PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 7:00 p.m.

Public Safety Building

3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah



Present:           Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding

Council Members: Charelle Bowman, Joel Wright, Eric Richardson, Darin Lowder, Jim Perry

                        Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager

                        Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

                        David Bunker, City Engineer

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

                        David Taylor, Assistant to the City Manager

                        Rich Knapp, City Accountant

Others: Mark Edminster, Eric Johnson, Derek Martin, Duane Beins, Russ Smart, Nancy Gardner, Troop 873, David Gardner, Stephen Lee, Lynn Corbett, Tony Baros, Melissa Willie, Jim Ferry, Todd Chidester, Brandon Chidester, Ty Burgess, Brent Uibel, Wyatt Smith, Lars Anderson, Shawn Richins, Brian Hansen, Todd Taylor, Caleb Warnock - Daily Herald, Zonda Perry (7:25 p.m.), David Lone (7:25 p.m.), Brett Taufer (7:25 p.m.)


 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

1.         This Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:18 p.m. by Mayor McGee.

 

2.         Proposed Amendment to the Zone Map to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1 Hillside Zone to the Public Facilities Zone. The Property is Located at Approximately 10300 North Between Canyon Road and Bayhill Drive (7:18 p.m.)

 

          Carl Volden - I have two hats tonight here. I am a citizen. I am also on the Planning Commission. As a member of the Planning Commission, this item came to us approximately a month ago. We had some discussion, made some motions. We were asked to meet with the City Council in a special meeting with more conversation and discussion only to come out with a positive recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council would act in a positive manner. I was quite surprised to find that they tabled the matter for, in effect, the Planning Commission review. Some of the comments I thought were rather interesting in that this isn’t a new item for the City. It has been in the budget for the last two years. I don’t attend every City Council meeting but I was certainly aware of the desire of the City to have a Public Works Building and have been aware over the last two years there have been some issues that have prevented us from building in our ideal location. I was a little bit frustrated to see that it was tabled. The Planning Commission then again met and discussed and made a recommendation that you will be acting on tonight. As a member of Planning Commission and as a citizen of the community, I would like to caution you that we not require or place an undue burden on the City. No more burdens or responsibility than we would for any other developer. As it came before me as a Planning Commissioner, I looked at this project as just that—another development project coming to the Planning Commission. Some will say that because it is the City, there ought to be more scrutiny and a higher standard of which they need to meet. I disagree. I think that if that is the case, the City in itself could be in a tough spot to defend itself in a lawsuit. Who would sue? The City would sue itself, ha ha. Nevertheless, my recommendation and encouragement to you as you consider this again is that you not hold the City to any higher standard than you would any other development.

          Jim Ferry: To make a response to a comment that Carl made, most typical developers do not come in and ask the City for a zoning change when they come in and ask for permission to build a building that isn’t allowed in that zone. I do think this does require special consideration just because it does not meet any of the conditional uses or the allowed uses for the current zone, so that changing the zoning specifically for this building is a different situation than most typical developers coming in and asking for approval for a project. I do think that it does require special consideration. Quite frankly, if a developer came to me and wanted to change the zoning in the City so that they could put up a project, I would tell him no way. That would be my opinion.

 

3.         Proposed Amendments to the City Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations - Sign Ordinance (7:26 p.m.)

 

