Feb. 2, 2010 City Council Meeting

Interim Attorney introduced: Kaycee Wright, Hansen & Hayes Law (not sure how to spell his name?)

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5.1 Consent of Planning Commissioners as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved

New Planning Commissioners introduced:
- Tim Irwin (Beacon Hills, has lived here 2 years and plans to stay permanently, retired from travel business, wants to make sure Highland remains a great place to live)
- Jay Roundy (4 years on Tree Commission, created designs for several of the new parks, was on planning commission in another city, chairman of the board of variance, licensed land planner, architect, environmental engineering doctorate, environmental law doctorate, has worked with both federal and state organizations.
- Kelly Sobotka, has been on planning commission for the past 2 years: 1 year as an alternate, 1 year as a planner. Has lived in Highland 35 years, has a young family, coaches baseball, Better Business Bureau board of directors for Utah, Boy Scouts of America Nat’l Parks Council, part owner of a business in Salt Lake, 5 kids
- Steve Rock (not present)
-Abe Day (not present)
-Chris Kemp: has been a resident for 3 years, works in construction and real estate, BYU graduate in business and construction mgt, has served on planning commission for other cities

Tony Pexton, who had been serving on Planning Commission, was recognized for exemplary service.

5.2 Consent of Library Board Members as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved
5.3 Consent to a Resolution appointing Lonnie Crowell as Highland City’s representative on the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District - Mayor Ritchie
Kathryn Schramm thinks Lonnie has his hands full and it would be beneficial to have another citizen serve in this capacity. (Lonnie expressed agreement) Motion to post-pone this decision to Feb 16 approved until another citizen can be identified.

5.4 Consider a 6 month extension for the Waterford Estates Final Plat, a 7 lot subdivision located at 5830 West 11750 North - Lonnie Crowell -approved
6. PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC INPUT/PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 Presentation by Consultant Craig Peterson for Engineering and Government Affair issues vital to Highland City
Craig Peterson, Engineering and Gov Affair consultant to City and Highland City resident, report on items:
Background: resident since 1983, engineering degree, career working on infrastructure, VP of architecture and engineering firm, worked for large civil engineering and design firm, retired and became contract lobbyist, worked with UT legislature for 23 years, majority leader in UT Senate, does other representation as well. (For reference, Highland city contract Oct 2007 to June 2008) Craig’s report:
- Has been instrumental in obtaining/maintaining funding for key Highland projects.
- Maintaining form of government, cooperative agreement with Alpine justice of peace and court system
- Maintaining funding for SR-92.
- 9400 N project, East/West Corridor easements (8-10 months) by State Developmental Ctr, difficulty in determining who had the authority to approve and fund. Lisa Michelle Church Family Services owns decision, so he will be working with her.
- Murdock connector right of way. Highland is member of Irma. Under legal action by retirees up to $1.8M.
Council comments:
- Scott Smith questions if we continue to need a lobbyist when building permit volume has decreased. Perhaps staff could do this work.
- Mendenhall says he feels this role in vital because Peterson has connections and the know-how to move these difficult issues forward. Not the strength of City staff.
- Kathryn Schramm says if we do decide to renew contract, he gets paid quarterly, up through Sept 2009. He is not receiving his customary billing rate, but this is his community, so is happy to continue working with city at this rate.

6.2 Public Input for the Provo Reservoir Canal Rights-of-Way Greenway Interlocal Agreement

This is regarding the Murdock Canal piping project, and the trail they want to build. Comments from the public:

-Jess Adamson has been involved in this project since 1995, Highland’s backbone trail, goes along Murdock Canal, connects to Provo trail, connects to Point of the Mountain, up through Parley’s Canyon. We have negotiated in good faith for many years to have this trail and now a government grant will cover the cost of this trail. Now is not the time to back down. We have worked for years planning for this trail.

-Dan Burkman, Alpine resident, disagrees with putting in the trail. Prefers spending on potholes on SR-92. Lives here because of beauty, does not want to look out back window and see marathon runners on a trail. He is a Principal in SLC. He doesn’t want a foot-highway in his backyard.

