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.