          Duane Beins: I am here on behalf of the Utah County Association of Realtors. I have been appointed to the government committee to come to Cedar Hills and find out the good things that are happening. Hopefully, no bad things and then report back to Utah County Association. I am also here as a realtor for Prudential Utah Real Estate. We are interested in the sign ordinance. I think it is a great thing. I think those things need to be regulated. We did come up with a few things that concerned us. Number one, Cedar Hills is a great place, and we want the signs to look good. We have been using the same signage since 1987 with Prudential Utah Real Estate. Century 21 also uses the same type of signage as does Westfield and some of the other companies. It is basically a vertical pole with a cross on it with a sign on it. In this proposed ordinance, the height of the sign is regulated at five feet. Everyone I have checked—and I have tried to call our own sign company that puts these things up—the signs are all about six feet tall. Because this covers, with Prudential alone, basically 14 offices over three counties – and we hire an independent sign company that puts these signs up – this creates a question, partially on the height. The other thing is because the chances of us having the same sign put in Cedar Hills twice in a row are pretty minimal with this sign company because they put things up in Salt Lake County, Utah County, Wasatch County and Summit County. The second part of the sign ordinance addresses the fact that each sign must carry the seal of the City on it. We are wondering how to handle that. We didn’t come up with any answers. The concerns would be, every time we put up a new sign, do we call Cedar Hills and say, “Okay, we just put a sign up out here. We need you to come out a put a seal on it.” Or is there a different way that you can give us a set of seals that go on all the signs that we can place, knowing that they will be placed by the ordinance. The third question we have is on the directional signs that realtors typically use. There are all these directional signs pointing people into the neighborhood where the home is for sale. We are not exactly sure if that comes under the definition of snipe signs and how those would be addressed. Basically, because we put them on private property, but the way the rules read, they would only be able to be there for a very few days. So those are the concerns we have. We applaud the ordinance. We just want to know if it is going to mean we have to cut off the bottoms of all our signs to satisfy Cedar Hills.

 

4.         This Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor McGee.



COUNCIL MEETING

 

1.         This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor McGee.

 

Invocation given by C. Bowman

 

Pledge of Allegiance

 

2.         Public Issues for Future Agendas: Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the Agenda (7:32 p.m.)

 

          Nancy Gardner: Ms. Gardner said that since moving to Cedar Hills a little over a year ago, she has received a lot of comments on the golf course. She drove past the golf course for the first time a little while ago and was surprised to see it located across the street from another golf course. She said the majority of residents will not use the golf course and suggested the Council seriously consider a cemetery in place of the golf course.

          David Gardner: Mr. Gardner lives in the Bridgestone development next to Deerfield Elementary. There is a problem with children and parents using the private lane through Bridgestone to get to school. He would like it placed on public record that it is not a public road. David Bunker confirmed that it is a private right-of-way.

          Jim Ferry: Mr. Ferry commented on the site plan for the Public Works Building. He felt the metal siding on the exterior does not fit in with the existing neighborhood. He said stucco or brick would be better choices. The site will be visible from the golf course and to cars on Canyon Road. He opposed the proposed chain link fence. He feels it should match the stamped concrete wall on the other side of Canyon Road or the rod iron fence around the LDS church to the north.

          Zonda Perry: There is dirt and mud in the gutter on Sage Vista Lane from construction. For new construction, compliance with the City’s a storm drainage plan is required. In this case, it is not new construction, but something should be done. Staff will look into the problem.

 

3.         Approval of the Minutes from the February 21, 2006, Public Hearing and City Council Meeting (7:43 p.m.)


MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the minutes from the February 21, 2006, Public Hearing and City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Bowman.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.




 

4.         Review/Action on Amendment to the Zone Map to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1 Hillside Zone to the Public Facilities Zone; The Property is Located at Approximately 10300 North Between Canyon Road and Bayhill Drive and Approval of the Site Plan (7:55 p.m.)

 

See handouts. The City has had a lot of opportunity for public comment. Per the Planning Commission’s request, the City had an Open House to allow residents to stop in and review the site plan. City staff also made site plan information available on the City’s Web site. Tony Baros of Richardson Design (architectural firm) and Lars Anderson of Anderson Landscaping Design were present to answer questions.

          Tony Baros clarified that the garage portion of the building is metal with a masonry wainscot up to six feet. The office portion uses stucco. Full masonry would cost six times as much. On the garage portion it would cost $12/square foot for the materials as opposed to $2/square foot with wainscot and metal. The surface area of the garage portion is about 8,000 square feet.

          The landscaping plan was revised to include tree coverage over the entire western side of the site. The look is xeriscaped. There is no berm because of the grade of the land.

          The slope will be reseeded with an erosion control mat. Canyon Glen in Provo Canyon is a good example of revegetation with erosion control mats.

          The Hoopsi blue spruce grows to 35 feet and is densely planted with foliage that goes to the ground.

          The east side of the site is for the trailhead to the park. That is not part of this project.

          The south side of the site is a ravine. The grading going into the ravine will be revegetated with a seed mix including an erosion control blanket.

