About 65 people attended the meeting. At least half were there to speak during the public hearing on whether or not to declare the 12 acres that comprise the undeveloped Spring Creek Park as surplus. This was an interesting discussion.
Roads Work session
We reviewed the work to date on the road study. PEPG confirmed that their final report would include an estimated timeframe the work should be done to a road after which the cost to repair would increase. Click here to view a copy of the presentation made by PEPG. Their general findings were that:
- A majority of segments need Crack Seal, Seal Coat and Patching, not reconstruction.
- Many ‘failed’ areas tied to trenches, patches or thin asphalt
- Overlay material should be based on highly durable, crack resistant asphalt material.
- Large cracks should be filled to within 1” of top before sealing.
- Many segments have high voids in asphalt, high priority for seals.
I did attend a morning meeting subsequently where the project was updated. Here are some notes from that meeting:
- Total road segments reviewed: 202
- Reclassified to a higher (better) grade: 50
- Reclassified to a lower (worse) grade: 2
- Initial estimate of current road needs based on treatments
4:5%: No Rehabilitation
21.0%: Seal Coat without Patching
9.0%: Minor Patching without Seal Coat
0.5%: Significant Patching without Seal Coat
45.0%: Minor Patching and Seal Coat
4.5%: Significant Patching and Seal Coat
8.0%: Mill and Overlay without Patching
2.0%: Mill and Overlay with Minor Patching
1.0%: Mill and Overlay with Significant Patching
While we don’t have cost estimated yet the total cost will be significantly less than the ~$16M the 2011 road study indicated. Still, it will represent money we don’t presently have. Funding for this will most likely be finalized next year. We will need the time to discuss prioritization and options.
Council Meeting AGENDA / MINUTES
Steven Babb president of the Homeowners Association of Pheasant Hollow expressed concern that information in the newsletter regarding the east/west corridor was inaccurate and that the city had not been transparent. Please review my post on the History of the East-West Connector for as accurate a picture as I can paint of where we are today and what has transpired in the past.
December 2015 Preliminary Plans
MOTION: Approval of Meeting Minutes for the City Council Regular Session – April 5, 2016 : Approved unanimously. Click here for details.
MOTION: Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement – Highland Oaks: The developer of Highland Oaks agreed to pay $37,620 towards infrastructure improvements. The money is to be paid as at the time the building permits are filed. Approved unanimously. Click here for details
PUBLIC HEARING: Holdman Annexation – 11550 North 6000 West: This was a public hearing for the purposes of hearing input on the annexation into Highland of the property shown below. There was no public comment and no action was required. Click here for details
PUBLIC HEARING: Surplus of Real Property – Spring Creek Park Property. Click here for details. The council determined in a previous meeting that it since it owns to large parcel of land for parks, both of which are undeveloped selling one to fund the development of the other made sense to consider. Staff estimates that absent additional funding we will not be able to start developing the parks until the early 2030s. The intended use for both parks is to provide additional sports fields (baseball, soccer, lacrosse …). Click here to see the staff presentation. This means that during the spring, summer, an fall these will be heavily used (in the summer and weekends there will often be games and/or practices from sun up to sun down.
In order to sell property a public hearing must be held to ensure the public can provide comment. 14 residents commented on the issue. All but one were opposed to selling the park because it in their view benefited the neighborhood, even in its underdeveloped state. A large number indicated that they would be willing to pay higher taxes to develop the park. A couple thought it would be a mistake to sell the land for less than we paid for it and another individual suggested that we should organize volunteers to help with the development. The single resident who was supportive of selling the park indicated that residents in the area live on large lots and essentially have a small park in their back yard. Additionally, with a park comes traffic and roadside parking which would not be welcome.
My personal thoughts on the matter are as follows.
- I still believe we should sell one undeveloped park to develop the other.
- If we are going to build a sports park then the Mountain Ridge location is more suitable because it is more central and has better access.
- I am not an expert on the appropriate acreage for parks in city but I don’t believe Highland’s needs can be compared with more densely populated communities such as Orem, Salt Lake, or NYC.
- Were I living in the neighborhood I would not want a large sports park in my back yard. I would however enjoy having access to a smaller community park with a pavilion, play ground, and grass area.
- As a council member I might be friendly to a plan by the residents showing how they would organize volunteers to help develop (and possibly maintain) a small park, thus reducing the cost, and indicating they would support rezoning the adjacent land to R-1-20 or R-1-30 to enhance the value of the remaining land for the city.
PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Edge Homes is requesting an amendment to the land use designation of the General Plan from ‘School’ to ‘Single Family Residential’ - Property located at 9725 North 6800 West. Click here for details. There was no public input and little discussion. The school district owned the land but has determined they will not need it. This was approved unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: A request by the Highland City Council to create an R-1-30 Residential District. Click here for details. These was some opposition for creating a new zone R-1-30 to fit between the R-1-20 and R-1-40 zones. An argument for not implementing it was that it would add to the existing bureaucracy and was somewhat redundant because in the end there was little difference between it and R-1-20 (only one resident commented on the issue and supported this argument). There was also some discussion on whether R-1-20 should be used more in the city. I supported R-1-30. I believe it gives developers another option to propose and provides more flexibility than R-1-20 in terms of how piece of land is developed. The council passed the motion 4 to 1 (Yes – Brian Braithwaite, Tim Irwin, Dennis LeBaron, Rod Mann; No - Ed Dennis).
PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Request of Re-Zoning of 19.58 acres of property located at 9725 North 6800 West from R-1-40 to R-1-20 – Edge Homes. Click here for details. Several residents on the south of this expressed their desire to have a road be constructed on the north edge of their property to facilitate a split. However, one residents opposed this and a road would have to impact his property so there was really no point to even considering this. Council members were divided as to whether or not to rezone all but the southern portion of this property to R-1-20. Ed Dennis moved to adopt the request. I supported this but the vote was 3 to 2 against. One of the concerns of the opponents was that the southern lots would end up being divided in the future thus increasing the density. An amendment was made to rezone to R-1-30. Ed Dennis and Dennis LeBaron supported this but it lost 3 to 2. I am not opposed to using the new R-1-30 zone but I wanted this request to come through the planning commission so that they could review it and so their input would be part of the discussion. The motion ended up being denied and the developer will redo his plans using R-1-30 and go back through the planning commission. Note, a preliminary R-1-30 design was done and the number of lots ends up being the same.
MOTION: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a 56 lot single family residential subdivision located at 5960 West 12500 North – Perry Homes, Beacon Hills Plat G. Click here for details. Residents south of the development expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and speeding. The developer agreed to install 2 radar speed signs on Angles Gate Approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE: Request to amend Article 4.1 R-1-40 Residential Zone, Section 3-4109 Accessory Buildings and Article 4.2 R-1-20 Residential Zone, Section 3-4209 Accessory Buildings, amending the street side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings from ten feet (10') to twenty feet (20') Article – Mayor Mark. Click here for details. This amendment will change the street side yard setbacks of an accessory building from 10 feet to 20 feet. It really on impacts corner lots. Approved unanimously.
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF COMMUNICATION ITEMS
STAFF AND COUNCIL ACTION ITEM LIST
Requested by / Owner
Road Capital Improvement Plan for FY 15-16. Prioritize and Communicate to Residents
|Est. June 2016 || |
Determine Park Use for Recreation
HW Bldg. – PW Storage Status
|Council Policy and Procedures||City Council |
|Aug 2016|| |
|Election Policy||City Council/ |
|Aug 2016||In progress|