City Council Meeting - February 16, 2016

Public Comment

Ken Cromar – Thanked those who do honorable things for the residents. He marks on the comment sheet every time that he wants to be contacted but he never is. He was abused by the mayor, residents, and a newspaper reporter at the last meeting while recording the proceedings from the side of the room. This is a first amendment infringement. In October at the golf course meeting the police were called to protect him. No apology was ever given. Says current ordinance of recording is illegal and all members of the Council should have gotten up to defend him. Says he doesn’t feel most of the Council has read the US Constitution. It should be followed just as marital vows. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the February 2, 2016 meeting were approved. Matthew Laney was appointed to the Beautification, Parks and Trails Committee.

City Reports

David Bunker – TSSD meets this Thursday. On March 8^th we will have an Emergency Management Townhall meeting at 7pm. The focus is family preparedness. BYU basketball night went well. Cedar Hills night with Utah Jazz is March 8^th. Theater group is moving forward with plans to hold performances next month. Golf Course plans on opening next week, weather permitting. Tomorrow night is soils community class. Living with chronic conditions class is also March 8^th, further info is on the website.

CM Zappala – Wrote a letter to the Utah County Board of Adjustments outlined why he felt they can deny Snowbird’s conditional use permit. He has not heard anything back from the Board. They have given AF City and Snowbird 60 days to come up with a water quality plan. Sent out survey to residents on our commercial area and received 717 responses. Has been working on updating design guidelines.

CM Bailey – Arts Committee has cancelled their event for this month.

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Related to Non-Flash Still Photography and Video Recording of Public Meetings

Public Comment Barbara Cromar – At last meeting the mayor disrupted the meeting to ask Ken to move his camera to the back. Can’t get good recording from the back. The only disruption has come from those who pretend to take offense at being recorded. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The current ordinance is already repugnant to the US Constitution and not enforceable. The only authority Council has is to tell Ken that the Council will protect his constitutional right to record public meetings. Ken Cromar – Finished reading the letter started by Barbara. Council has no authority to weaken his right. Says Council should enforce stricter laws to protect his right to record meetings. Read scripture. He feels endangered by the Mayor. Says many city employees also feel abused by the Mayor. Asks the Council to table the item tonight and have the city attorney start again. Says if not, he will use his current recordings to make a video showing boy scouts how his rights have been infringed upon by others. Recommends Mayor resign if he doesn’t want to be recorded. Legal counsel and city staff recently reviewed the city code, Chapter 1-5-7, relating to non-flash still photography and video recording of public meetings. Multiple sections of the code are in need of revision. Modifications to the current ordinance include updated definitions, clarification regarding audio recordings and location of non-flash still cameras and video recorders during public meetings. Some changes were made to the ordinance provided to the Council tonight. It does allow for recording in the back and sides of the room. Camera placement shall ensure that no member of the public has their view obstructed. Cords cannot be ran across aisles and exits and cameras cannot be in aisles or blocking exits. Also updated to state no recordings or photographs can be taken of documents protected by GRAMA. This was approved 3-2. CM Crawley argued that the ordinance should be deleted altogether and the city should just go with State code, which simply says that recording is allowed as long as the recorder isn't disrupting the meeting. I argued that we should have some additional clarification so that aisles aren't obstructed and views of those in attendance are not obstructed. CM Crawley and Bailey voted no.

Review/Action on Resolution Adopting Municipal Wastewater Planning Program

The Utah State Department of Environmental Quality requires that Cedar Hills submit an annual report for our “Municipal Wastewater Planning Program” collection system and financial evaluation. Staff has prepared the report for review. The State Water Quality Board requests the following action be completed by City Council: 1) City Council acknowledges that they have reviewed the 2015 report and 2) If applicable; City Council has taken all appropriate actions necessary to maintain effluent requirements contained in the UPDES Permit. Current rates and capital projects plan prepare for future needs and repairs. This was approved unanimously.

Discussion on FY2017 Capital Projects Fund and Motor Pool Fund

Tentative Current and Future Capital Project

•  Bayhill park - $446,224
•  $274,603 unrestricted fund balance
• $80,621 CARE tax revenues
•  $80,000 Park development impact fees
• $11,000 Utah County TRCC grants
• Planning and construction planned for spring/summer of 2016, with bids going out in April and construction tentatively scheduled for September.
• Golf maintenance building - $300,000
• $200,000 unrestricted fund balance
• $100,000 placeholder for storm drain/site work from Water & Sewer fund
• Purpose is to provide safer work environment, comply with various codes, regulations, and be functional; working maintenance garage and bathroom. City does have a conditional use permit for the current property in Highland so the new building can be built in the same location. Mr. Bunker has discussed with Highland the potential of sharing a building, but they indicated they are looking at other locations for what they need.
• Canyon road pedestrian and bike access extending path or sidewalk
• This will connect with the development going in east of Canyon Road. Staff is still researching options on paths vs sidewalk. Also talking with MAG about funding for a light at Cedar Hills Drive.
• Fencing for public works yard extension for storage - $14,000
• Original Public Works building was never built to also be the city offices. With that now being the case, there is not enough parking at the city building for all staff that work in that building and areas meant for public works vehicles are full. The proposed extension is to the south of the current building. Most of the work would be done by city employees.
• Funds of $14,000 would come from unrestricted fund balance
• Street lights upgraded with LED improvements - $30,000
• $30,000 unrestricted fund balance/Rocky Mountain Power Wattsmart rebates and/or Class C Road funding
• Ongoing savings come from using LED lights
• Heritage park amphitheater access improvement - $50,000
• $16,000 unrestricted fund balance
• $34,000 CARE tax revenues FY 2016-2017 with renewed CARE tax
• Tree replacement plan/Arborist - $10,000
• Long-term plan of what trees should be removed and replaced, and on what schedule 
• Park maintenance line item, if bid under $10,000
• Roundabout improvements for Cedar Hills drive
• Community Center Flooring Replacement
• Hardwood or wood-like tile flooring bids needed
• Building maintenance line item, if under $10,000
• According to staff, the current floor is laminate and can’t be refinished.
• I recommended that whatever we use to replace, we need to choose materials that will last longer than 4 years. The current floor is less than 4 years old.
• Deerfield park and street widening - $2.5 million
• $1,650,000 financing for park land and development
• $825,000 park land impact fees
• $525,000 street impact fees for street improvements

