operate a business out of. Her request was denied by staff, and she feels this is unfair as neighbors are already doing this and have been approved. She would also like the ability to install a 6' fence in her front yard 18' from the road as she lives on Canyon Road and wants additional security from the traffic on Canyon Road. The 18' allows for visibility to not be affected. She will continue to work with staff on solutions but it will come to the Council if changes to ordinances need to be made to allow for both of these.
Kathy Hanks - Is opposed to the subdivision being proposed on Oak Road. Has gone through this before and it seems that there could be houses built on the ends but allow for green space for the rest of the parcel. Hillside is not stable for homes on the entire parcel. City could do neighborhood survey of those who are impacted to get feedback.
Dave Free - A few months ago he came to discuss a sidewalk on Oak Road for kids to walk on. Kids cross the street twice in that area in order to stay on sidewalks. Cars are speeding and wants to know if anything is being done as far as sidewalks or speed bumps. Gary said he will follow up with staff on this.
Public Hearing
Cheri Condie - Hopes Council has read input given to Planning Commission. Wants Council to deny the request to rezone as residential. In the General Plan this parcel is designated open space. City Council is called on to enact regulations to follow the plan, which avoids arbitrary governmental choices. Council can control population density and conform to code. City Council is supposed to lessen congestion and control density. Values for open space should be considered. Payoff for open space is recreation and connection to nature. Feels we need a professional city planner as we continue to grow. Would help to prevent blunders from past years. Does not want PF zone changed.
Troy Flickinger - Same issues exist on this parcel. Was told this parcel was always going to be open space. Wants it to remain so. Doesn't want to have people building in his backyard. Zoned open space because it didn't make sense to build homes in that space. Opposes the rezoning.
Eric Richardson - Early in city history this parcel was reserved for open space because we value open space. This has been the plan from day one. Residents are not in favor of this rezoning, only the landowner wants it. Thanked Council and staff who have been helpful in gathering information on this. Staff is very open and helpful. Opposes the rezoning. Would like to continue the public hearing so more people can give input.
Ken Hazelbaker - When he purchased his property he was assured this parcel would remain open space.Thanked the Council for service given to the community. Appeals to Council to go back and think about integrity and to do what has been said will be done. From day one, this has been designated as open space. Doesn't want to keep kicking the can down the road or keep rezoning as the Planning Commission recommended. Wants it dealt with. Give the owner what he spent on it as it's meant to be open space.
Holly Bringle - Just moved here from Washington. When they looked at their home part of the consideration was open space. Has concerns with more homes being developed on that parcel. Kids play in that area now. Bought their home with the understanding that it would remain open space. Disappointed with the prospect of that changing. Young families will be affected by the change.
David Driggs - Wanted to correct some confusion regarding Planning Commission action. PC made recommendation that the parcel be moved back to the residential zone not to open for development, but in order to make the property subject to weed nuisance ordinance and because the public facilities zone does allow for some development, such as parks, schools, cemetery, and water storage tanks. Moving it to residential means these wouldn't be a permitted use.
Daniel Zappala - Appreciates passion for open space. Wants city to keep commitments to all open space, including St. Andrews. Hopes if PC sees a loophole in ordinance, that a recommendation to change the ordinance is made.
Howard Hansen - He owns lot 19. This is all being talked about as if it's city property, but it's always been personal property. Said original zone was equestrian. Many of the residents wouldn't want horses in that area. Wants what is right and fair. Has a big piece of property and wants what can be done for the most people for the right reasons. Has protected the residents in that area from taking that property and building a parking lot on it, as what happened in Orem. Has some offers that are hard to refuse. City and realtors can't give residents that property. It's his property. Wants a good decision to be made for everyone. Day one zone is equestrian, not something else. Compliments City Council on how well run the meeting is.
