Highland City Council Meeting Report
March 15, 2011
General Observations
1. This evening the City Council/City Staff appeared to be well prepared, efficient, and harmonious.
2. Mayor Ritchie and the council are keeping their campaign promises.
a. Last months meeting minutes were approved and are available.
b. They have realigned the accounting to correlate income with costs. For example, they now know the money collected for pressurized irrigation does not cover the cost. They also know the $20 a month fee collected from the residents of the Open Space subdivisions does not cover the maintenance cost. ($245K collected vs $359K expended).
c. The new website will provide residents greater access to more information in keeping with the pledge for open/transparent government.
d. The council is actively addressing issues that have been ignored for as long as ten years like park and trail maintenance. For example, $15K is proposed for trail maintenance this year.
e. The Open Space Committee and the Parks and Trails Committee are aggressively re-evaluating the entire park and trail system. Everyone recognizes we cannot afford everything that is on the master plan. For example, seven or eight years ago $6.5M park was proposed for the Beacon Hills area. Eight years later, it is still an undeveloped field. The city plans to do some infrastructure work and develop the park in phases (trying to keep the promise made years ago) but the park will be significantly less grand than the one originally proposed.
3. The debt burden plus increased Utah County assessments and a Federal Storm Sewer improvement mandate combined with the smaller than expected (three years ago) revenue stream continue to prevent Highland from making the improvements to parks and adding other amenities.
4. An amendment to the shopping center plan was approved. The developer proposed several of the lots be combined or reconfigured to give greater flexibility to the use of the land. They are trying to find an anchor store for the north side of Highland Highway (SR-92).
5. The Open Space plan for the Beacon Hills Plat D subdivision was approved giving residents permission to improve and maintain strips of city owned property at the resident’s expense thus eliminating weed patches. This will reduce city maintenance costs and improve the look of the city. There are 18 such subdivisions in Highland. Beacon Hill is the third to get approval. The rest are in the queue. The Open Space Committee works with the residents to organized the presentation to the City Council.
6. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm proposed, in the spirit of openness, that Highland enact an ordinance that would require everyone on boards, commissions or city appointed committees to submit a conflict of interest disclosure form. The intent was to alert those on committees, etc. to the conflict of interest issue and to protect them from possible legal exposure. For example, it is a 3nd degree felony if your vote benefits you more than $250.
There was a spirited discussion and the council and the audience were split on the proposal. John Park made the winning argument by pointing out that the proposal would increase the city bureaucracy and most of the danger could be controlled through good business management and oversight. The motion failed 3 to 2.
7. BUDGET – City staff presented the first draft of the budget to the City Council. The read through went very well. The mayor and the new city council members are familiar with the budget process now, most of the accounting changes have been made, and John Park is a very good administrator. Points of interest:
a. The cost of the piping of the Murdock Canal is borne by Utah County but Highland has to pay for the moving of the utilities like water and sewer. This is not a huge expense but has a significant impact on a tight budget.
b. The number of part time summer help was increased (20% absenteeism is common) to better maintain our parks and open space. Fertilizer and weed killer was included in the budget this year; an item missed when the city took over from MD Properties last year. We will still have a significant saving ($200K?).
c. $500K is budgeted for city roads. The city roads are in bad shape and preventative maintenance will save big bucks down the road. (Pun intended.
d. A Federal Storm Sewer mandate was unexpected and greatly impacted the budget. I missed the discussion so I don’t know how much it will cost nor what is required.
e. Pressurized irrigation fees will go up this year. The increase was proposed last year but I think the City Council held off because of the sewer fee increase last year. We have to make the 2nd of three payments to the County for the additions being made to the sewage treatment facility. I sat through the budget working session last year and it was really painful.
f. The Public Works Capital Purchases (new pick up truck, new dump truck, etc.) were NOT funded. Road repair first was the reason.
g. Some of the cuts to last year’s police budget were restored this year. In a private conversation with Marv Whiting last week, he said crime in general is down all over the country. He said it is pretty quiet these days at BYU and the murder rate in Central Los Angeles (he was a detective in LA) has dropped from 300 a year to around 60. He suggested that maybe one reason for the drop in gang shootings could be due to the kids being inside playing video games instead of out on the streets looking for trouble.
Foot note: John Park asked the council to thoroughly review the proposed budget and said the city staff will answer questions. He complimented Matt Shipp (Director of Public Works) for a job well done and Mayor Ritchie said it was an excellent start. They are a full month ahead of last year and in much better shape.
Devirl Barfuss
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Feb. 1, 2011 City Council
MINUTES - HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 1, 2011
Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
Highland City Council Chambers
5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003
7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Lynn Ritchie
INVOCATION – Tom Butler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Larry Mendenhall
APPEARANCES
1. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas,
concerns, and comments.
• Tim Garlick
Tim owns an Ice SnowShack and wanted to see if the seasonal permit
term could be extended from 90 to 120 days. He also wanted approval to
put a “Shack” in the parking lot of LPHS. He has been talking with ASD
about this but needs city approval due to zoning issues.