Motor Pool Fund

• $10,750 increase for Golf fund charges
• $3,455 decrease for the General fund charges
• $2,594 decrease for the Water & Sewer fund transfer
• Three trucks and two mowers are scheduled for replacement during fiscal year 2015-2016
• Two extended cab half-ton trucks $30,000 estimated per truck
• One regular cab half-ton truck $25,000 estimated
• Two fairway mowers $42,000 estimated per mower

Golf Equipment Replacement Plan

• 1^st year – 2 green mowers and pump sprayer
• 2^nd year – no purchases
• 3^rd year – 2 fairway motors
• 4^th year – tractor, rough mower
• 5^th year – 2 green mowers, top dresser
• 6^th year – reel grinder, HD utility cart
• 7^th year – rough mower, blower, HD utility cart
• 8^th year – green aerator, 2 medium duty utility cards                     

Discussion on Temporary Zoning Ordinance and Updates to General Plan and Design Guidelines

This has been an ongoing discussion. The Council continues to work on updating the language and will continue to discuss. Will be completed within the next two weeks and the next step will be to schedule public hearings. 

City Council Meeting - February 2, 2016

Work Session

Public Comment
DeAnn Nielsen - Serving as liaison between Temple Shadows and the city. Would like a two-way dialogue so she can keep their board informed. There is a drainage issue from the roundabout going south into Temple Shadows. Feels this could be a problem as there isn't a drain or outlet there. Would like this to be on a future agenda. Will attend Council meetings as needed in her role as liaison. David Bunker added her to the distribution list to receive Council agendas via email.

Discussion of Design Guidelines
Went through a proposed list of uses to indicate whether they should be considered conditional or permitted. The list was pulled from what other cities have in their conditional and permitted uses.

Discussion on Council Retreat
The Council came up with a list of priorities for FY2017. David Bunker will work with executive staff to come up with plan to implement these items and will report back to Council each month. We will also have one work session each month dedicated to reviewing the monthly management report.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Mr. Cromar placed his camera in an area not allowed by city ordinance. He was asked by officials, staff, and residents in attendance to move his camera to the area allowed by city ordinance, but he refused. 
Ken Cromar - Read from a letter he wrote to the city attorney and also posted to his website. Wants litigation hold on all city email until he can determine if he is going to take legal action against the city. Says he has no reason to believe he has received all documents he has requested through GRAMA. Made several allegations against elected officials and city staff.

Ken Hansen - Has been a resident for 11 years and loves it here. Has seen many things. Thanks Mayor & Council for responsible governance of our city. Expressed support. Has debated with some of officials, but supports officials. Thankful for obedience to the laws, and the ordinances of the city. Thanked Council for looking after best interests of the city. Officials have support of the city.

Charelle Hagen - Encourages the city to uphold ordinances. Representatives spend a lot of time creating ordinances and there is a process to change. Thanks Council for resolutions passed to protect AF Canyon. Does not favor personal attacks on officials when it gets to the point it affects their family. Attended City Council Retreat on Friday. Appreciates time Daniel Zappala put on creating survey for commercial zone. Feels it is easy to conduct surveys. Snowbird is trying to develop in canyon and it would've saved a lot of headache to conduct a survey of what residents would want. This is where she struggles, when she was brought up to speed it was in panic mode. Never underestimate influence of serving on the City Council. Asked Council to represent constituents. Find out what residents want. What happens in Canyon will affect residents more than commercial zone.

Consent Agenda
Minutes from the December 1, 2015, January 5, 2016, and January 19, 2016 City Council Meetings were approved. Bill Knowlton and Ali Garbero were appointed to the Beautification, Parks, and Trails Committee.

City Reports
David Bunker - Ski bus starts this Saturday. Utah County Health Dept has seven week course for seniors on how to remain active and healthy and will be held at the Community Center.

CM Bailey - Arts Committee would like to host an activity on the 20th of February. More info to come.

CM Zappala - LPPSD met, but Mayor will report on that. Has spent most of his time going through Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinances.

