Sunday, June 26, 2016

City Council 07-Jun-2016: Edge Homes, Bike Trail, Multiple Re-Zoning Requests both Commercial and Residential

2016-06-07 Quick-QuackjpgThe council meeting ended at 12:30 AM. There was lots of discussion with residents, which I always view as positive, and I therefore didn’t mind that we ran late. Several residents stayed till the bitter end and then talked afterward with council members for another 30 to 40 minutes.

Council Meeting AGENDA / MINUTES

Public Comment

  • Dave Krammer, Head Coach of the Lone Peak mountain biking team introduced a proposed project and then let team members Levi Kammer, Cade Nielson, and Kyle Randall describe it. They want to create a  bike trail system on City property off of the Murdock Canal trail
    and Canterbury Drive. The project would be done as multiple Eagle Projects, grants would be sought to fund the project, and then the team would assume much of the responsibility for the maintenance of the trails. These would be available to all residents. The council expressed support. Brian encouraged them to address parking concerns when they bring this back to the council for a vote. Click here to see the presentation that was shared with the council.

    2016-06-07 Bike Trails Eagle Scout Project

  • Jeff Weiner brought to the council’s attention to an issue facing those who live in the Windsor Meadows subdivision who have children that attend Legacy Elementary school. They recently lost busing service because the standard is over 1.5 miles and they are 1.49. The state legislature created a fund that neighborhoods can use to apply for busing service when there are no safe walking routes available. Jeff provided maps and illustrated the problem with the routes the children need to walk. In order to apply for the grant the city, police and school district must be co-signers. The  ask for was to authorize the city to sign the application. Tim Irwin pointed out that any time we ask government to do something for us we are asking for other people to pay for it – fair point. Ed said he was supportive. In order for the council to vote on an item it must be on the agenda, so a formal council vote would need to occur at a subsequent meeting. Since the legislature set aside funding for this I am OK with the city being a co-signer to apply for the grant.  Click here to view the presentation Jeff shared with the council.

    2016-06-07 Windsor Unsafe Route


  • Apple Creek Development – McKay Christensen. McKay presented a revised plan for a 55 and older development on the open land west and north of UCCU on Alpine Hwy. Last year he presented a 4 story plan which the council had no interest reviewing. His new plan is 3-stories and includes underground parking.  Click here to view the presentation. It is an attractive mix of leased residential units on the 2 and 3 floors with retail on the first floor.The city would need to sell 1.5 acres of land it owns directly to the east of the police station for the project. While the land is owned by the city it is frequently referred to as the library or community center  property. The council expressed a willingness to consider selling the land and revising the zoning to accommodate the development. I expect this will be on a future agenda.

    2016-06-07 Applecreek Map

    2016-06-07 Applecreek Site Plan

    Note, one of the options the developer offered was to lease a portion of the west building to the city for a library. No council member supports this because it is an added annual expense on a very tight budget. I believe we all would rather expand the library in place. That said I am likely to again become a library hater if I vote yes to sell the land and say no to what I expect will be a request to allocate all proceeds to the library. The land is owned by the city and it is up to the council to determine how best to use any proceeds from a sale. If a plan is presented to the council for an in-place expansion of the library there may be support for assisting with the project using some of the proceeds.

    2016-06-07 Applecreek West Elevation

    2016-06-07 South Elevation


  1. MOTION: Approval of Meeting Minutes for the City Council Regular Session – May 17, 2016: . Click here for details. Approved unanimously.

  2. MOTION: Surplus of Personal Public Property - Library Surplus. Click here for details. Approval sought to surplus old computer related equipment. Approved unanimously.

  3. MOTION: Final Plat Approval of a two lot subdivision located at 9916 No. 6800 W - Danny Wright. Click here for details. Ed Dennis asked about splitting the parcel into three lots rather than two. The land owner did not submit a request for three lots nor did he ask Ed to seek for a 3-way split, the owner was not present and there is not enough land to split it into more than two lots under the R-140 zone. The council quickly moved to approve the proposed split, which passed unanimously.

    2016-06-07 Wright Lot Split


  1. PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE: Request to Re-Zone 7.25 acres from R-1-40 to R-1-30 located at 11500 No. 6000 W – Ross Wolfley.
    After a lot of discussion the council approved the rezone request from R-1-40 to R-1-30 for this piece of property. Much of the discussion was centered around whether to require a through street be stubbed to facilitate future access to the property to the east of this development. We determined that there were multiple other options for accessing the land to the east and a through street was not a requirement. Also discussed was whether or not a variance should be approved to extend the street length beyond the 600 ft. limit (on roads leading to a cul-de-sac) to allow the cul-de-sac to be bigger, thus making it easier for the developer to create lots that comply with the frontage requirement. An amendment to the motion to allow the cul-de-sac to be larger and the street a little longer than the 600 ft. max passed 3 to 2 (Brian Braithwaite and I voted no).  The developer did not not need this exception to comply with code—that is why Brian and I voted no. I believe the others voted yes because the lot lines would be cleaner. The motion to to approve the change to R-1-30, not require a through street stub passed 4 to 1 (Brian Braithwaite) voted no).

    Note, the planning commission voted to deny the application in part because most felt that the R-1-30 zone was meant to be a buffer zone between R-1-40 and lower density zoning areas (e.g. R-1-20 and even lower density zones in adjacent cities. A majority of the council (including me) did not agree with that perspective. (Brian does agree with the Planning Commissions interpretation). Click here for additional details.