Both items will be considered once a new city planner is in place
• Jane Dalling (?)
She expressed polite but firm concerns about the proposed changes to
the housing ordinance which change the regulations regarding
“accessory” apartments. She had a number of issues from the
possibility that there would be too many cars to making sure that the
requirements for owner occupancy remain in place. She compared what
could happen to Highland to what happened in Provo. Also, voiced a
concern for general safety issues.
• Richard Sudwick (?) (officer of The Library Foundation)
Expressed support for the agenda item that would create a separate
bank account for the library in library fees and fines would be put.
This money with CC approval would be used to fund future library
budgets.
• Jenny Thacker
Asked for partial funding for a N. County pageant tied into the Miss
America program. She will seek funding from businesses, Cedar Hills,
and Alpine. Pageant date is tentatively set for Aug 13. She provided
info and the matter will be considered at a future date.
2. Planning Commission Appointments
• Trixie Williams (Alternate) approved
3. Minutes
• Minutes from the previous council meeting approved with minor
corrections
4. RESOLUTION – Declaring Surplus Property (Equipment) for the
Purposes of Disposal
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by John Park, City Administrator) The City
Council recently approved a Building Use Policy for the new Community
Center (formerly the City Hall) located at 5378 W 10400 North. In
preparation for getting the building ready for public use there are
some items that need to be removed that remain from when the building
was used as the former City Hall. Pursuant to Highland City Municipal
Code 2.44 the City Council shall hold a public hearing prior to
declaring City property/equipment surplus.
RESOLVED: The file cabinets, desks, counters will be sold via KSL.com
(unanimously approved)
5. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City FY2011 Budget.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Lynn Ruff, Finance Director) It is
necessary to amend the budget to adjust for additional revenues
collected and various unanticipated expenditures in the various funds
of the City. Some of the proposed amendments deal with the Library
funds, pressurized irrigation funds, sidewalk repairs, the Community
Center remodel and other items. The City Council held a public hearing
on the budget amendments on January 18, 2011. No public comment was
received.
City councilman had a number of questions on the budget amendment; at
one point the discussion devolved to comments around an impending $10
per month rate hike for pressurized irrigation. However, the
resolution seemed to be mostly about reallocating existing funds to
cover expenses already incurred (i.e. putting the money in the right
bucket).
RESOLVED: The amended budget was approved 4 to 1 with Kathryn being
the sole negative vote.
6. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10
Definitions relating to the definition of a family.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) Councilmember Butler has requested the definition of family
be amended to make it easier for property owners to rent their
basements. The proposed amendment would allow a homeowner to rent a
portion of a home to one or two families. The proposed amendment does
not address parking or other requirements. This item reviewed at the
February 18, 2011 City Council meeting and staff was directed to
revise the definition to be consistent with State Statute and address
public safety issues.
Lots of discussion on this item. The proposed language would allow a
homeowner to rent an accessory apartment to two adults (unrelated to
the owners) and their children. The language could be interpreted as
two single adults and their respective children or two adults (a
couple) and their children. Brian thought that the new language would
permit only owner occupied rentals whereas the city attorney said no.
Because of the second family definition (4 unrelated adults living in
the same home). This definition of a family was put into law by our
state legislature. Jane again spoke before the council and reiterated
her concerns regarding the new language. Scott, Kathryn, Tom, and
Brian all expressed their opinions as well.
One of the concerns about the current language was that in order to
rent out part of your home there must be a common area (i.e. you can’t
rent out a basement apartment it is separate from the rest of the
house – it has a separate entrance, its own bathroom and kitchen).
Tom went into a long speech on property rights quoting everyone from
Bastiat to President David O Mckay. The quotes were interesting but
I’m not sure how they applied to the issue at hand. Tom did mention
that Alpine has a very loose ordinance around accessory apartments
which has been in effect for 16 yrs and only 4% of the home owners
have chosen to avail themselves of it.
Brian said the he could not support the ordinance as he was
uncomfortable with risks associated with unintended consequences.
RESOLVED: The ordinance changes were adopted by a 3 to 2 vote. Brian
and Larry were opposed while Scott, Kathryn, and Tom approved.
Note, this is probably not the end of this discussion given the amount
of issues that were raised.
Below is the existing and new language that was approved with respect
definition of a family as related to single family homes:
Existing Definition:
“Family - A individual or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit and
maintaining a common household. A family may include two, but not more
than two, non-related persons living with the residing family. The
term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related
individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.”
Proposed (and adopted) Definition:
“Family:
(1) One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal
guardianship, including foster children, and no more than two adults
and their children who are unrelated to the residing family; or
(2) A group of not more than four persons not related by blood,
marriage, adoption or legal guardianship, including foster children
living together as a common household.”
7. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section
5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a
Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for
preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) The proposed amendment modifies the review process for
preliminary and final plats for major subdivisions. The primary
objectives of this amendment are to streamline the review process and
to amend the process to be consistent with the new legislation and to
clarify the review process. The City Council considered this item on
January 18, 2011 and directed staff to revise the amendment to include
a public hearing before the Planning Commission for all preliminary
plats.