-Another resident (I didn’t catch his name), doesn’t want trail. Thinks he will need a security fence to keep people out of his backyard.

-Diana Tallmon backyard on Canal – doesn’t want trail. Concerned about cost. Doesn’t like the idea of a connector trail from Provo to SLC, doesn’t want people traveling through the community.

-Another resident. Doesn’t want the city to spend money on a trail. Every city is short on money – no one should be spending money right now. (Mayor clarified that city will not need to cover cost of trail – grant is covering cost)
-Dean Carroll. Trail would be right behind his house. He wants it finished up. This is what Highland is about, our great trail system
-Scott, Canterbury. He is from Boise where he enjoyed a great trail system. Thinks it would solve a problem of giving children and teens something to do in community.
-Pheasant Hollow. During Winter can’t walk on sidewalks in city because sidewalks not cleared. If we put in trail, we need to be able to clear snow and maintain it. We need to be able to police and maintain trail.
-Christy Bally. Murdock Canal is behind her house. She is in favor of trails. It will be a mess at first during construction, but thinks it will turn out very nice.
-Scott Smith concerned that Highland newsletter not clear about trail, most citizens don’t know what Provo Greenway is, would know it by Murdock Canal trail.
-Tom Butler asked Kip Botkin Police Chief his opinion about trail: Doesn’t expect a severe adverse impact on crime. Familiar with Orem and Provo trails, they have not had huge crime impact from trail. Does expect police will need to patrol. Trail will open up community and will actually get more eyes out there. Had an officer assigned for about 7 weeks to existing trails, and during that entire time, only 2-3 citations, most of the time for a dog off a leash; nothing major. It will have an impact on resources, but not a huge impact.
-Steve Caine from Provo River Water Users was present at meeting to answer questions:
-Smith: Likes trails, not opposed to piping project of Canal. Concern, trail is a major change to this environment. Thinks we should present more information to community and enlist more feedback. Need to address what happens when trail comes to SR-92 (safety issue). We are responsible for 65% of maintenance.
-Engineer, PW Richard Neilson addressing questions from Smith: funding from the government will address busy intersections. Trail will go under street for busy roads. As long as you can see through tunnel as you approach it (you can see daylight on the other end), then you generally do not have security and safety issues. Is trail elevated? Grading will be the same or slightly lower than current elevation. Why is it called a greenway when it is an asphalt trail? What responsibility does city have for landscaping? County responsible for paved surface. City opportunity to landscape as desired. (Although can’t have deep rooted items-trees). Will the trail be fenced from adjourning neighborhoods? Same as it is today, fairly open design. Will it meet ADA requirements? Yes. 1:14 slope. What is annual maintenance for city? $8400 is estimated (snow removal, signage, etc.) Any improvements need to go through County and Provo Water Users? Yes, but County is informal process; and Provo River Water Users anticipate a broad usage of trail so should not be a barrier. Do we need to decide tonight or can we post-pone after further citizen discussions? Late Feb/early March would be best to finalize UDOT funding and contract for Provo River Water project done and ready by October; it would be best for the trail decision completed at the same time for economy of scale on funding/resources working on project.
- Mendenhall: Should call this Legacy trail. We should preserve this project for our children. Provo has not had security issues on their trail (he read statistics from police stats). 343 incidents in Provo canyon only 1 a genuine trail incident. Hobble Creek – 89 incidents, 0 in trail. There should be limited concern for security on these trails. There may be some loss of privacy. This is something we need to do. Cost of trail is incidental. We are able at no cost to Highland to put this trail in place. Our long term commitment is for maintenance of trail. We need to be good citizens. There is no negative long-term impact. We are getting a wonderful addition to Highland for a very low cost.