Mayor Gygi - LPPSD voted a new chair and vice-chair. Tim Irwin will be chair and CM Zappala will be vice-chair. Dealing with some personnel issues and replacing vehicles.

CM Rees - Family Festival Committee met and began discussing plans for events. Week will be May 31st through June 4th. No activities will take place on Monday as it's Memorial Day. The website has been updated with dates and will continue to be updated as things move forward. Parks and Trails Committee met to discuss their plans for the year and will be coming to the Council soon with their requested budget.

CM Crawley - North Pointe Solid Waste met and elected a chair for upcoming year. Appointed a UASD board member alternate (Commissioner Ellertson). Discussed fences for their facility to keep people from coming in.

CM Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch began construction of new facility in Spanish Fork.

Review/Action on Amendments to FY 2016 Budget

• $10,000 increase to 10-40-220 Newsletter & Utility Billing processing costs and to 10-34-300 Processing Fees (processing fees offset cost)
• $2,000 increase to 10-40-221 Legal Advertising and increase 10-40-305 Legal Services $29,500 for Feb-June Legal Retainer fees, $70,500 for potential litigation, $5,945 for Eric Johnson’s golf related legal services, which is offset from $92,945 in unrestricted fund balance and $15,000 increase in building related revenues. These revenues mostly relate to solar permits. Mr. Johnson's portion will be carved out of this until we come to an agreement on his invoice.
• $2,000 increase to 10-45-400 Election Expenses offset by $2,000 increase in building related revenues. Increase in expense came from recount requested during the primary election.
• $20,000 increase to 10-60-215 Contract Labor offset by the higher volume in 10-32-200 building permits and 10-32-210 plan check fees. 
• Sources and uses related to the refunding of the 2006 Excise Tax Bonds and the issuance of the 2015 Excise Tax Bonds to capture net present value savings of $208,949. 40-99-101 Other financing use—Payment to Escrow $1,826,563, 40-99-102 Bond Issuance Costs $23,757, 40-99-105 Other financing source—Refunding bonds issued $1,644,000, 40-14-165 Use of Debt Service Reserve Fund $176,320 and 14-14167 use of the Bond Fund $30,000.

This was approved.

Presentation by Snowbird Related to AF Canyon Watershed
Public Comment
Marisa Wright - Has concerns on water and public easement through Snowbird property. Went to County Commissioners meeting last week and spoke about Yankee mine. No real studies have been done regarding enormity of pollutants. Mr. Bonar brought to the meeting the studies. She asked for them to be made public, but they have not yet been made public. Yankee mine is in area Snowbird wants to expand. Mines can be disturbed. Says Mr. Bonar said it's OK as long as you don't step on the dirt. Feels this is an indicator the area is fragile. Wants to know how Snowbird is going to prevent people from stepping on the dirt. There are so many mines up on Snowbird property that need to be cleaned up. This is a huge issue for the quality of our water. It could contaminate water. Wants Council to put pressure on Snowbird.

Mark Allen - Started Protect and Preserve American Fork Canyon. Over past nine months he has made several GRAMA requests which paint a picture that concerns him. One came from an email sent to Mayor Gygi and was about a land swap. This concerned him as he was told Mayor didn't know about this until late last year. Also included a letter from Snowbird's attorney with more details. Feels that there are more emails or attachments that should have been included in his GRAMA request. Worried about Yankee mine. Half a million gallons of water could be contained in that mine. Says Snowbird cleaned up only a small portion of their mines. Encourages Bob Bonar to join with EPA to clean up entire six acres. If it's cleaned up then most of the issues go away. Property was purchased with prescriptive easements and can't displace locals without violating these easements.

Divo Hagen - Thanks Council for service and time. Wants to know why Snowbird has requested to do a presentation to city officials. Wants officials to think about what is going to transpire in the Canyon and that we do all we can as a city to make resident voices heard. Council represents the will of the residents of  Cedar Hills. Wants Council to do all in power to represent the desires of the city. There is not an agreement that Snowbird should be allowed to make changes they want to make. Secondary issue is making it safe if the project is even something residents want. First should figure out what residents want for the Canyon. Feels his commute will be encumbered by changes in canyon. He's opposed to changes. Wants to know Council has listened to residents and are doing all it can to represent will of residents.

Jason Goates - Thanks Council for public service. Has gone through GRAMA requests. Information is disconcerting and there are holes in information provided. Went to earlier meeting in American Fork where Snowbird also presented today. Everyone in Cedar Hills needs to be concerned and needs to raise questions on watershed. Most studies by Snowbird were done 15-20 years ago. Wants to know why they feel this is enough. Risks of Yankee mine far outweigh the odds. Doesn't want to see something like what happened in Colorado happen here. Risks do not outweigh the odds. Wants to know who is responsible if something catastrophic happens, wants to know if there is a plan in place. Says Mr. Bonar has said he wants to be open in his processes, but he doesn't feel like there has been transparency or openness. Feels there needs to be more of a public setting where Snowbird hosts a meeting. Access, rights of way, and water are big issues.

