PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Darin Lowder, Joel Wright, Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman, Eric Richardson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Rich Knapp, City Accountant
Rodney Despain, City Planner (7:13 p.m.)
David Taylor, Assistant to the City Manager (8:30 p.m.)
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Peg Schmitt, Dave Martin-DR Horton, Jerome Gourley, Mark Whitlock, Emily Burchett, Rebecca Densley, Matt Densley, Melissa Willie, Mindy Horne, Erin Jared, Melissa McCoy, Sonya Hurst, Kathryn Hurst, Brent Uibel (7:12 p.m.)
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 7:10 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
2. Amendments to the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005–2006 (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) (7:10 p.m.)
3. This Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
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 7:11 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Lowder
Pledge of Allegiance
2 Public Issues for Future Agendas (7:13 p.m.)
• Emily Burchett: Mrs. Burchett lives on Redwood Drive and stated that she is concerned about the speed of traffic on Redwood Drive. She feels it is a safety issue for children who live on the street as well as anyone who uses the trail crossing at the bottom of Redwood Drive. The speed table at the trail crossing is very mild and does not reduce speeds.
• Brent Uibel: Mr. Uibel stated that he is also concerned with speeds in the City and asked how wide the speed tables are. David Bunker said that tables are 12 feet wide. Mr. Uibel asked when the dirt at the Public Works site would be removed. Staff said that the contract gives them six months from the permit date.
3. Approval of the Minutes from the April 18, 2006, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting (7:18 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the minutes from the April 18, 2006, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Wright.
Abstain- C. Lowder Motion passes.
C. Perry asked Kim Holindrake to e-mail the minutes to the Council so that they can send their amendments prior to the meeting. C. Perry also said he would like to see an agenda item where the Council can consider procedures, including the addition of a consent agenda.
4. Review/Action on Driveway Access for The Cedars, Plat B, Lots 1, 2 and 90 (7:31 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that several residents submitted a proposal for alternate driveway access for four lots in The Cedars, Plat B. The proposal is to eliminate a portion of the driveway from Lots 86, 87 and 91 and create a hammerhead that accesses Lots 1 and 90. Lot 91 would have access from Lochmor.
• C. Perry stated that he wanted information on who owns the land and access easement. David Bunker stated that the access easement is recorded on the plat. The residents own the property but the Homeowners Association (HOA) has the right to the easement. The HOA would have to relinquish rights to the easement. A signature from the owner of Lot 1 is also needed.
MOTION: C. Perry - To table this item pending understanding of the status with the homeowner of Lot 1 and The Cedars HOA. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Wright Motion passes.
5. Review/Action on Proposal to Install a Steel Monopole next to the Current Cellular Tower (7:35 p.m.)
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that this item was before the Council several weeks ago. Staff has discussed the issue with the City attorney. The property belongs to Lone Peak Links, though it is recorded in the City’s name. Staff identified alternate locations and sites owned by the City for a monopole. The sites that could be considered are: 1) Next to the water tanks, 2) Near hole #14 on the golf course, 3) Behind the baseball field, 4) Near the proposed well, 5) North of the existing tower, and 6) South of Cottage Cove.
• C. Perry stated that in the last discussion of this issue C. Richardson had requested a recommendation for a City policy dealing with the construction of towers and conditions that should be met. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that Mr. Gourley, representing T-Mobile does not want to wait for an ordinance to be written. They need a monopole now. Mr. Gourley stated that if none of the proposed City sites are appropriate or the City does not allow the pole to be constructed, T-Mobile would withdraw.
