Work Session
Pleasant Grove Strawberry Days Royalty presented. The
queen and each attendant introduced themselves, as well as the rodeo royalty. Invited
Cedar Hills residents to Strawberry Days, which is in June.
Council Meeting
Public Comment
Robert Silva – Received a notice regarding a speed bump
sign being covered by his tree. His tree was in before the sign was placed. In
order to comply, he would have to remove the entire tree. Would like to know if
city could move the sign back approximately three feet so that the tree doesn’t
need to be cut down. Many other city signs in the area are also obstructed by
trees.
David Cox – Addressed the Rosegate development. Has lived
in Cedar Hills for less than a year. He was initially opposed to the
development for selfish reasons. Has general impression that the city feels
they are in a helpless position with this development. The mixed-use
office/retail zone is supposed to be less intense. In commercial guidelines it
says city shall impose any and all conditions to protect surrounding areas. His
belief is that the conditions requested have not been met, specifically the
height of the building. He will email the Council the rest of his thoughts as
he ran out of time during public comment.
Ken Cromar – Last City Council meeting his group spoke
regarding Kim Holindrake and her retirement. Hasn’t received a response and
wants to know when he will receive one. Wants former attorney Eric Johnson to
sign an affidavit stating that all city documents were returned to the city and
that he never engaged in anything illegal.
Public Hearing
Final
Plans for Lakeview Trails Subdivision, located at approximately 10100 Canyon
Road in the H-
1
Hillside Zone
Wayne Windor – Manager for Metropolitan Water
District. Believes there is one area that has not yet been resolved and it is
the storm water runoff on the corridor. Wants any action to be contingent on addressing
storm water runoff concerns.
Decision
to allow the proposed congregate care facility, Rosegate at Cedar Hills,
located at 4600 W Cedar Hills Drive, to traverse the Neighborhood Retail
subzone
David Cox – Purpose of the neighborhood retail
subzone is to promote/meet day to day needs of current residents. Doesn’t feel
this development does this. Plans he has seen are not ideal. Is in favor of
allowing it to traverse in order to make building nicer looking, but only if
the building is moving forward.
Corey Shupe – Corey is with Blu Line, the developer
for Rosegate. He feels they have met requirements, but there was a desire from
the Planning Commission to look at how things would look if an overlap in the
neighborhood retail subzone was allowed. Came to hear feedback from residents.
Amendments
to City Code Regarding Landscaping and Xeriscaping
Nobody signed up for public comment.
Water
and Sewer Funds transfers out to Governmental Funds to cover related Water
& Sewer charges for FY2015 and 2016 - see notes from that agenda item
below.
Ken Hazelbaker – New to Cedar Hills. He is a Civil
Engineer. Surprised to see a golf course in a desert community. Doesn’t
understand why we are transferring funds, wants to know if it’s a normal fiscal
thing or an emergency issue.
City Reports
David Bunker – Teen soccer finished up this week
and was very successful. Working on an agreement with Lone Peak Volleyball for
some clinics. Meeting with Principal Bromley to discuss additional
partnerships. Golf course has struggled this month with rain.
CM Zappala – Working on technology to improve
customer service. Coordinating with city staff. We currently use a program
called iWork but isn’t clear whether or not it meets our needs, so he is going
to setup a meeting with them to find out if we should be using it differently.
Mayor Gygi – Finance Committee met and moving
closer to final budget. Hoping to have one more additional meeting before final
approval.
CM Rees – Planning Commission met. They had a great
discussion on whether or not to allow the proposed congregate care facility to
traverse the neighborhood retail portion of the SC-1 zone. The goals discussed
were to create a park-like setting that can be accessed and enjoyed by the
entire community, to move the development further from the homes to the south,
and to allow for more commercial development in the southwest portion of that
property. The final motion incorporated these goals and included conditions
that the area must maximize open space to be visible and accessible to the
community, and to require a 1 to 1 swap for commercial. It was approved with
one dissenting. The one dissenting preferred to have a visual of what was being
suggested before making a decision and also would have liked the requirement
that the 1 to 1 swap be specifically for commercial that generates sales tax.
The recommendation was made to Blu Line to come to the Council with some
visuals of the 1 to 1 swap.
The Planning Commission also discussed rezoning
some lots from the R-1 20,000 zone to R-1 15,000. This would allow some of
those lots to be subdivided and developed; however, it is anticipated this
would only create an additional 8-10 usable lots. Large animal rights would
need to be allowed as these lots already have those rights. It would also make
the current non-conforming lots into conforming lots.