-Butler addressing questions to Neilson/Caine: Is it correct that when the canal is piped, that the roads will be returned to current condition. Yes. One reason to do this is to eliminate sea-pitch. What will happen to Highland irrigation users? Our contribution to the ground-water is pretty negligible, so shouldn’t be impacted. Regarding the money Highland would pay to move/re-establish utilities ($410k) Is this a hard figure, and what if we don’t enter into this agreement? $410k an early estimate; we believe the number will be reduced significantly now that we have more detailed information (he doesn’t know exact number now). Highland has a lot of water crossings which come into contact with utilities. This is a situation that already exists. Provo River Water usage covers 25% of this cost, and rest of cost spread out over time. This is an already existing legal obligation regardless of the Trail decision. Butler: Concern from South Salt Lake PD regarding trail. Has gradually lost public appeal and crime rates have increased. Lewdness, illegal alcohol consumption by minors, graffiti. Constantly works trailway; about 20 hrs/week. 41 arrests 2009. Realizes demographics are significantly different from Highland. Recommends security be discussed up-front. Captain Jack Ruth. This is a want not a need. Concerned about 50-year commitment. Governments are in fiscal trouble because they accepted so many gov grants that had strings attached. This agreement has strings attached. We have to help with maintenance if something goes wrong on trail. We give up our liberty if we agree to this. He doesn’t think being a good citizen is to bite off on every project that comes along.
-Braithwaite: We cannot compare the South SLC trail to the Provo and Utah County trails; they are very different. We have a completely open area. There are no bushes and trees up against this trail. He has run hundreds of miles on the SLC trails, and thousands of miles on the Utah County trails. The SLC trails do have security concerns; the Utah County trails are very different and do not have a security concern. They are open and not surrounded by brush and foliage. This is a great trail and has been part of the plan for decades. It is no different than the other trails we have. He heavily uses our trails and generally sees people in our area using the trails; our friends and neighbors walking, running, biking. This is a wide open area. We will not see criminals traveling to our area to walk on our trails. It will be us using the trails. We receive money from the federal government all the time. Why? Because we pay money to the government all the time. We pay gasoline taxes, and we receive funding back from the government for appropriate projects. We are receiving funding for a great project which we have been planning for, for decades. This trail is in our master plan. We want this trail. We want to see people outside using these trails. I’m not concerned about a long-term commitment to maintain the trail. We have much longer commitments to maintain our roads and buildings. Maintaining the trail is not a concern.
-Schramm: Need to hold a public meeting regarding this. People around here don’t realize this is the “Murdock Trail” project.
-Smith: We have a lot of poorly planned projects already in the city. We have compelling arguments to close the canal, but we need more citizen input regarding the trail.
-Mendenhall: This trail has been discussed for a long-time. Residents have a responsibility to get informed on these decisions. Let’s not delay this decision. The timeline is at risk for getting this through UDOT. There is no reason to delay this.
It was voted to continue this item for another 30-days to get more public input via a public meeting with better language to make it clear this is regarding the Murdock trail.