After a lot of discussion and back and forth it this amendment was
adopted with the provision that the City Council entertain comments
from the community when considering preliminary plats. The planning
commission and community dev director felt it was important that
public comment be received as soon in the process as possible but the
city council wanted to sure that they were being a transparent as
possible as well. The reason that the term public hearing was not used
for the City Council meeting was that there are specific communication
requirements that need to be performed for a hearing versus simply
public comment.
The city manager pointed out that the new city website (coming soon)
will allow city members to sign up to receive notices on a range of
subjects so that they can be as involved as they want.
RESOLVED: Amendment adopted with the proviso for allowing public
comments at City Council meetings as discussed above. The vote was
unanimous.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS BY MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF
These items are for information purposes only and do not require
action or discussion by the City Council.
8. DISCUSSION – Utah County Metro Fire Agency – John Park, City
Administrator
9. FINANCIAL REPORT – Lynn Ruff, Finance Director
10. REPORT – North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District –
Kathryn Schramm
Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
Highland City Council Chambers
5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003
7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Lynn Ritchie
INVOCATION – Tom Butler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Larry Mendenhall
APPEARANCES
1. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas,
concerns, and comments.
• Tim Garlick
Tim owns an Ice SnowShack and wanted to see if the seasonal permit
term could be extended from 90 to 120 days. He also wanted approval to
put a “Shack” in the parking lot of LPHS. He has been talking with ASD
about this but needs city approval due to zoning issues.
Both items will be considered once a new city planner is in place
• Jane Dalling (?)
She expressed polite but firm concerns about the proposed changes to
the housing ordinance which change the regulations regarding
“accessory” apartments. She had a number of issues from the
possibility that there would be too many cars to making sure that the
requirements for owner occupancy remain in place. She compared what
could happen to Highland to what happened in Provo. Also, voiced a
concern for general safety issues.
• Richard Sudwick (?) (officer of The Library Foundation)
Expressed support for the agenda item that would create a separate
bank account for the library in library fees and fines would be put.
This money with CC approval would be used to fund future library
budgets.
• Jenny Thacker
Asked for partial funding for a N. County pageant tied into the Miss
America program. She will seek funding from businesses, Cedar Hills,
and Alpine. Pageant date is tentatively set for Aug 13. She provided
info and the matter will be considered at a future date.
2. Planning Commission Appointments
• Trixie Williams (Alternate) approved
3. Minutes
• Minutes from the previous council meeting approved with minor
corrections
4. RESOLUTION – Declaring Surplus Property (Equipment) for the
Purposes of Disposal
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by John Park, City Administrator) The City
Council recently approved a Building Use Policy for the new Community
Center (formerly the City Hall) located at 5378 W 10400 North. In
preparation for getting the building ready for public use there are
some items that need to be removed that remain from when the building
was used as the former City Hall. Pursuant to Highland City Municipal
Code 2.44 the City Council shall hold a public hearing prior to
declaring City property/equipment surplus.
RESOLVED: The file cabinets, desks, counters will be sold via KSL.com
(unanimously approved)
5. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City FY2011 Budget.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Lynn Ruff, Finance Director) It is
necessary to amend the budget to adjust for additional revenues
collected and various unanticipated expenditures in the various funds
of the City. Some of the proposed amendments deal with the Library
funds, pressurized irrigation funds, sidewalk repairs, the Community
Center remodel and other items. The City Council held a public hearing
on the budget amendments on January 18, 2011. No public comment was
received.
City councilman had a number of questions on the budget amendment; at
one point the discussion devolved to comments around an impending $10
per month rate hike for pressurized irrigation. However, the
resolution seemed to be mostly about reallocating existing funds to
cover expenses already incurred (i.e. putting the money in the right
bucket).
RESOLVED: The amended budget was approved 4 to 1 with Kathryn being
the sole negative vote.
6. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10
Definitions relating to the definition of a family.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) Councilmember Butler has requested the definition of family
be amended to make it easier for property owners to rent their
basements. The proposed amendment would allow a homeowner to rent a
portion of a home to one or two families. The proposed amendment does
not address parking or other requirements. This item reviewed at the
February 18, 2011 City Council meeting and staff was directed to
revise the definition to be consistent with State Statute and address
public safety issues.
Lots of discussion on this item. The proposed language would allow a
homeowner to rent an accessory apartment to two adults (unrelated to
the owners) and their children. The language could be interpreted as
two single adults and their respective children or two adults (a
couple) and their children. Brian thought that the new language would
permit only owner occupied rentals whereas the city attorney said no.
Because of the second family definition (4 unrelated adults living in
the same home). This definition of a family was put into law by our
state legislature. Jane again spoke before the council and reiterated
her concerns regarding the new language. Scott, Kathryn, Tom, and
Brian all expressed their opinions as well.
One of the concerns about the current language was that in order to
rent out part of your home there must be a common area (i.e. you can’t
rent out a basement apartment it is separate from the rest of the
house – it has a separate entrance, its own bathroom and kitchen).