Mayor Gygi wanted to correct some things that had been said about him. On GRAMA or email retention, the legal document he received was a pdf and he provided everything he was sent via email. Another question that came up was a letter drafted by staff on behalf of the Mayor, and he brought a copy of the letter for Mark if he wants it. Feels Protect and Preserve is losing credibility. Would like to know who the admins/moderators of the Protect and Preserve Facebook page are and what the vetting process was to determine who was given authority. Wants to know how Mr. Allen fact checks what is said as it opens him up to liability of slander. Feels Mr. Allen needs to apologize to all those who have been slandered on his Facebook page. There is a reason Mr. Allen banned four people from his site. Protect & Preserve website says they don't have a board and wants to know why they don't. Board should keep them on track. Seems to have a philosophy that it doesn't matter what people do, but what they think or what you think they are going to think. Everyone knows his views on AF Canyon, he likes the idea of a gondola. But he's never come to the city as mayor and told the Council to get behind that idea. There was a group that went to Europe and he said no as he felt it would be inappropriate. He didn't receive any campaign contributions from Snowbird. The only thing P&P can say is they don't like the way he thinks. Cedar Hills is never going to vote on this issue. What he feels is ironic is that he helped create a committee to study the impact on AF Canyon but Mr. Allen destroyed that committee. Now hears Mr. Allen wants to create a committee to do this. He could have asked for a seat at the table and would have been given one, but he didn't go that route. Learned that a leader that makes corrections is given respect. People who don't make corrections lose trust and respect. This is not his fight, it's Snowbird's fight. Everyone on the AFC Vision Committee was honest in their approach.

Bob Bonar presented on behalf of Snowbird. He is the president and general manager of Snowbird. Thanked Council for service. Everyone is concerned about water quality and they care about it everything they do. Presentation tonight will address water quality concerns. If intent is to keep Snowbird from doing anything on their private land then presentation will not be meaningful. Their proposal right now is relocating one ski lift in Mineral Basin. They have two ski lifts in Mineral Basin and have had for 20 years. Want to relocate a net capacity to one of those lifts. Other part of proposal is to add two lifts to their private property in Upper Mary Ellen Gulch and also add a zip line to one of those lifts. Proposal does not extend to AF Canyon, will not have impact on traffic. Also includes ancillary skiing facilities, like a warming hut.

Neil Arts presented on behalf of Snowbird. He has a PhD in Renewable Natural Resources and has been in environmental consulting field for 25 years. Has staff of six people. They do environmental impact and compliance reviews for governmental agencies. Have completed close to 100 major analyses of this type. Majority regarded winter sports developments of some kind. Has maintained a good reputation. Has commitment to objectivity and sound science. Mining related water quality issues are not new. Started in 70's and gained traction in the 80's. A no-further-action remedial plan was made by EPA in 1995 and 2002 for AF Canyon mines. Partnered with Snowbird to create a remediation plan for areas of concern. Dutchman Mine repository was completed in 2003. Took contaminated materials and gathered them into a repository. Left main issue of Upper Mary Ellen Gulch mines, including Yankee mine. Studies identified mine tailings in the area. Recommendation from Forest Service, with EPA agreement, was to leave pilings in place because there isn't a good spot for repository. Mine tailings that aren't close to water bodies aren't a priority for EPA. Snowbird started building a ditch to keep water away from the tailings. In 2008 with help of Forest Service, Snowbird put in more active drainage system to make sure drainage continued to fall away from mine. Has met most rigid standard. Most metals in AF River were reduced significantly, reductions from 50-80%. Snowbird met all standards required by the State, it just improved from the standard. Dilution of contaminants in AF Canyon also naturally occurs from snow pack runoff. The further down the Canyon you get, the smaller amount of metals found. There has never been an exceeding of standards below Tibble Fork. Some misinterpretations have arisen through this process. First is that there is a need for more studies. They have looked at 14 studies completed from the 1990's through well into the 2000's. There have been about 1000 water quality samples run. Believes the situation is well understood and has been well studied. Those responsible for safeguarding resources say all that should have been done has been done. Another concern has been that it will reduce water quantity. Proposal does not include any change of water quantity. Big consideration is ground water recharge. There are bedrock aquifers in the canyon. Most recent USGS studies show the water quality here is highest quality water in the region. Water drainage in the Snowbird area meets standards, and continues to be diluted of contaminants as it reaches the mouth of the canyon. If there were going to be issues with water quality, it would have occurred before the remediation efforts happened. Another concern that has been brought up is potential affects on PI water. Current reports show that there would need to be a significant increase in metals in order for it to be labeled a concern, more than what would come from this development. Snowbird has operated for 50 years in Little Cottonwood Canyon under magnifying glass of Forest Service and SL County and water quality testing done in that canyon shows Snowbird has been consistent with good water quality. Another concern brought up was the disturbance of mines. Equipment should not operate on the tailings. Right now people ride ATV's and motor vehicles in the area and there is no regulation of contact with those materials. One of Snowbird's mitigation efforts will be to eliminate access to the tailings. Another concern has been avalanche control programs created by Snowbird. Avalanches are naturally occurring in the canyon and don't generally disturb soil surface. Snowbird's proposal is to keep snow on the mountain, not to push it to the bottom so would have less potential to cause damage. Another concern is how to monitor if something went wrong. Snowbird has developed a monitoring plan to look at metals in the area to establish a baseline, then continue for 10 years to make sure area is stable. Snowbird is willing to extend this beyond 10 years. Another concern has been a plug in Yankee mine. Says that claim is speculative. Water accumulates in the mine and drains out. Whatever is in the mine tunnel is not going to be affected by this project. They are staying away from mine and tailings. If something were going to happen to affect water quality, it would have manifested before remediation projects were done. Well within standards by the time water gets to the mouth of the Canyon. This project does nothing to alter the risk that exists today or tomorrow.