7. ORDINANCES
7.1 Consider an Ordinance placing a Moratorium on the Town Center Overlay Zone - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)

-Jess Adamson, expressed concerns about the city. (I cannot type fast enough to capture all the information Jess provided…) Town Center concerns. He has been involved in government since 1993. Toscana proposal and approval is concerning. Much too high of a density for Highland: less than 7.2 acres, 162 units, 6 people/unit = 22.5 units/acre. No one in North Utah County has this type of density. Number of parking spaces not adequate;, needing to use parking spaces outside of the 7.2 acres. Hate to see the town center become a parking lot. We don’t have floor plans – we don’t know what to expect. Approved in planning commission without being approved through council. Where is the green space? How much asphalt in comparison to grass? What about frontages? Where do families park when someone has a birthday party or barbecue. We’ve allowed up to 10 common walls. What did the police and fire chief say about the development? Will they have fire safety sprinklers? Noise abatement? This will not be senior housing, because they usually do not mix with younger families. No bedrooms on the main. Elevators would add another $50k? Owner vs rentals. These look like apartments. Even if sold as owner occupied, they are really designed like apartments. Might initially start as original owner, but 2nd occupant will usually end up as a rental. May end up being transient housing, because people are not permanently attached to housing. We don’t want transient housing in Highland. Public should always have the opportunity to provide input. The City Council could not ask any questions about this project because it was approved through the Planning Commission. Highland is what it is because we have worked long and hard to create and preserve this unique environment.
-Deanna Holland. Agrees about Toscana. Pleased with moratorium. Shocked the developer cannot put 2 story town houses but can build 4-story apartments. Thinks the code needs to be updated. Feels betrayed that this decision was made without public knowledge.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium would not impact current project (Toscana), would only affect projects moving forward. Doesn’t want Planning Commission to have authority to authorize projects of this size.
-Schramm: Agrees with Braithwaite. Elected officials should have to respond to public comments. Considers Town Center ordinance to be faulty.
-Smith: Agrees we need a moratorium. Need more public input and transparency. We may need a few higher density areas to meet some people’s needs.
-Mendenhall: Don’t need a moratorium. Town Center would bring feet on the ground and bring vitality to the area. We seem to change the ordinance or declare a moratorium every time we don’t like something. Why would investors want to come to Highland. Flex-use defined by height, parking, access. Do we declare moratorium and risk impeding this development? If we need to change the way things are done, change the ordinance don’t declare a moratorium. Market-driven economy. We have done less than a stellar job creating a market where investors would want to involve themselves.
-Schramm: If we do not abide by our own ordinances we need to throw them out. All large projects have always had to come before the City Council. We voted to remove a project that needed to come in 7.8/acre, they voted the height can be 50 feet tall; and yet ordinance says wall 50, roof can add to be total of 70 feet tall. People come to this community for a reason. We need to do a survey to see what the citizens want. Need a 6-month moratorium to survey citizens to see what they want to review ordinance to change.
- Butler: Agrees that Highland is anti-business. Highland leaders need to exhibit better attitude toward welcoming business. We should only have a 30-day moratorium and get this ordinance revised quickly – let’s not drag it out.
-Mendenhall: Believes ordinance drafted correctly that Planning Commission has authority to approve if projects meet certain requirements. The Town Center will sit in its current state for sometime if we don’t do this right.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium important to review if the ordinance is what we want.
Approved.


Other Public Input:
-Jay Bischoff, represents citizens of Beacon Hill. Wants to make sure some campaign issues do not get lost. A huge amount of impact fees were collected in Beacon Hills to build a park. City met with citizens and decided there was an obligation to build the park, and yes indeed, fees had been collected. They decided they needed to spend money by August or return fees to developers. Beacon Hill citizens want the City to set a date to meet with the citizens within the next 30 days and set a target on when that park will be built. 2nd issue: 6000 W 1800 N? (Westfield Rd), East side of the road is a very busy business run out of the home. Jay does not feel it is safe. Kids running out with groceries almost hit by cars numerous times. Only one person in City has to sign approval for a home run business. City responded (Mendenhall) that if a business grows to a size that it endangers neighbors the City can review and can revoke license if needed. He will ask the City to review the situation.

-Dan Baxter, Highland 32 years, right across the street from fire station. Put the burn back on the agenda. He also agrees with Jess Adamson, and would also like to add that he sees in 10 years an increased crime rate.

I left at 10:30pm and did not hear the discussion on the following items. I will follow-up with the City to see if these were approved:
9. ACTION ITEMS
9.1 Consider authorizing the Mayor to negotiate a contract with Consultant Craig Peterson - Mayor Ritchie - (10 min.)
9.2 Consider the Appeal for the Bradshaw Open Space Agreement for improvements in the View Pointe Subdivision at 4065 West Park Circle - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.3 Consider approval of the 9600 North Subdivision Final Plat, a 3 lot subdivision located at 6900 West 9600 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.4 Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an LDS Church Building to be located at approximately 9681 North 6900 West - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.5 Consider approval of the Miller Acres B Final Plat, a one lot subdivision located at 4565 North 11150 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)