          There will be directional lighting on the building. There will be no lampposts. There should be a streetlight at the driveway entrance. It is not shown on the drawings.

          The total cost estimate is $830,800 plus $40,000 for landscaping. Other material options and prices include: stucco ($5/foot), cement board siding ($7/foot), brick veneer ($10/foot).

          The current fencing material is a black vinyl-coated chain link fence. The vinyl coating helps the fence disappear. Stamped concrete is $80/linear foot. There is about 400 feet of fencing required along the front. Vinyl-coated fencing is about $16/linear foot. Rod iron runs about $25/foot.

          Trees run $500/evergreen, $300/deciduous.

          Mark Edminster said that long-term interest rates have been are slowly rising.

 

C. Perry said that he believes that this is the best location for the Public Works Building. C. Lowder said that he thinks that it would be a good idea to put a little extra money into the façade of the building to please the residents. The Council can approve the site plan and address the materiality of the building later. Rodney Despain suggested the ordinance also needs to have a Section 2 that addresses the site plan and includes an effective date when the Council accepts a bid.


MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Ordinance 3-7-2006A, An Ordinance Amending the Zone Map of the City to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1 Hillside Development Zone to the PF-Public Facilities Zone; Approving the Site Plan for the Development within the Zone; and Providing for the Adoption and Administration of this Ordinance; To Take Effect With the Passage and Publication as Required by Law and the Approval of the Specific Design and Construction Materials of the Building and the Landscaping. Seconded by C. Wright.

 

C. Richardson said that he is confident this is the best site available and that the City has the ability to create a building as nice, or nicer, than what is required of homes.

 

Vote taken by roll call.                       Aye     -          C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

 

5.         Review/Action on a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More than $1,500,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 for the Purpose of Financing the Costs of Acquiring and Constructing a Public Works Facility; Calling a Public Hearing; Providing for a Pledge of Excise Tax Revenues for Repayment of the Bonds; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period; and Related Matters (8:59 p.m.)

 

See handouts. This covers the actual financing of the project. The bonds will be secured with franchise tax fees. This parameters resolution starts the process. C. Richardson asked what expenses the City will incur if the resolution passes before the authorization of the issuance of bonds is approved. Mark Edminster said that expenses incurred include legal fees and public notification costs. Ty Burgess of Wells Fargo said that the City received an excellent rating. It is the same rating as Weber County or Ogden City. He said that says a lot, and the credit process stops in a private placement with that type of rating. C. Wright expressed some concern that by approving the parameters beyond what is needed, the Council might spend more than is necessary. Mayor McGee said that has never happened and the Council is committed to reigning in costs. Mark Edminster said that as the City’s financial advisor, he is also interested in keeping the City from spending more than is needed.


MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 3-7-2006A, A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More than $1,500,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah County, Utah for the Purpose of Financing the Costs of Acquiring and Constructing a Public Works Facility; Calling a Public Hearing and Establishing a Time, Place and Location for Said Public Hearing; Providing for Publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and Bonds to be Issued; Providing for a Pledge of Excise Tax Revenues for Repayment of the Bonds; Fixing the Maximum Amount, Maturity, Interest Rate, and Discount at which the Bonds may be Sold; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period; and Related Matters. Seconded by C. Bowman. Vote taken by roll call.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

 

There is a required Public Hearing, which will be on April 4, 2006. C. Perry said that in regard to fencing on the previous item, deer do not jump over stamped concrete fences. They will jump over one they can see through.



 

6.         Review/Action on Authorization of the Sale and Issuance of Approximately $6,125,000 Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2006 to Obtain a Debt Service Savings by Retiring the City’s Financing with Zions Bank on Its Water Facilities and to Acquire Approximately $200,000 in Water Facilities Improvements (9:14 p.m.)

 

See handouts. Mark Edminster explained the bond sale, which was very successful. The rating the City received helped reduce the interest costs and the cost of issuance by reducing the bond insurance required. The fact that the bonds were bank-qualified helped the City as well. Wells Fargo had also pre-marketed the bonds. Eric Johnson walked the Council through the resolution. The resolution includes a Bond Purchase Contract, General Indenture of Trust, First Supplemental, the Preliminary Official Statement.


MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 3-7-2006B, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hill, Utah County, Utah Approving the Issuance of $6,215,000 of Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds Series 2006. Seconded by C. Wright. Vote taken by roll call. 

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

 

7.         Review/Action on Amendments to the City Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations - Sign Ordinance (9:33 p.m.)

 

See handouts. The Planning Commission has worked extensively on the Sign Ordinance. There are two areas in the code that currently address signs: home occupations and campaign signs. C. Richardson pointed out the concerns addressed by Duane Beins during the Public Hearing regarding real estate signs being six feet high; this ordinance only allows for five feet. C. Bowman also asked about the duration of real estate signs. She is concerned about properties or lots that might not sell within a year. C. Perry asked about why the City would not allow celebratory balloon signs. Kim Holindrake explained that the intent of the definition of balloon signs is signs that are large balloons on a rope high in the air, not small personal balloon signs. C. Bowman also said that one week might not be sufficient for temporary signs in the commercial zone. C. Wright said that laws are written in such a way that they form a large umbrella, but if you are not harming or annoying anyone, it will likely not be enforced. C. Bowman stated that it is ridiculous to create an ordinance that we don’t intend on fully enforcing. C. Perry feels that passing a law that the City has no intention of enforcing is bad policy. He pointed out that only one sign is allowed per lot in the residential zone, but during campaigns several signs are put on a lot. Kim Holindrake said that the Planning Commission never addressed campaign signs. She also noted that only one sign is allowed per residential lot. That means that if someone has a home occupation and their home is for sale, they would not be in compliance with two signs on their lot. C. Perry said that the requirement for stickers on every sign seems more strict than what the City intends to enforce. C. Wright said that in Utah, there is a libertarian attitude where people feel that they can do what they want with their own property. Elsewhere in the country, things are highly zoned and property values are higher and protected by the strict zoning. Kim Holindrake said that legally, the City might not be able to remove signs on private property. The Council would like to make the following changes:

 

          Page 10, Line 8: “With the exception of campaign signs, one (1) sign is allowed per lot or parcel.”

          Page 10, Line10: Change sign height to “no greater than six (6) feet.”

          Page 9, Line 38: Change “Youth Activity Sponsor Sign” to “Activity Sponsor Sign”

          Page 10, Line 14: “Short-term signs are allowed for up to three (3) days . . .”

          Page 2, Line 28: “Short-term signs and campaign signs do not require a permit.”


MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance 3-7-2006B, An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, by Adding Criteria for the Regulation and Placement of Signs and Providing for the Enforcement of the Ordinance. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.


8.         Review/Action Regarding The Cedars Homeowners Association Annual Meeting (11:16 p.m.)


MOTION: C. Richardson - To authorize Mayor McGee to cast the five votes on behalf of the City at The Cedars, Homeowners Association meeting on Saturday, March 11, 2006. Seconded by C. Perry.


AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - And to authorize Mayor McGee to cast votes on behalf of the Municipal Building Authority and in his absence, to authorize the Mayor Pro-Tem to cast the votes. Seconded and accepted by C. Perry.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

 

9.         Review/Action on a Resolution to Request the Governor to Veto the 2006 Senate Bill 117, which would limit the City’s Power to Acquire Property through Eminent Domain for a trail unless a Street for Motorized Vehicles was also Condemned (11:18 p.m.)

 

See handouts. Senate Bill 117 says that you cannot condemn a trail through eminent domain unless you simultaneously condemn a street.


MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Resolution 3-7-2006C, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah County, Utah Requesting Governor Huntsman to Veto 2006 Senate Bill 117, Which Limits the City’s Ability to Acquire Land for Trails Via Eminent Domain unless in Conjunction with a Street on which Vehicles may Travel and Related Matters. Seconded by C. Perry.

 

Mayor McGee said that the North Utah County Mayors Association made a motion similar to this. He will hand deliver this Resolution to the governor. Eric Johnson said that the resolution states that the bill creates legal conflicts with longstanding traditions in the Utah Code. It also issues questions of safety. Eric Johnson said that communities throughout the State are asking the governor to veto this. Vote taken by roll call.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.