CM Zappala asked if this information is in a report that is publicly available. The answer was it has been summarized and provided to the County.

CM Crawley criticized Snowbird. Feels they have paid AFC Vision and several politicians, as well as for this study. Hasn't seen an outside independent voice on these studies. Dr. Arts said his stock in trade is to follow scientific standards and he has done so. He has done EIS studies.

CM Geddes asked if CFS includes Mary Ellen Gulch, Dr. Arts said it only includes property of the project being proposed. Clarified project will be entirely on the private property. Mr. Bonar said the system is setup to require the developer to hire out the studies.

I asked about prescriptive easements and public right of ways. Mr. Bonar said they have made their property available for private and motorized use and are committed to continuing that use on County Class D roads. This applies to historical uses on Class D roads. Snowmobiling is a safety problem for them, so won't include snowmobiling.

Marty Banks presented on behalf of Snowbird. Has worked on conditional use permit. Surveyed the area and there are four small areas that are considered Class D roads. In winter it may necessitate a seasonal closing in areas near the ski area, but the other areas where there aren't any conflicts, they've made commitment to let public continue to use those areas.

CM Crawley asked Mr. Bonar about Mayor Gygi's involvement and statement that he didn't know about land swap proposed by Snowbird and Mountain Accord. Feels Snowbird used Mayor Gygi in the process. Feels it was disingenuous to use Mayor Gygi. Mayor Gygi reiterated that he didn't know of land swap discussions. Mr. Bonar said they have been working on land swap on both sides of mountain for many years. There have been public meetings, it was in the newspaper, there has been a lot of knowledge of these discussions starting with Congressman Matheson's Wilderness bill many years ago.

CM Bailey asked if there is any possibility of water contamination from tailings that exist from current use of the property. Dr. Arts said if you recreate on the tailings then yes, it could impact water supply. CM Bailey worries about contaminants getting into aquifers. Wants to know what safeguards are in place to eliminate pollutants in canyon that could impact water quality. Dr. Arts said there isn't a way. Said worse area is in a naturally occurring area in upper gulch area. Says project regulates some recreational use and project does not directly or indirectly affect tailings piles. Having more access and more presence to the area allows for better monitoring. Dr. Arts said it would take a lot to clean up all tailings. Would need a capable access road, then find a repository in the valley. Bottom line is that all tailings in the West are a ticking time bomb, but experts say to leave them be if you aren't running equipment on them. CM Bailey asked what the impact on use in the area will be. Mr. Bonar said most of public use occurs in summertime and is a few ATV's per day. After it is developed he feels the use will be similar to Mineral Basin. Feels track record in Mineral Basin with ski lifts built 18 years ago, which has mine tailings, show no negative impact on water quality. CM Bailey expressed concern that increased use could lead to contamination. Dr. Arts said access would be contained and kept away from tailings.

CM Zappala asked about zoning put in place to allow for this type of use and what role Snowbird had in zoning for the area. Said his understanding was that a zoning change was made to allow for a project like this. Mr. Bonar said he's not prepared to answer that question. CM Zappala said he read through materials given to Utah County and one concern was with view shed, which Snowbird indicated would be small. CM Zappala feels they don't address impacts of view shed on recreational uses on public lands. It isn't inhabited land, but people use the area to recreate. Mr. Bonar said he understands ski towers change the viewscape. CM Zappala asked how Snowbird balances the impact for those recreating on public lands. Mr. Bonar said they would work to have it better blend with the existing landscape. Forest Service has made recommendations on how to do this. View shed analysis that was done included a 10-mile radius from proposed project. A basic tenant of a view shed analysis is dependent on the number of people who will be affected. Says there is one campground, no heavily used roads. CM Zappala asked about AFC Vision process and what Mr. Bonar's opinion of that process is. Mr. Bonar said he is supportive of those processes. He wanted to be involved as there are a lot of user groups in AF Canyon. He would be happy to participate in a process but won't be the one suggesting it. Won't revoke his application for a conditional use permit for a ski lift.

Mayor Gygi quoted Carl Fisher of Save Our Canyons, Mr. Fisher said AFC Vision was the solution, not the problem. CM Zappala said residents would be happy to have a Mountain Accord type process.

CM Crawley asked if Snowbird will take responsibility for liability if something fails, like what happened in Colorado. Mr. Bonar deferred to his attorney, who said that Yankee mine has been in existence for some time and been owned by several entities. Utah Dept of Environmental Quality would be involved in a catastrophic event to determine the cause of the failure as that would be on the list of responsible parties (was it an owner or user of the land?), then DEQ would assess ownership duration and responsibilities during that time, then allocate responsibility among all parties.