City Reports
Chandler Goodwin - Jr Jazz registration is now open. Flag football is wrapping up. Golf crews are moving into the new building. Thanked everyone for attending the 40th party last night. Concepts designs were shown for the future Harvey Park and would like feedback from the community. Concept video will be put on the cities website.
CM Rees - Working on State of the City.
Mayor Gygi - LPPSD is working on hiring a new fire chief, but it's been delayed as two candidates are in California to fight the fires there.
Review/Action on Rezoning of Certain Portions of Land in the Public Facilities Zone to Residential
Applicant and land owner, Alan Parsons, has applied for a zone change for his parcel, Lot 26 of Cedar Hills Subdivision Plat I. The parcel in question has been recorded as open space from the time that Cedar Hills Subdivision Plat I was recorded in 1976. The subdivision was built by the Associated Industrial Developers, who owned the parcel in question from the time the plat was recorded. In 1983 the property changed hands through a tax deed, and Alan Parsons received the property by quitclaim deed.
The current piece is identified as “open space” on the plat, and is zoned as public facility. In order to put density onto the property, the legislative body of Cedar Hills would need to rezone the parcel into the R-1, 11,000 zone, vacate the plat identifying Lot 26 as open space, and re-plat Plat I as Plat I Amended. The owner of Lot 26, or the developer would be responsible for surveying and re-plating Plat I.
Homeowners in the area are opposed to the rezoning and development of the lot. They state that this has been zoned as open space since 1976 and their homes and subdivision were built with the expectation that land would be open space. They do not want the city to allow for development on that land.
The Planning Commission recommended the open space designation remain on the land, which prevents development, but recommended the property be rezoned as residential in order to enforce the weed ordinance, which currently isn't being handled by the property owner and the city can't enforce due to the parcel being in the public facilities zone.
The attorney for Mr. Parsons requested that this item be tabled as he was ill and could not attend the meeting. This was approved and will be on the next Council agenda, which is November 21st.
Review/Action on Ordinance Relating to Artificial Turf
A resident has requested that the City consider allowing artificial turf as an acceptable form of landscaping. Other municipalities have considered and adopted provisions allowing artificial turf within a set of guidelines. Ogden has adopted an ordinance allowing artificial turf. Cedar Hills City Code §10-5-27 would need to be amended to allow for the installation of artificial turf. Currently, §10-5-27 (B) states, “The front yard area of any existing lot containing a dwelling shall be landscaped. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any residential lot within the city to refuse to install and maintain landscaping within the front yard area of any existing residential lot containing a dwelling. The front yard area shall consist of the entire lot area from the front lot line to the face of the dwelling, or the front setback area, whichever is greater (except for approved designated parking areas). Corner lots have two (2) front setback areas. Landscaping shall be properly maintained including removing weeds and mowing turf areas. Turf grass shall not exceed six inches (6") in height. (Ord. 10-20-2009C, 10-20-2009) This provision is exclusively for the front yard. The Planning Commission recommended prohibiting artificial turf.
David Driggs presented on the reason for the PC recommendation. Commissioners expressed concern about environmental issues, safety issues with the way it holds heat. Also said over time it becomes frayed or discolored and doesn't know how city will police the quality of it. Feels rest of city has natural landscaping and it may look out of place to have something different in a few homes. No concerns were expressed for the backyard use.
Mayor Gygi would like the PC to approve instead of prohibit.
I think it's an interesting idea, and I know two people in my neighborhood who have installed artificial turf. Ogden city has an ordinance that requires it to look nice and details when it needs to be replaced and repaired. We are encouraging water conservation and this allows for residents to conserve water. I don't see a compelling reason to prohibit private property owners from using this as a source of landscaping.
The rest of the Council agreed that we would like to see wording from the PC on allowing it, with conditions such as Ogden City has.