The Planning Commission agreed that the next
meeting on May 26th would be dedicated to reviewing the design
guidelines.
Finally, because Lakeview Trails is on the agenda
today, I figured I would read the motion made by the Planning Commission. It
states “To recommend the approval of the Lakeview Trails Subdivision
final plan to the City Council contingent on following: showing the storm water
drainage between Lots 3 and 4 and parcel A and Lot 1; fixing the Pressurized
Irrigation line between Lots 19 and 20 per David Bunker’s direction; showing
the location of the sidewalk at the end of the cul de sac off Bayhill Drive;
adding building area on each lot; assigning addresses; correcting the geotech
study report; engineering and geotech review by the city engineer; and a letter
of water rights conveyance.”
The Finance Committee met and further discussed the
upcoming FY2016 budget. No significant changes were made from the last Council
meeting.
The Family Festival is a few weeks away and that
committee is busy preparing. All details are available on the city’s website.
CM Crawley – Spent time looking at options for the golf
course.
Review/Action on installation of sewer laterals to
properties on 4000 West
Recently a Pleasant Grove resident on 4000 West
approached the City to connect to the Cedar Hills sanitary sewer mainline due
to a failure of the septic system at their address. Currently the city policy
is that connection to city lines are for current residents unless provisions
are made otherwise. Due to the time sensitive nature of the sewer failure, this
resident has been in discussions with the City regarding possible boundary
adjustment or agreement to connect to the sewer main. Other properties may also
be affected. Staff recommends each PG resident who wants to connect sign an
agreement to boundary adjust into Cedar Hills. There are about six homes on
this street who are also on septic systems and may eventually be in the same
position. City would cover cost of lateral to property line. Ms. Day (the PG
resident) spoke to those residents and all but one agreed to annex into Cedar
Hills when their homes sold.
The concerns that I brought up were 1) an
annexation period needs to be defined; 2) what happens if PG rejects the
request for disconnect; 3) what happens if she doesn’t pay her sewer bill as we
cannot turn off her water; 4) we need to implement any changes recommended by
legal counsel.
This was approved with the four items above
included as conditions.
Review/Action on final plans for Lakeview Trails in
the H-1 Hillside zone
The “Lakeview Trails” subdivision
is located on Canyon Road at approximately 10150 N. The proposed subdivision is
located within the H-1 zone, but qualifies as a Planned Residential Development
(see code 10-6B). These plans have been submitted to an outside engineering
firm to review submissions. The submittals include plats showing the
infrastructure improvements, a geotechnical study as well as the required storm
water management plan. Planning
Commission approved a recommendation to the City Council for final approval during
their April meeting.
Staff would like to see storm drain pipes to be 15” to
meet city standards. PI line between lots 19 & 20 was corrected. Buildable
area is being met. Engineering report on new plans is from Earthtek Engineering.
Concern with storm drain system that goes across aqueduct and needs to be
subject to an engineer’s review of final storm drain plan. Water conveyance
letter was received but needs to be verified. Added streetlight at end of
Bayhill cul-de-sac. Additional concern with lots 3-8 is that property
encroaches upon easement for Metropolitan aqueduct. This has been an issue for
residents in other parts of the city where residents weren’t able to install
fences, structures, pools, etc. because of easements. Developer will disclose
to residents that fence cannot be built on easement and that privacy fence not
allowed on trail.
CM Zappala received a copy of the new geotech report,
which was critical of the original geotech report. Asked who has reviewed these
concerns. Staff met with Earthtek to review each of the concerns. This was
approved with the following conditions: Subject to review of storm drain plans
that meets requirements for massive event; drainage between lots 3 & 4 need
to be piped; SL/Metropolitan Water as signer on plat; 15” pipe for storm drain;
verification of water conveyance; verify addresses listed on plat; identify on
plat where fencing is not allowed; final review and approval by engineering.
Review/Action on amendments to city code regarding
landscaping and xeriscaping
Planning Commission has made a recommendation to
the City Council to modify the current xeriscape code found in 10-5-27 to be as
follows: 10-5-27 C. Defined: The term
“landscaping” shall mean and include the installation of any combination of
turf (including either sod or seeded area), planter beds, gardens, trees and
shrubs, statuary, boulders, rock areas, xeriscape or other customary landscape
features that occupy the entire unpaved portion of the front yard area. 1.