I asked if Snowbird was intending on building the ski lifts before AFC Vision had completed their process and Mr. Bonar said they were planning on waiting until the process was over. I asked if they would be willing to hold off until the County can create another group to do this process if they were planning on waiting anyway, but Mr. Bonar said no. I asked if they would be willing to release all water quality reports to the public so that those with concerns can read through them. He said they have been provided to the County and can be requested from the County.

Discussion on Temporary Ordinance and Completion of Amendments to General Plan and Design Guidelines
Postponed for next meeting as it was discussed during work session.

City Council Meeting - January 19, 2016

Public Comment
Marisa Wright - Is a member of Preserve and Protect American Fork Canyon. Board of Adjustment in Utah County is meeting next month and could approve Snowbird project. This group has done a lot of research and water issue is a big issue. Mine tailings could be disrupted very easily if Snowbird puts in a lift. Recently a Jeep damaged one of the mine tailing plugs and hasn't been fixed. Contamination could be life-threatening to fish and wildlife in the Canyon. Feels the writing in our resolution may not be strong enough. Would like wording adding that we will give legal help to this effort.

TJ Lockbach - Noticed there isn't a community garden nearby and would like to know if the city is interested in establishing one.

Bill Knowlton - Has lived in Cedar Hills for a little over a year and loves the city. Thanks the elected officials for dealing with tactics of sovereign citizens that are trying to run roughshod over the city. Said to keep the faith and not get scared. Residents support officials in the city, as does the state and nation.

City Reports
David Bunker - This Saturday ULCT is hosting a municipal officials training, geared to new city officials. Jr Jazz has started. City BYU Basketball night is January 30th and tickets are available on city website.

Mike Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch met last week to discuss new building under construction. It has been delayed because of weather, but all piers are now in place. On schedule to finish by the end of September. They are in serious need of employees so asking everyone to spread the word.

Mayor Gygi - Each Council member is required to have annual Open & Public Meetings training. You can view ULCT training online. LPPSD meeting was used to discuss personnel issues.

Rob Crawley - Thanks Council and staff for working to get resolution done tonight.

Ben Bailey - Gave condolences to family to officer killed in Salt Lake City.

Review/Action on Acceptance of 2015 Fiscal Year Audit
Annually we contract with independent auditors to review the basic financial statements. The independent auditors are expected to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

This is our first audit with Keddington & Christensen. They report they did not encounter any difficulties in performing the audit. There were no adjustments, no unrecorded misstatements for presentation, no disagreements with management that couldn't be resolved. The city only received one finding, and that was for having an unrestricted General Fund balance that exceeded the limit of 25% of current year revenues. We were over by $160,995. This was moved to the Capital Projects Fund.

The audit was unanimously accepted.

Discussion on Zoning Ordinance and General Plan
Based on the City Councils decision to enact a temporary land use regulation in the SC-1 Commercial Zone on November 17, 2015, staff is recommending that the City Council consider the hiring of a professional firm to assist in the revision of the City’s General Plan, Cedar Hills Municipal Code, and the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects. Because the City only has six months to complete all of these revisions, and based on the fact that the revisions need to reflect current Utah State Code, as well as the industry’s established best practices, it is essential that the revision process begin immediately. Staff will continue to meet with Mayor Gygi and various members of the City Council to prepare the General Plan, Land Use Element, various elements of the City Code, and the Design Guidelines for review by both the Planning Commission and then for adoption by the City Council.

Last week, CM Zappala, Rees, Mayor Gygi, Chandler Goodwin, and David Driggs met to start discussing the commercial zone. The initial thoughts are that we need to determine if there should be subzones, and if so, what that should look like, and what uses should be permitted or conditional. Suggestion is that we have medium intensity uses for the eastern portion of the Smart property, then keep the rest of the zone neighborhood retail. There would be requirements in place to create a buffer between between the property and the residential homes so they are not negatively impacted. This would allow for commercial uses on the east and west side of the proposed 4700 South, which may be more attractive to businesses as it has direct street access.

One area I'd really like to focus on is the intent of the zone. Our current zoning ordinance says:

The SC-1 zone is established to provide an area in which the primary use of land is for commercial and service uses to serve the needs of the community and surrounding area and is located in the portion of the city most appropriately suited for the purpose. It is intended that development within the zone shall be characterized by a harmonious grouping of commercial stores and shops and essential ancillary uses(parking, signs, landscape features) architecturally designed and functioning as an integrated unit. Clean, well lighted parking lots, readily accessible from adjacent streets, and attractive, well maintained shops with significant peripheral and on site landscaping will be characteristic of development within this zone. It is the specific intent that architectural design and character of operation shall, to the maximum extent possible, be compatible with that of surrounding residential environment, and review, approval and attachment of conditions upon development within the zone will be predicated upon the accomplishment of this objective. (Ord. 10-11-95A, 10-11-1995)

It's important that, whatever we list as a permitted or conditional use, meets the intent of the zone as defined above. If we want to allow for other uses that don't meet this intent, then we need to change the intent of the zone. If we want to keep it more of a small town feel that is compatible with the surrounding residential environment, then we should list the uses to comply. We are going to send a 4 question survey to residents to get a feel for which direction they would like to go - more of what is outlined in our current zoning ordinance, or to make it more open to commercial uses. 