Tom went into a long speech on property rights quoting everyone from
Bastiat to President David O Mckay. The quotes were interesting but
I’m not sure how they applied to the issue at hand. Tom did mention
that Alpine has a very loose ordinance around accessory apartments
which has been in effect for 16 yrs and only 4% of the home owners
have chosen to avail themselves of it.
Brian said the he could not support the ordinance as he was
uncomfortable with risks associated with unintended consequences.
RESOLVED: The ordinance changes were adopted by a 3 to 2 vote. Brian
and Larry were opposed while Scott, Kathryn, and Tom approved.
Note, this is probably not the end of this discussion given the amount
of issues that were raised.
Below is the existing and new language that was approved with respect
definition of a family as related to single family homes:
Existing Definition:
“Family - A individual or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit and
maintaining a common household. A family may include two, but not more
than two, non-related persons living with the residing family. The
term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related
individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.”
Proposed (and adopted) Definition:
“Family:
(1) One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal
guardianship, including foster children, and no more than two adults
and their children who are unrelated to the residing family; or
(2) A group of not more than four persons not related by blood,
marriage, adoption or legal guardianship, including foster children
living together as a common household.”
7. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section
5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a
Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for
preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) The proposed amendment modifies the review process for
preliminary and final plats for major subdivisions. The primary
objectives of this amendment are to streamline the review process and
to amend the process to be consistent with the new legislation and to
clarify the review process. The City Council considered this item on
January 18, 2011 and directed staff to revise the amendment to include
a public hearing before the Planning Commission for all preliminary
plats.
After a lot of discussion and back and forth it this amendment was
adopted with the provision that the City Council entertain comments
from the community when considering preliminary plats. The planning
commission and community dev director felt it was important that
public comment be received as soon in the process as possible but the
city council wanted to sure that they were being a transparent as
possible as well. The reason that the term public hearing was not used
for the City Council meeting was that there are specific communication
requirements that need to be performed for a hearing versus simply
public comment.
The city manager pointed out that the new city website (coming soon)
will allow city members to sign up to receive notices on a range of
subjects so that they can be as involved as they want.
RESOLVED: Amendment adopted with the proviso for allowing public
comments at City Council meetings as discussed above. The vote was
unanimous.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS BY MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF
These items are for information purposes only and do not require
action or discussion by the City Council.
8. DISCUSSION – Utah County Metro Fire Agency – John Park, City
Administrator
9. FINANCIAL REPORT – Lynn Ruff, Finance Director
10. REPORT – North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District –
Kathryn Schramm
Jan. 18, 2011 City Council
Highland City Council 1/18/11
Unfortunately, my workday ran very long, so I did not get to the meeting until these items came up. My apologies CBH.
• Highland Library will accept an $800.00 grant
• ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10 Definitions relating to the definition of a family. Amend the definition of a family for a single dwelling unit. Essentially not more than2 unrelated person and their children living and residing with the family. Family =An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,,, living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household. A family may include 2, but not more than 2, non-related persons and their children living with the residing family not related to the residing family and living with the homeowner. Also, shall not mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.” (Highlighted areas are the change).
o State is pressuring Highland to have more affordable residences. Tuscana helps, but does not help us to meet the demands.
Mr. Butler: current basement ordinances does not allow for live-in help or family etc. nor does it allow leases. And, any change requires separate meters, building upgrades, etc. It only addresses new construction and is cost prohibitive for existing homes. Now, we can rent to 2non-related relatives in a common household.
• Planning commission recommended a change to the ordinance.
o Safety concerns: People are going to do this anyway and rent space. 911 calls to get to someone in a basement etc. Need 2 doors or 1 door and conforming sized window. 1 hour fire rated door and fire-rated ceiling between the 2 residences. (Sheetrock in ceiling). (Fire chief). Nonflammable storage in utility room. Smoke alarms and Co2 in basement. Residency occupancy limit.
o Will discuss definition of a family now and later rentals and off street parking
o Property Values: Perception of rentals is that they reduce property values. Alpine has3200 homes with apartments without a property value difference. There is ~$100,000.00 price difference in property values between a similar sized home…Alpine is more.
o Liability: Attny says no city liability
o Affected Neighborhood: Off-street parking.
o Concern of Control: Owner occupied can rent out portions of their homes… or is the city micro-manage person’s home.
o He also states that we are discriminating against lower income individuals if we do not have a change to this ordinance. (My personal opinion at the moment is to let market forces happen CBH)
• Mr. Smith disagrees: Homes could up to 16 people living in the home. Not opposed to related living in common areas but opposed to unrelated doing so for liability and safety issues. He asked how many basement apartments are in Highland since the original ordinance was put in place in the past 18 months. (possibly 1-2). He supports redefining the family, but needs more information for safety and liability.