Irrigation System: Where the landscaping includes turf and other plant
materials that require the application of irrigation water in order to be
sustained, an irrigation system shall be installed and designed to provide
adequate quantities of water to those area requiring irrigation. Xeriscaped
areas shall be watered only using drip/trickle irrigation systems, or other
similar systems used to reduce water consumption. 2. Xeriscape: A landscaping
method that employs the use of drought tolerant plants and techniques in order
to conserve water. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
use of drought tolerant vegetation, and non-vegetative materials. Provided,
however, failure of an owner to install and maintain landscaping within the
front yard area under the guise that the vegetation and bare ground that occur
naturally on the site constitutes xeriscaping shall not qualify as conforming
with the provisions of this section.
CM Zappala brought up again having the city
xeriscape roundabouts and street medians as nobody can play on that grass. Staff
brought up this may increase our maintenance costs. I requested that we obtain
information from our maintenance company on potential costs.
This was approved.
Discussion on Water and Sewer Funds transfers out
to Governmental Funds to cover related Water & Sewer charges for FY2015 and
2016
The Utah State Auditor provided new guidance in an
Auditor Alert May 8, 2014 for enterprise fund transfers, reimbursements, loans,
and services relating to Utah Code 10-6-135. The new auditor alert requires
governmental entities to charge governmental funds for any services provided by
enterprise funds. The City is also required to hold a public notice because it
reimburses the governmental funds for new water and sewer charges incurred. Estimated
amounts for water and sewer are $8,500 for general fund and $31,000 for the golf
course. Staff used information from what we charge American Fork and LPHS to
come to the estimate. The budget impact is zero as there is a charge for the
utilities with an associated transfer in from the water & sewer fund to pay
for the utilities. The report from the Utah State Auditor is available online
for any resident who would like to view.
Review/Action on resolution regarding fireworks and
open fires
Chief Freeman has addressed the City Council
regarding the upcoming fire conditions.
Although conditions are subject to change with weather patterns which
are unpredictable, Chief Freeman feels that if dry weather persists, conditions
could rapidly accelerate the potential for fires. The Chief anticipates that
conditions will be similar to last year and has expressed concerns that
restrictions for open fires and aerial fireworks should be in place in some
locations. Utah law now puts the control of restrictions directly with
Cities. By resolution, the City can
restrict open fires, fireworks, etc. dependent on criteria such as
environmental issues (weather conditions, dry fuel loads, and escalating fire
conditions), topographical considerations (mountainous terrain, brush covered
areas and wildland interface) and public safety concerns (people, structures
and property). In addition, last year the City identified one location for
residents who live in restricted areas to gather to celebrate with legal
fireworks. Last year the location selected was Mesquite Park. Other cities also
use open parks for this activity. It is recommended that Mesquite Park again be
designated as the location to have residents gather to light fireworks if they
are restricted at their homes. This way,
the fire department can monitor one location vs. the entire east bench.
The restrictions for this year will be that no
aerials or open fires are allowed east of Canyon Road. There are no
restrictions for the rest of the city at this point, but that is subject to
change as recommendations come from the Lone Peak fire chief. Residents are
encouraged to light fireworks at Mesquite Park. This was approved.
Discussion on golf course options
Council Member Rob Crawley has asked to include a
discussion on the various golf course options that may be available to the
City. Options range from keeping the status quo to exploring and comparing
other “financial and social’ impacts that other options may offer. The goal of
this discussion is to provide feedback and direction to Council Member Crawley
as he begins an analysis. CM Crawley read a letter and I’ve included images of
that letter here.
The areas I felt needed to be addressed include:
- Including the Golf Course Advisory Committee in the analysis (Mayor Gygi first suggested this). I feel that whatever is decided will hold more weight if it is a group of residents doing the research as opposed to one person.
- The bond covenants need to be fully understood. I've been told that changing the golf course to something else could make the bond callable. We need to understand the repercussions.
- A portion of the golf course is in Highland and we cannot assume they will agree to any changes.
- The cost for reconfiguring the golf course needs to be fully analyzed. While Rob's letter indicates it could be a substitute for the Deerfield land, the reality is that it is currently not usable as soccer fields or park space. Much would need to be reconfigured.
- The cost for moving the PI ponds needs to be considered.
- Legal counsel needs to be involved in reviewing the development agreements with the Cedars as I've been told the open space of the golf course was included as part of the allowance for housing.