Discussion on PARC Tax
State code 59-1-1605 requires taxing entities placing a tax proposition, i.e. PARC tax or other, on a general election ballot to hold a public meeting, allowing equal time within a reasonable limit for a presentation of the arguments in favor of and against said proposition during the public meeting. The submitted arguments for and against are available on the city's website at http://cedarhills.org/sites/default/files/proposition-7-voter-info-pamphlet-2017.pdf. I do support the PARC tax, and wrote the "for" argument and rebuttal, which is in that pamphlet.
Eric Richardson - As we talk about philosophy of government, one thing that is important is that all government bodies aren't the same. Local government shouldn't have armored tanks, but likes that they have recreation opportunities. PARC tax is an optional tax and people aren't required to shop in Cedar Hills. You can vote with your feet, and support these things with your shopping habits. Nobody decides where to buy milk based on tax rates. Showed a Kids4Parks flyer, which emphasized that kids in the city do like parks. This group talks about park and recreation facilities and he agrees with that. Wants more things for kids. Hopes to see the tax passed.
Kelly Smith - Supports PARC tax. She worked to get this passed in American Fork and it's served the community well. Supports it because it generates revenue from others who shop in Cedar Hills. Non-residents also use our parks. Appreciates that it's a small amount of money being only one penny for every $10 spent. If we don't vote for it, we are at a disadvantage as other cities are using this tax to improve their parks, so are making their communities more attractive.
Brian Miller - Supports the PARC tax. Read the arguments for and against and the tax has nothing to do with the golf course. Tax is a small tax that gives opportunity for residents outside of our community to help pay for our parks. The money stays in Cedar Hills and enhances the community. It's used for park enhancements, for arts, for recreation and cultural opportunities, and to gather as a city. It's one penny for every $10, which won't change anyone's purchasing habits. It's not a new tax, we've had it in the past but it expired. It didn't pass last time because it wasn't explained well, but nobody has noticed more money in their pockets this last year that the tax hasn't been in place. Encourages residents to support this tax to enhance our city.
Jerry Dearinger - He worked on the against argument. Says we spend hundreds, if not millions of dollars, from other funds to enhance parks. This tax doesn't enhance parks. There are many retired people in the community who struggle to get by. His property taxes and other taxes have increased but his salary has not. Does not advocate for this tax. Feels the city can find money in the budget from other areas. Doesn't rely on the city to provide entertainment for his family. If people want this, they can donate money to the city to pay for programs. He doesn't want to be forced to pay for this.
Review/Action on Ordinance Regarding Weed Nuisance
Based on the public hearing for the rezoning of the Oak Road parcel, staff felt that it would be appropriate to review §4-2-3 related to weed nuisances. Currently (5)(j) reads: "j. Weeds: Weeds on developed commercial and residential lots shall be maintained at a height of not more than six inches (6") at any time, and shall be cleared from real property in the city. Weeds on undeveloped lots shall be maintained at a height of not more than six inches (6") at any time, within thirty feet (30') of any property line, road or structure. Lots being used for livestock pasture or agricultural crops are exempt from the maximum height limit. Noxious weeds located on vacant lots or other property, along public sidewalks or the outer edge of any public street, or weeds in any other location that constitute a fire hazard."
Staff is recommending minor changes that would change the language related to undeveloped lots, to include language subjecting every zone to the weed abatement ordinance, and adding language to carve out an exception for municipally owned parcels intended as natural open space. Chandler (city manager) feels that this needs more work so that there aren't any unintended consequences. This item was tabled so staff has more time to research this issue.
Discussion on Watershed Program
State Code allows for municipalities to draft watershed protection programs that prevent pollution and contamination of streams and watercourses from which the residents of the city derive their water supply. The draft ordinance was adopted by American Fork City in response to potential development in American Fork Canyon. As Cedar Hills derives its culinary water supply from the same resources, staff felt it may be prudent to explore a similar ordinance that gives Cedar Hills the ability to voice concerns due to any development that may potentially be detrimental to the city’s water supply.
I support this effort and feel we should move forward with a similar ordinance.
No comments:
Post a Comment