• Mr. Braithwaite: What is the urgency? (Butler says the council has been discussing for weeks and needs closure) Braithwaite says….so no urgency. The goal is to have affordable housing in the city correct? It isn’t a definition of a family, it is more of an affordable living situation. Butler disagrees saying that this is only one reason. Braithwaite is against. He is agreement to changes in the ordinance for more flexibility and feels this does not meet the need.
• Ms Schramm: Most people who rent their basement do it to make ends meet. They don’t have the funding to retrofit to meet Highland’s ordinance. She recommends redefining “Family” (2 adults 18 years old or older) etc.
• Mayor: Family means cannot be limited to less than 4 people according to state law. So, you could have an owner and 3 unrelated. Our ordinance is too restrictive according to the state law.
• Attorney: No liability for changing the definition of a family. He suggests occupancy limits, then we may have constitutional issues for limiting family size. Laws are designed to protect to the weakest in our society. Theoretically, you could have someone renting out their home with one family (1 adult, 3 unrelated adults, and kids) with up to 9 people in a one bedroom unit. Fire chief is concerned with occupancy limits for rentals.
• Mr. John Park (City Administrator): The current ordinance discriminates against those already finished basements.
Motion made to adopt the definition: Moved and seconded. Attorney said this is illegal because it does not meet the state definition. Substitute motion made to continue it. First and seconded….motion carried.
• Revised “Family-An individual or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit. A family may include 2 persons and their children not related to the residing family and living with the home owner. The term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club, or institution group” This is still under advisement.
• MOTION – Approval of a Subdivision Maintenance Plan and lifting of the moratorium for
open space agreements for the Canterbury Circle and Greenland Mountain Vista subdivisions. They want to be exempted from the open space agreement requirements. The city is proposing writing the agreement so that it can still be applicable in 5-7 years from now.
• The Home owners want to responsible for Maintenance for portions of it (4000 square feet up to 1 acre for lots 1-14). All lots need to enter into the agreement all at once to allow for all homeowners to have access to the entire lot of land. This land was supposed to also be used as a trail, and homeowners are not wishing to have a trial behind their homes. It would require the permission of the property owners to use it as a trail and cannot use Eminent Domain. However, the map for trails already exists and the homeowners need to know that at a future time there would be a trail (?).
• Greenland Mountain Vista: Originally had an Equestrian trail planned and has been construction. This is an easement and is not owned by city. If the Murdoch Connector gets constructed, this trail may not be needed. This is for lots 2-4 and home owners be responsible for 2000-4000 sq feet. City suggests abandoned this land. This is not like any other open space area.
• Ed ? : deferred to a Stan Phillips from Cantebury subdivision. When he bought the property, the open space was for horses and there was not mention of a trail. The owners now have an uncared for piece of property. The developer did not follow through. These people pay a maintenance fee to the city and are not getting the maintenance. There already is a trail in their park, why put another trail behind the same homes that front the city park. Homeowners want to maintain the property and no trail.
• Ed (?): Went over the city code. Improvements need to abide by open space plan. This will not cover any existing structures. No permanent structures. He recommends that the city provide the Moratorium. Let the people apply for open space maintenance by home owners. It would not be deeded to the homeowners.
• Mr. Smith: So, asking for a moratorium on the agreement so that homeowners maintain it and relieve the city of this ‘burden’.
• Motion made to separate the two subdivisions and approve subdivision Maintenance plan for Cantebury. Motion carried. On the Greenland Mtn Vista: recommend giving the property back and abandon the easement. The staff to look into it. Motion to work with residents these lots to allow residents rights to landscape their property per city admin. Seconded. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION – FY2011 Highland Fling Budget – John Park, City Administrator
• Ron Jewett presented plan. Budget is for $35,000.00. This is like seed money and try to have each event make back 50% more than what it costs. He projects the city will get 12-15,000 back, so the actual cost is less. The goal is to have it be a zero-budget item in a few years.
o Mr. Butler: what did it cost us and what did we make back last year.
Mr. Jewitt: Same events last year but better? Last year $18,035 net cost. $35,000 was allocated and the city made back $12,000.00. Mr. Jewett states there are ways to save money in many of the events. Once the sponsor realizes it is a good option for them, then sponsors will come. Last year, one person did the work, this year there will be a committee will be made back. He is hoping to gain $20,000.00 this year.
Mr. Jewitt learned that he is chairman for 4 years.
Ms Schramm asked if they could do it for $30,000 since the city has cut so many things this year. Mr. Jewitt said yes, but something would be cut. He says he needs $35,000.00 to start, but much comes back.
ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section 5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
Removed requirement for public hearing for preliminary plats,
City council approve preliminary plats
CC approval of final plats
Still have public input
Concurrent review for …..(they took the slide away….sorry)
Essentially delineates legislative and administrative actions of the Council.
What is a subdivision(divide land)
What is the role of the City: public safety, health, welfare and zoning.
The state requires approval of applicant if they meet all the requirements. If they meet the codes whether we like the applicant or not (No one mentioned it, but I am thinking of the Tuscana issue).
o State law requires a public meeting but not public input.