    2016-06-07 Holdman Rezone

  2. PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE: Request to Re-Zone 19.58 acres from R-1-40 to R-1-30 located at 9725 No. 6800 W - Edge Homes.
    Edge homes purchased land from the Alpine School District to develop as home and sought to have it rezoned to R-1-30. They had come before the council earlier and asked for R-1-20 with a small section on the south left as R-1-40. That was denied. The R-1-30 request was unanimously approved.  Click here for details.
    2016-06-07 Edge Homes - Sky Ridge Estates
    Edge shared a presentation which walked through their vision of the project. Click here to view it. An interesting slide identified the fees charged to develop each lot. They are as follows:

    Fee Amount
    Sewer $2,296
    Timpanogos Sewer District $3,812
    Pressurized Irrigation $1,350
    Parks $6,834
    Road $1,210
    Bond $1,000
    Public Safety $997
    Culinary Water $1,835
    Meter $360
    Storm Water $750
    Open Space $20
    Total $20,464

  3. PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE: Request to Re-Zone 0.7 acres from R-1-40 to RP located at 10322 No. 4800 W – Greg Nield.  A number of residents spoke in opposition to the rezone request. The council then discussed the issue. For me the critical issue was parking. Currently the Highland Glen care center utilizes all of the parking plus some on occasion. The new office building plan removes 2 stalls from the Highland Glenn parking to accommodate trash dumpsters. The application was denied unanimously and a request to resubmit a more complete plan that addresses the parking issue and includes a study on the current parking situation.. We could have simply continued the item to another council meeting but denying it requires that the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission before coming to the council.  Note, again we did not follow the 5-0 recommendation of the planning commission, which I really don’t like to do but the parking issue was a new discovery. North Utah County Special Needs Mutual. Click here for additional details.

    2016-06-07 Office Building on 4800 W

    2016-06-07 Office Building Elevations on 4800 W.jpg

  4. PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE: Amend Article 4.35 - CR Zone, Section 3-4351 - Permitted Uses, adding car washes as a permitted use and adding Section 3-4377 - Car Wash Standards for Car Wash Facilities – Quick Quack Car Wash.  Click here for additional details. The current list of businesses allowed in Town Center does not include car washes and therefore without a change to the zoning regulation a car wash could not be built. A public hearing is required to change a zoning regulation. Quick-Quack would like to build a car wash on the vacant land on the North side of SR 92 West of the UPS Store. Two residents expressed opposition to allowing an automated car wash to be built at the requested location. Concern was expressed about noise, fumes from idling vehicles, and that it was not a pedestrian friendly business.

    2016-06-07 Quick-Quack layout

    After the public hearing the council reviewed the noise studies provided by “Quick Quack” (there is a chain of Quick Quack car washes – I have to say I nearly voted no and the name would have been one of the reasons:). The data indicated that the road noise from SR92 was significantly louder than the car wash. Also, the car wash was oriented so that noise would be directed away from the residents.

    It was pointed out during the discussion that the current regulations would allow a gas station or a McDonalds to be located in the location. In many ways this is a less intrusive business in terms of number of vehicles and hours of operation. For me this was a deciding factor along with the noise study that indicated Quick-Quack would be a good neighbor from a noise perspective. I do sympathize with the neighbors and in fact met with one of the two who attended the meeting earlier that day to discuss her concerns. She lives north of where the car wash will be build. There is an 8 ft. masonry wall that separates her property from the town center north but the north south wall goes from about the middle of her back yard down to SR92. Although she is a block from SR92 I was surprised at how loud the noise was in her back yard. I think the wall actually directs some of that noise into her yard.

    2016-06-07 Quick-Quack elevation

    The council voted 3 to 1 in favor of the motion to change the zoning and allow car washes with the stipulation that the decibel level meet the standard of 65 decibels or less from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 45 decibels or less from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am at property line. Note, I believe the latest the car wash is open is 9 PM on weekends. Tim Irwin left the meeting at 11 PM which is why only 4 council members voted.

  5. MOTION: Intent to Study Options for Police and Fire Service. I am glad the Mayor added this item to the agenda. I cannot tell you how frustrated I was with the Public Safety Board when they approved the originally requested Fire Budget in spite of the fact that all Highland members had indicated that they would like see a trimmed budget request at a prior meeting. When the budget was approved there was NO discussion of alternate budget options for the fire department. To me that said that Alpine and Cedar Hills had no concern about our budget issues. This leads me to question the nature of our “partnership.” I could go on and on about this issue but I will stop. I think it is certainly worth looking into what other available options could serve Highland’s interest. The motion passed 3 to 1 with Ed Dennis voting no.

    A motion was also made to add to next year’s budget funding for a revenue study to help us find additional means of raising revenue for the city (besides raising taxes or fees). This also passed 3 to 1 with Dennis LeBaron voting no.




Requested by / Owner

Due Date


Road Capital Improvement Plan for FY 15-16. Prioritize and Communicate to Residents

City Council

Est. June 2016

Study underway

Determine Park Use for Recreation

City Council
Parks Staff


In progress

HW Bldg. – PW Storage Status

City Council


In progress

Council Policy and Procedures City Council
Aug 2016

In progress

Salt Storage Building


Apr 2016 Engineering review
Election Policy City Council/
Jody Bates
Aug 2016 In progress



  1. Rod, thank you for your regular posts. It appears Jeff did a wonderful job of outlining the Legacy Elementary busing issue, but with one exception. The Pebble Wood Subdivision which is farther north of Windsor Meadows also follows the same route. When the council considers the grant please be aware of our children as well.

  2. Wow, Rod. Great update. Thanks for keeping us posted! Oh, and "Quick Quack" isn't really working for me either. jj

    1. You are most welcome Jim. Glad I am not alone on the "duck" :)


Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding this post.