• C. Bowman stated that she felt that the easiest solution to the problem would be to get the property deeded in the proper name. Mr. Gourley stated that T-Mobile’s relationship with Mr. Briggs is irreparable. If the land is quit claimed to Mr. Briggs, he would be the landlord of the property and has stated that he will not lease space to T-Mobile. Mr. Gourley said the current site is the ideal site. It is perfectly located, though he has not done an analysis of the other sites. He said that he would need about two weeks to analyze the proposed City sites and develop a prioritized list. C. Bowman asked if different styles of towers make a difference in coverage. Mr. Gourley stated that stealth sites give less coverage. The best sites are high with antennas extending out. Another option is to flush-mount the antennas, which is considered a stealth application. C. Bowman stated that she is frustrated that there is room on the existing tower and yet T-Mobile won’t be allowed to go on it forcing another tower to be built somewhere.
• C. Wright stated that if a new tower were to be built on City property, and T-Mobile allowed other providers on the pole, there would be possible revenue for both T-Mobile and the City as the landowners. He further stated that if a new monopole location were different from the current one, and not right next to it, some other providers might be likely to co-locate. Mr. Gourley said that T-Mobile would allow other providers on the pole, but they do not actively seek it.
• C. Richardson stated that he feels it is possible to achieve T-Mobile’s needs and the City’s needs. The Council should consider locating the poles where the City wants them in the future. It should also consider the best site for other providers. He suggested adding school sites to the list of possible sites.
• Konrad Hildebrandt stated that, by policy, cellular companies do not place towers on privately owned land. The current tower, which is on private land, was not built as a cellular tower. C. Richardson said an ordinance would protect the interests of the City. C. Perry asked Staff to prepare an ordinance that does not allow a tower on private land. Mr. Gourley suggested that the City seek legal advice first because there may be a legal issue with such an ordinance.
• Mayor McGee stated that he would like Mr. Gourley to make a prioritized list of all the sites, including the two elementary schools. Staff will create a list of prioritized sites from the City’s perspective. The Council will make a prioritized list as well.
MOTION: C. Wright - To table this item and meet with Mr. Gourley in two weeks. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright Motion passes.
6. Review/Action on Amendments to the Landscaping Plan for Renaissance PUD (7:58 p.m.)
See handouts. David Bunker stated that the City received a request from DR Horton, developer of Renaissance PUD, for an amendment to the landscaping plan. The adopted landscaping plan shows areas that are too steep to install sod. It is now proposed those areas be a native seed mix. They are not proposing any new sod areas, leading to a net decrease in lawn area.
Dave Martin of DR Horton stated that they purchased the project from Panda Homes with the landscape plan. The landscape plan did not show the grading issues. The detention ponds have been re-excavated twice to match the slopes. The west slope of the northern retention pond is 3:1, the other sides are 2:1 and it cannot be leveled any further.
• C. Lowder stated that based on the letter that the Council received from the HOA, it appears that the HOA and DR Horton have come to some sort of agreement. David Bunker suggested having DR Horton redraw the landscape plan per the agreement with the HOA.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To refer this item to the Planning Commission for review, allowing for DR Horton to provide an updated landscape drawing in accordance with their agreement made with the Renaissance HOA. Seconded by C. Bowman.
David Bunker stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission needs to review it. It would delay the entire process by a month. C. Richardson explained that landscaping plans are a land planning issue. Staff stated that the original landscape plan was approved by the City Council in the development agreement as an exhibit. There is no need to have the Planning Commission begin reviewing it at this time. C. Richardson agreed and stated that it should not be referred back to the Planning Commission.
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table this item until the next meeting to allow for the developer to submit a new landscaping plan in accordance with their agreement made with the Renaissance HOA. Seconded by C. Lowder.
C. Perry stated that he would like to see topsoil put down before the native seed is sprayed. Otherwise, it is weeds over rocks.
C. Wright Motion passes.
7. Review/Action on Amendments to the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005–2006 (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) (8:12 p.m.)
Rich Knapp stated that this amendment is for the golf course trail to the back nine. The money is being taken from the Capital Project’s Fund. The amount is $6,600.
MOTION: C. Lowder - To transfer $6,600 to account 40-95-165 from the General Fund Unrestricted Fund Balance. Seconded by C. Bowman.
• Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the trail is concrete with an outside curb. There will be three written bids. The total will not exceed $6,600.