Discussion on Half-way Houses
Recently an inquiry was made to the city regarding the development of a half-way house for
recovering alcoholics. An inquiry was made to city attorney, David Shaw to advise on the options
available to the City when it comes to these types of facilities. Current city code does not define a
half-way house or other rehabilitation-type facilities. The closest definition currently in the code is for assisted living facilities or as the single family definition of four unrelated individuals living in the same dwelling. An assisted living facility could house persons with disabilities; our current assisted living code would allow for up to 16 occupants to be housed in the same facility in a residential zone.

HUD has definitions on housing for individuals with disabilities. Alcoholism is considered a disability under the Fair Housing Act. It is unlawful to prohibit these types of facilities. Alpine recently dealt with this same situation. The city turned it down, and it was appealed. A settlement was entered into allowing for a 16-bed facility in the residential area. It appears that we can require that the facility meets similar conditions we place on assisted living facility in a residential area, but cannot deny it completely. This is being researched by staff, but no application has been made.

Review/Action on Resolution Regarding American Fork Canyon
Public Comment 
Mark Allen - Founder of Protect and Preserve Canyon. Group now has 10,200 people. Was here the last time we passed a resolution. Has issued many GRAMA requests to find out how we've gotten to where we are and has discovered many concerning things. Four email accounts have been deleted. Some mayors have not responded to requests. Is waiting on a GRAMA request from Cedar Hills. Said he was happy that Mayor Gygi did not go on the Switzerland trip, but other elected officials from other cities have. Largest campaign donor to Mayor Ben McAdams was Snowbird. Would like us to add a requirement for an Environmental Impact Study in our Resolution. Snowbird needs to clean up their land, just like other groups such as Geneva Steel has done. Formal decisions shouldn't be made until more research and studies have been done.

Protect and Preserve has asked the Council to issue another resolution expressing the desire to protect the watershed in the Canyon and asking the Board of Adjustment for Utah County to deny Snowbird's request for a conditional use permit. The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Cedar Hills has environmental, economic, social, and historical interests in American Fork Canyon; and

WHEREAS, Cedar Hills desires to establish best practices and policies regarding the management and care of the Canyon; and

WHEREAS, Cedar Hills has an obligation and a vested interest to protect the watershed, and the sources and quantities of water; and

WHEREAS Cedar Hills is committed to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and

WHEREAS, there is a potential for a negative impact on the City water system; and

WHEREAS, there is a need to balance new development with existing recreational uses in the Canyon that value isolation and the natural mountain environment.

NOW THEREFORE BE IS RESOLVED:
The City of Cedar Hills believes that the proposed development by Snowbird does not meet the intent of the CE-1 zone listed in Utah County code sections 5-5-A-2 and 5-5-A-3 and does not meet the conditions listed in Utah County code sections 3-47-H-3 and 3-47-H-7;

The City of Cedar Hills urges the Utah County Board of Adjustment to consider the potential impact on area watershed and water supply and require the applicant to provide all applicable studies to address this issue, including the long term effect of any undesirable elements that could be transferred to the ground water; and

The City of Cedar Hills encourages the Utah County Board of Adjustment to maintain existing easements and public access to the land; and

The City of Cedar Hills encourages the Utah County Board of Adjustment to request Utah County staff and elected officials to obtain additional input from stakeholders that use the surrounding property and commission an independent developmental and environmental impact report that is free from bias of the developer; and

The City of Cedar Hills urges the Utah County Commission to establish a transparent, public, and collaborative process for coordinating the land uses in American Fork Canyon that brings together all interested stakeholders, similar to the Mountain Accord process that has been used successfully in Salt Lake County; and

The City of Cedar Hills urges the Utah County Commission to suspend further development in American Fork Canyon until such a collaborative process has been completed.

This was unanimously approved.

Discussion on Payment to Eric Johnson for Legal Fees
The Golf Course Committee requested legal advice while doing their research, though they did not have a budget provided to them. During those meetings, our current and former attorneys were in attendance to answer questions, and emails were directed to both of them as well. Our current attorney was paid for his time, but our former attorney's invoice was denied as there was not a current contract with them and three members of the Council expressed to the City Manager they did not want to pay for this invoice. It was requested this come to the Council for further discussion.

CM Geddes gave an example of the Parks & Trails Committee wanting funds for architectural designs for the roundabout. They had to come to the Council for approval. This is the same thing that should have happened with the Golf Committee. There was a breakdown in communication and not the fault of anyone in particular. I have requested that we have an agenda item for our meeting in two weeks on a policy regarding committee use of city funds, committees & council members authorizing work from others who are not staff members, and handling invoices for work that wasn't previously approved by the Council. The entire Council and staff agreed this is a good idea, we need to make sure we all understand how funds are being spent.

City Council Meeting - January 5, 2016

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda
The minutes from the November 12th, November 16th, and November 17th City Council meetings were approved. Appointments for city recorder (Colleen Mulvey) and treasurer (David Bunker), and new members of the Planning Commission (Brian Miller and Jared Anderson), Parks & Trails Committee (Ben Ellsworth and Chris Fowler), and Board of Adjustment (Darin Lowder) were made and approved 4-1.

City Reports
David Bunker - Jr Jazz has a big turnout once again. Natalie Scott has resigned so we will be looking for a new person to replace her. A new theater class begins next Thursday, which has 75 signups so far. TSSD has approved their final budget. They will also be looking at modifying the rate structure over the next few months.