Plans:
o Concept Plan (does it meet code or not)
o Preliminary Plat: fatal flaw analysis, preliminary Infrastructure, design-Lot Layout, Street Location, Widths etc Regulation Conformance.
o Final Plat: Civil Engineering Drawings, Regulation Conformance, Right-of-way and Easement Dedications.
Current Review Process:
o Concept: DRC and Adjacent Property Notification happens
o Preliminary Platt
Planning Commission Public Hearing
o Final Plat: Planning commission to City Council and public meeting.
o So where is the appropriate place for CC input. Because the comments are coming in the Final plat, the developers were having to change things at the last minute at great expense.
Proposed:
Concept
Preliminary:
o Preliminary Planning Commission
o City Council Meeting
o Preapplication
Final Plat
o Preapplication if necessary
o City Council meeting
Non-residential, apartment, condominiums, townhome subdivision.
Site plan approval before plat approval
Facilitate economic development
So, it looks like they are trying to fix the process that was notably flawed for the Tuscana issue.
Planning Commission did hold a public meeting regarding these changes, Ms. Schramm had issues at that time.
Comments from the Council: If there a controversial issue, maybe able to insert a public meeting. Can open to public comment. DRC is the only time for public comment is in the daytime. We need to have public comment…there is a lot of ‘shall’ words. It seems like we have no choice than to be approval. We don’t have a lot of discretion in the project. The only difference is that we can have public comment in Planning Commission and at City Council. Ms. Schramm suggested that they be invited to DRC to keep them informed (she gave the example of someone asking her about the arrival of Artic Circle and she was unaware of it). Mr. Braithwaite states that many were struck and wanted to know why. He feels that having additional eyes can only help the procedure. He states that there is opportunity for public input. He feels it makes it more difficult for the applicant. He wanted to know who gets notified (neighbors and applicant). The old code provided for this reportedly. What happens if turned down and re-file. How long is the re-file good for? Again, the old code provided with. Clarification from Nathan about sections that would remain. Apparently CC only got a copy of the copy with only the suggested changes.
Staff will need to make sure that Staff accomplishes everything in the DRC. The CC will have 2 opportunities to make sure all requirements are met. If applicant meets requirements, neither Planning Committee nor CC can disapprove it. They want another public hearing back in…..suggested after Planning Commission. (This means our group may need to send someone to Planning Commission so that we can be alerted to possible unwanted projects and attending the public meeting before it gets to City Council as the only Public Hearing will occur between the two meetings).
Ms Schramm: motion to insert into procedure that a public hearing be on the Preliminary Platt at the City Council. Motion failed.
Mr. Butler: City Council amend 504-300 etc maintaining public hearing at Planning commission and keep preliminary and final plats at CC. Seconded. Mr. Braithwaite : substitute motion: give a list of concerns to “Nathan” to address and continue until next meeting to clearly identify for the CC. Moved and seconded. Motion carries.
REPORT – Lone Peak Public Safety District (Police) – Larry Mendenhall:
Total of over 700 incidences:
68 alarm calls
100 animal problems
16 criminal mischief
Others 10 or less.
No real “high crimes” due to officers, populations, and the good citizens.
Police Dog: Reached the monetary goal to purchase the dog. So next week they will visit 2 kennels in the US that provide this type of specially trained job. Other issues need to be dealt with before the dog can be utilized as envisioned. Police Chief thanked all that contributed to this worthy cause.
Mr. Park gave a proposed budget calendar for 2011 to avoid “crunch time” before the deadline. Will have a preliminary budget by March15, 2011. Then April 5th the City Council comments. Will kick off the new website hopefully with this budgetary process. On April 19, 2011 will be a public open house on the proposed budget. The information from this meeting would be brought on May3, 2011. June 7th would be a legal public hearing. Adopt budget on June 21, 2011 (due June 25th). These are proposed dates only. He wants to get as much public input as possible….yea for that!
Meeting adjourned.
Unfortunately, my workday ran very long, so I did not get to the meeting until these items came up. My apologies CBH.
• Highland Library will accept an $800.00 grant
• ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10 Definitions relating to the definition of a family. Amend the definition of a family for a single dwelling unit. Essentially not more than2 unrelated person and their children living and residing with the family. Family =An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,,, living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household. A family may include 2, but not more than 2, non-related persons and their children living with the residing family not related to the residing family and living with the homeowner. Also, shall not mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.” (Highlighted areas are the change).
o State is pressuring Highland to have more affordable residences. Tuscana helps, but does not help us to meet the demands.
Mr. Butler: current basement ordinances does not allow for live-in help or family etc. nor does it allow leases. And, any change requires separate meters, building upgrades, etc. It only addresses new construction and is cost prohibitive for existing homes. Now, we can rent to 2non-related relatives in a common household.