• C. Perry stated that he is uncomfortable with the Council proceeding with a budget amendment without bidding it out first. He added that part of the reason the process feels backward is because golf course management already started on the project. He said that this project may be a waste if reconfiguration completely changes the course, for instance if the clubhouse is placed below. C. Perry further stated that it bothers him that the City Engineer has not been consulted for engineering of the path.
• C. Richardson stated that he read the Thorman report recommending the path to the back nine, but he does not feel that this path meets the full recommendation. This path just gets golfers to the tee box, rather than the green. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that possible reconfiguration of the course may change the layout. C. Richardson stated that he feels the path should add value right away or the City should be strategic about locating the path for the future. He felt that he does not have enough data to know if this is the best location and use of the path.
• C. Lowder stated that he is comfortable with the immediate benefits of the path, including safety and making the course more useable.
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Perry - To table this item until we can get an engineering review of the project. Seconded by C. Richardson.
• David Bunker stated that the engineering review can be completed within two weeks.
• C. Wright stated that he is reluctant to put any money into the project until restructuring plans are worked out.
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review/Action on Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2006–2007 (July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007) (8:28 p.m.)
Rich Knapp stated that State code requires the Council to adopt the preliminary fiscal year budget in the month of May. The Council has seen every element of the preliminary budget in previous work sessions.
MOTION: C. Richardson - Whereas our paternalistic legislature has adopted yet further meaningless and nonsensical statutes, in this case requiring municipalities to adopt a completely non-binding preliminary budget in advance of passing its actual budget, nevertheless wishing to be compliant with even poorly written laws, I move to approve the non-binding preliminary budget for the Fiscal Year 2007. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright Motion passes.
9. City Manager Report and Discussion (8:30 p.m.)
Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the Monthly Management Report will be out by the next meeting.
10. Board and Committee Reports (8:31 p.m.)
• C. Bowman: She will be meeting again with Ciara Decker to further discuss the Family Festival.
• C. Perry: Met with Cindy Boyd about the boundary issue with Pleasant Grove City. Cindy Boyd favors a services agreement, letting everyone choose which city they want to reside in and getting services from the city that can provide it. David Bunker recommended that the Council set a policy and then proceed with discussion with Pleasant Grove based on the policy. C. Perry said he would meet with Mayor Daniels to express the Council’s sentiments and have him clarify the goals of Pleasant Grove. C. Perry will also attend the Lone Peak Public Safety District meeting Thursday morning, where the budget will be adopted.
• C. Richardson: The Planning Commission met and approved a site plan for the LDS Church in Juniper Heights. They made a recommendation to the Council that the fencing ordinance be modified to allow for white or beige vinyl fencing along trails, parks and major roads. They also discussed the landscaping ordinance.
• C. Lowder: The Golf Course Advisory Committee continues to seek corporate events and sponsors for the Firecracker Golf Tournament.
• David Bunker: The Timpanogos Special Service District (TSSD) considered a proposal from the Town of Vineyard to change the direction of the sewer to come back to TSSD instead of Orem. Board members wanted more information about the impact to TSSD. Orem has a limit on the density Vineyard can have. Vineyard intends to exceed that density. There would have to be a lift station to change the direction of flow.
11. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (8:51 p.m.)
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: Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange or lease of real property.
MOTION: C. Lowder - To go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5. Seconded by C. Bowman.
* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *
12. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting (10:53 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Wright - To Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Lowder.
Eric Johnson addressed the fee-in-lieu of property tax resolution. There is a gap between issuance of occupancy and when property taxes are assessed. This fee intends to make up the gap. Eric Johnson gave a background on this type of fee and gave the example of impact fees. Impact fees are legal if they pay for a service that the City is providing. Similarly, this fee pays for a real service the City provides to residents before property taxes are assessed.
13. Review/Action on Property Acquisition-Harvey Property
No discussion or action.
14. This meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Lowder and unanimously approved.
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
May 16, 2006