Rob Crawley - Thanked Trent for his work on the Council over the past four years.

Mayor Gygi - Spoke with the mayors from Highland and Alpine about their thoughts on a community pool shared by all three cities. We are currently partnered with them through our Arts Committee with regards to theater productions. Highland and Alpine do not have city-sponsored recreation programs and refer residents to ours. The mayors all recognize that they cannot build a pool on their own, but were open to the idea of the three cities working together on this. A section of the Utah Developmental Center land is planned for a community facility of some sort, so it's a possibility it could go there. This would also allow LP students to use a pool nearby instead of going to American Fork. The mayors all felt this should come from residents, not from elected officials, but they are willing to look at any studies our staff has done. He also attended a meeting of the Utah State Developmental Center regarding new roads going through their development as part of the master plan, and one would connect to Harvey Blvd. If approved by the State Legislature this year, they hope to start construction later this year. The County would need to build this road as it will be considered a regional road that connects two state roads.

He also met with Highland recently. They are interested in joining with us in building a maintenance shed where we currently have our golf trailers. Both cities would use it and pay for it. This is an ongoing discussion.

CM Zappala - He is working on pulling together information for the rewriting of our commercial zones and encourages resident feedback.

CM Geddes - Utah County Dispatch has broken ground on their new building, though it's on hold right now due to weather.

Review/Action of Mayor Pro Tempore
Consistent with UCA 10-3b-302 and City Code 1-5-3, MAYOR AS MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL; the terms and scope of the duties of Mayor Pro Tempore are defined. In summary, the mayor pro tempore shall have all of the powers and duties of the mayor during his absence, disability or refusal to act. The election of a mayor pro tempore shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting. This year, it will be Councilmember Rob Crawley. This was approved.

Review/Action on Assignments for Staff and Resident Committees
City Councilmembers, staff and residents act as resources, liaisons, and on some boards and committees may be voting members. The Mayor, with advice and consent of the City Council, makes assignments to various boards, committees and entities. The Council assignments are as follows:

Rob Crawley - North Pointe Solid Waste, General Plan Committee

Daniel Zappala - Lone Peak Public Safety, Planning Commission

Mike Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch, Finance Committee

Jenney Rees - Media Relations, Family Festival Committee, Parks & Trails Committee

Ben Bailey - Finance Committee, Cultural Arts & Events Committee

Staff, Council, and resident assignments were all approved.

Discussion on Driving Range Fence
Public Comment
Jason Harr - Thanked the Council for considering their concerns. They are building a house near the driving range and are finding a large number of golf balls coming over the fence and into their yard, as well as Mesquite Park. He does not feel that cameras or staff onsite will solve the problem. Feels raising the nets is the most effective option. His neighbor said that since the nets nearer to his house were raised, he has seen a reduction in the number of golf balls in his yard. Feels if the operations of the driving range were shifted east further, that would also help. Says it's not just an issue for him, but those going to the park, walking the trail, and driving down the street in that area. Golf course next to BYU has raised their nets.

This issue has been discussed during previous City Council meetings. Options that have been considered are, 1) Installing cameras, 2) additional employees to monitor driving range, and 3) additional netting. The cost for two solar cameras would be $6400. Greg doesn't feel hiring someone would make sense due to cost. Staff asked West Coast Netting to give us a bid for the home owner to install netting on their property since they have purchased a lot knowing the driving range was already there and living on any golf course may create problems for potential property damage. It would cost the resident $8,100 to install three poles 15’ high x 60’ wide (including netting). If the City does the netting on the driving range, our cost would drop to $5,200 instead of the $8,100 because they will already be on site. To increase the poles and netting for the entire driving range would cost $61,000 through West Coast Netting. Another company is willing to do a trade where they get a two year corporate pass as part of payment and we pay about $33,350. This would add 20 feet to the existing netting.

My concern is the potential liability we face if a golf ball goes over the fence and hits someone at Mesquite Park or someones backyard, especially as we know how many golf balls are ending up over the fence. It could be quite costly to defend against a lawsuit of this nature. My recommendation is we find a way to reduce the cost of the proposed maintenance shed by $33,000 so we can use budgeted funds for that to raise the netting for the entire range. It makes sense to me to do what we can to reduce the liability and protect our residents.

Discussion on Code Related to Zoning and Development
We placed a moratorium on any new applications for development in our commercial zone while the Planning Commission and City Council review and possibly make changes to our Design Guidelines, General Plan, and Zoning laws. By law, we only have six months to complete this process, so must be done by May 17th. CM Zappala recommended the first step is determining if we want to have multiple zones in that area, and what should be allowed in those zones. I'm feeling a sense of urgency to get this completed and have started reviewing the code for other cities to get a feel for what they have done. We don't need to reinvent the wheel but can take from others what makes sense for our city. I'd like us to all be on board and ready to approve in April. Mayor Gygi suggested that he and two members of the Council meet each week to move this along, as well as having it as a regular agenda item for our Council meetings. He will rotate Councilmembers for this assignment. The first meeting will be with CM Bailey and Zappala. Mayor will also invite a member of the Planning Commission to attend.

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.

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.