• Planning commission recommended a change to the ordinance.
o Safety concerns: People are going to do this anyway and rent space. 911 calls to get to someone in a basement etc. Need 2 doors or 1 door and conforming sized window. 1 hour fire rated door and fire-rated ceiling between the 2 residences. (Sheetrock in ceiling). (Fire chief). Nonflammable storage in utility room. Smoke alarms and Co2 in basement. Residency occupancy limit.
o Will discuss definition of a family now and later rentals and off street parking
o Property Values: Perception of rentals is that they reduce property values. Alpine has3200 homes with apartments without a property value difference. There is ~$100,000.00 price difference in property values between a similar sized home…Alpine is more.
o Liability: Attny says no city liability
o Affected Neighborhood: Off-street parking.
o Concern of Control: Owner occupied can rent out portions of their homes… or is the city micro-manage person’s home.
o He also states that we are discriminating against lower income individuals if we do not have a change to this ordinance. (My personal opinion at the moment is to let market forces happen CBH)
• Mr. Smith disagrees: Homes could up to 16 people living in the home. Not opposed to related living in common areas but opposed to unrelated doing so for liability and safety issues. He asked how many basement apartments are in Highland since the original ordinance was put in place in the past 18 months. (possibly 1-2). He supports redefining the family, but needs more information for safety and liability.
• Mr. Braithwaite: What is the urgency? (Butler says the council has been discussing for weeks and needs closure) Braithwaite says….so no urgency. The goal is to have affordable housing in the city correct? It isn’t a definition of a family, it is more of an affordable living situation. Butler disagrees saying that this is only one reason. Braithwaite is against. He is agreement to changes in the ordinance for more flexibility and feels this does not meet the need.
• Ms Schramm: Most people who rent their basement do it to make ends meet. They don’t have the funding to retrofit to meet Highland’s ordinance. She recommends redefining “Family” (2 adults 18 years old or older) etc.
• Mayor: Family means cannot be limited to less than 4 people according to state law. So, you could have an owner and 3 unrelated. Our ordinance is too restrictive according to the state law.
• Attorney: No liability for changing the definition of a family. He suggests occupancy limits, then we may have constitutional issues for limiting family size. Laws are designed to protect to the weakest in our society. Theoretically, you could have someone renting out their home with one family (1 adult, 3 unrelated adults, and kids) with up to 9 people in a one bedroom unit. Fire chief is concerned with occupancy limits for rentals.
• Mr. John Park (City Administrator): The current ordinance discriminates against those already finished basements.
Motion made to adopt the definition: Moved and seconded. Attorney said this is illegal because it does not meet the state definition. Substitute motion made to continue it. First and seconded….motion carried.
• Revised “Family-An individual or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit. A family may include 2 persons and their children not related to the residing family and living with the home owner. The term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club, or institution group” This is still under advisement.
• MOTION – Approval of a Subdivision Maintenance Plan and lifting of the moratorium for
open space agreements for the Canterbury Circle and Greenland Mountain Vista subdivisions. They want to be exempted from the open space agreement requirements. The city is proposing writing the agreement so that it can still be applicable in 5-7 years from now.
• The Home owners want to responsible for Maintenance for portions of it (4000 square feet up to 1 acre for lots 1-14). All lots need to enter into the agreement all at once to allow for all homeowners to have access to the entire lot of land. This land was supposed to also be used as a trail, and homeowners are not wishing to have a trial behind their homes. It would require the permission of the property owners to use it as a trail and cannot use Eminent Domain. However, the map for trails already exists and the homeowners need to know that at a future time there would be a trail (?).
• Greenland Mountain Vista: Originally had an Equestrian trail planned and has been construction. This is an easement and is not owned by city. If the Murdoch Connector gets constructed, this trail may not be needed. This is for lots 2-4 and home owners be responsible for 2000-4000 sq feet. City suggests abandoned this land. This is not like any other open space area.
• Ed ? : deferred to a Stan Phillips from Cantebury subdivision. When he bought the property, the open space was for horses and there was not mention of a trail. The owners now have an uncared for piece of property. The developer did not follow through. These people pay a maintenance fee to the city and are not getting the maintenance. There already is a trail in their park, why put another trail behind the same homes that front the city park. Homeowners want to maintain the property and no trail.
• Ed (?): Went over the city code. Improvements need to abide by open space plan. This will not cover any existing structures. No permanent structures. He recommends that the city provide the Moratorium. Let the people apply for open space maintenance by home owners. It would not be deeded to the homeowners.
• Mr. Smith: So, asking for a moratorium on the agreement so that homeowners maintain it and relieve the city of this ‘burden’.
• Motion made to separate the two subdivisions and approve subdivision Maintenance plan for Cantebury. Motion carried. On the Greenland Mtn Vista: recommend giving the property back and abandon the easement. The staff to look into it. Motion to work with residents these lots to allow residents rights to landscape their property per city admin. Seconded. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION – FY2011 Highland Fling Budget – John Park, City Administrator
• Ron Jewett presented plan. Budget is for $35,000.00. This is like seed money and try to have each event make back 50% more than what it costs. He projects the city will get 12-15,000 back, so the actual cost is less. The goal is to have it be a zero-budget item in a few years.
o Mr. Butler: what did it cost us and what did we make back last year.