10.       City Manager Report and Discussion (11:24 p.m.)

 

          The Comcast representative is meeting with Konrad Hildebrandt on Wednesday. He will bring a map of their future plans in Cedar Hills with a timeline. The City gets more franchise fees from Comcast than from Dish Network, Qwest and Direct TV.

          RC Management is anxious to get their contract completed. Eric Johnson said that flat unit pricing in the contract will work legally. The contract bid will be on the April 4 agenda.

          The City is writing a grant to match the cost of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Council would like to see the budget amendment to complete the trail.

          Konrad Hildebrandt asked for suggestions on public relations issues for the landslide. Currently, engineers are moving earth to create drainage. Complete mitigation will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and will not happen before the spring. C. Perry will write a flyer to hand out to neighbors. Staff will get the relevant facts to C. Perry.


11.       Board and Committee Reports (11:42 p.m.)

 

Mayor McGee: Attended a North County Mayors meeting. They discussed the Lone Peak Public Safety District. Pleasant Grove wants to buy into it. Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain also want to buy in. Mayor McGee said that some costs might be saved by not duplicating services. C. Perry said that current operations are subsidized by hospital transports. That subsidization would be diluted with more cities. Also, the City is comfortable with a certain level of service. Other cities might want to do more. They also discussed the recreation district. Cindy Boyd called Mayor McGee asking for a proposal to clean up the boundaries between Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills. Mayor McGee told her that would have to start with Pleasant Grove.

C. Richardson: The Planning Commission talked about the site plan for the Public Works Building. They also addressed a few small subdivisions and extending pressurized irrigation service to the Woodis subdivision and the Dimond property. The Commission also discussed having the City extend the curb, gutter and sidewalk across Bevro Heights on 4000 West.

C. Perry: UTOPIA voted to issue some bonds for $200 million; take rates are good. Lone Peak Public Safety District bought a fire truck.

            C. Bowman: Sat in on some interviews with Family Festival interns.

            C. Wright: Registered for the Utah League of Cities and Towns conference in April.

 

12.       Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (11:59 p.m.)





MOTION: C. Perry - To go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5. Seconded by C. Lowder.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.


* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *

 

Utah State Code 52-4-5 designates specific parameters for which a Closed Meeting/Executive Session may be held. This Executive Session was held to discuss the following: The character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual and strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.

 

13.       Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting (2:16 a.m.)


MOTION: C. Richardson - To Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Perry.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.


14.       Review/Action Regarding City Manager’s Contract (2:20 a.m.)

 

See handouts. C. Richardson expressed appreciation to Konrad Hildebrandt and said that he hoped the contract would reflect their appreciation and give him momentum for moving forward. C. Perry agreed and said that he sees improvement in the issues that were mentioned last year. C. Wright said that for this year the golf course is the main priority. C. Perry added that the tax increase this summer will be controversial and there should be a concrete plan in place to share with the community regarding the future of the golf course. There needs to be communication to residents before the tax increase occurs. C. Lowder said that the golf course schedule has been halted and that the City needs to immediately get back on schedule with the RFQ. C. Richardson said that this year there have been three different areas where residents have felt left behind on decisions: the initiatives, Public Works Building and The Cedars HOA. He said that we need to get ahead on these communication issues. C. Wright said that shepherding the commercial development is also a priority.


MOTION: C. Richardson - To amend the City Manager’s contract to allow for the City Manager to designate 13.03% of his salary to his choice of State Retirement and/or ICMA and further instruct the Mayor to provide a merit increase of 4% to the City Manager. Seconded by C. Perry.

 

C. Perry said that the rationale behind denying increased severance is that the only reason severance would be an issue is if the Council was so disappointed in his performance that they fired the City Manager. That is not the perception case. He said that he feels that Konrad Hildebrandt is a good City Manager. C. Richardson said that they want him to feel valued. C. Bowman encouraged him to keep excelling. C. Lowder would like to see a set of new goals.

 

Aye-C. Bowman

C. Lowder

C. Perry

C. Richardson

                                                                                    C. Wright                                Motion passes.

 

15.       This meeting was adjourned at 2:35 a.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Wright and unanimously approved.                                                                                  


 

Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

Approved by Council:

   March 22, 2006