Mr. Jewitt: Same events last year but better? Last year $18,035 net cost. $35,000 was allocated and the city made back $12,000.00. Mr. Jewett states there are ways to save money in many of the events. Once the sponsor realizes it is a good option for them, then sponsors will come. Last year, one person did the work, this year there will be a committee will be made back. He is hoping to gain $20,000.00 this year.
Mr. Jewitt learned that he is chairman for 4 years.
Ms Schramm asked if they could do it for $30,000 since the city has cut so many things this year. Mr. Jewitt said yes, but something would be cut. He says he needs $35,000.00 to start, but much comes back.
ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section 5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
Removed requirement for public hearing for preliminary plats,
City council approve preliminary plats
CC approval of final plats
Still have public input
Concurrent review for …..(they took the slide away….sorry)
Essentially delineates legislative and administrative actions of the Council.
What is a subdivision(divide land)
What is the role of the City: public safety, health, welfare and zoning.
The state requires approval of applicant if they meet all the requirements. If they meet the codes whether we like the applicant or not (No one mentioned it, but I am thinking of the Tuscana issue).
o State law requires a public meeting but not public input.
Plans:
o Concept Plan (does it meet code or not)
o Preliminary Plat: fatal flaw analysis, preliminary Infrastructure, design-Lot Layout, Street Location, Widths etc Regulation Conformance.
o Final Plat: Civil Engineering Drawings, Regulation Conformance, Right-of-way and Easement Dedications.
Current Review Process:
o Concept: DRC and Adjacent Property Notification happens
o Preliminary Platt
Planning Commission Public Hearing
o Final Plat: Planning commission to City Council and public meeting.
o So where is the appropriate place for CC input. Because the comments are coming in the Final plat, the developers were having to change things at the last minute at great expense.
Proposed:
Concept
Preliminary:
o Preliminary Planning Commission
o City Council Meeting
o Preapplication
Final Plat
o Preapplication if necessary
o City Council meeting
Non-residential, apartment, condominiums, townhome subdivision.
Site plan approval before plat approval
Facilitate economic development
So, it looks like they are trying to fix the process that was notably flawed for the Tuscana issue.
Planning Commission did hold a public meeting regarding these changes, Ms. Schramm had issues at that time.
Comments from the Council: If there a controversial issue, maybe able to insert a public meeting. Can open to public comment. DRC is the only time for public comment is in the daytime. We need to have public comment…there is a lot of ‘shall’ words. It seems like we have no choice than to be approval. We don’t have a lot of discretion in the project. The only difference is that we can have public comment in Planning Commission and at City Council. Ms. Schramm suggested that they be invited to DRC to keep them informed (she gave the example of someone asking her about the arrival of Artic Circle and she was unaware of it). Mr. Braithwaite states that many were struck and wanted to know why. He feels that having additional eyes can only help the procedure. He states that there is opportunity for public input. He feels it makes it more difficult for the applicant. He wanted to know who gets notified (neighbors and applicant). The old code provided for this reportedly. What happens if turned down and re-file. How long is the re-file good for? Again, the old code provided with. Clarification from Nathan about sections that would remain. Apparently CC only got a copy of the copy with only the suggested changes.
Staff will need to make sure that Staff accomplishes everything in the DRC. The CC will have 2 opportunities to make sure all requirements are met. If applicant meets requirements, neither Planning Committee nor CC can disapprove it. They want another public hearing back in…..suggested after Planning Commission. (This means our group may need to send someone to Planning Commission so that we can be alerted to possible unwanted projects and attending the public meeting before it gets to City Council as the only Public Hearing will occur between the two meetings).
Ms Schramm: motion to insert into procedure that a public hearing be on the Preliminary Platt at the City Council. Motion failed.
Mr. Butler: City Council amend 504-300 etc maintaining public hearing at Planning commission and keep preliminary and final plats at CC. Seconded. Mr. Braithwaite : substitute motion: give a list of concerns to “Nathan” to address and continue until next meeting to clearly identify for the CC. Moved and seconded. Motion carries.
REPORT – Lone Peak Public Safety District (Police) – Larry Mendenhall:
Total of over 700 incidences:
68 alarm calls
100 animal problems
16 criminal mischief
Others 10 or less.
No real “high crimes” due to officers, populations, and the good citizens.
Police Dog: Reached the monetary goal to purchase the dog. So next week they will visit 2 kennels in the US that provide this type of specially trained job. Other issues need to be dealt with before the dog can be utilized as envisioned. Police Chief thanked all that contributed to this worthy cause.
Mr. Park gave a proposed budget calendar for 2011 to avoid “crunch time” before the deadline. Will have a preliminary budget by March15, 2011. Then April 5th the City Council comments. Will kick off the new website hopefully with this budgetary process. On April 19, 2011 will be a public open house on the proposed budget. The information from this meeting would be brought on May3, 2011. June 7th would be a legal public hearing. Adopt budget on June 21, 2011 (due June 25th). These are proposed dates only. He wants to get as much public input as possible….yea for that!
Meeting adjourned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)