Dec 3, 2024 Council Session & Updates

Key elements of the December 3 City Council sessions

4:00pm, Work Session (observe from gallery):

Moderate Income Housing Discussion 

Community and Economic Development Director Mike Johnson (20 mins.) 

Big Cottonwood Canyon Environmental Study by UDOT / Draft of City Comment Letter

(Ellen's note:  This is an important deliberation) 

Discussion of Proposed Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with UDOT for sidewalks for Creek Road within D1 & D2 only

 City Engineer Matt Shipp (10 mins.) 

Danish Road Traffic Control Demonstration Project Update

City Engineer Matt Shipp (20 mins.) (Ellen's note: Because the city engineer is basing data consideration on "85th Percentile Rule", I encourage you to read this brief explanation:  https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/7/24/understanding-the-85th-percentile-speed

SLCO sponsored new Public Health Advisory Committee for Cottonwood Hts

City Manager Jared Gerber (20 mins.) 

7:00pm  City Council Business Meeting

CITIZEN COMMENTS -  make your comment on any topic/3 minute max

Consideration of Proclamation 2024-02 Recognizing the Contributions of Gayle Conger.             

Consideration of Ordinance 426 Adopting an Annual Meeting Schedule for 2025. (This ordinance will adopt a schedule for regular meetings of the city's city council, planning commission and other public bodies for calendar year 2025, as required by UTAH CODE ANN. 52-4-202).

Consideration of Resolution 2024-71 Accepting an Annexation Petition for Further Consideration (Creek Road West Annexation). (By this resolution the council will accept for further consideration a recently-filed annexation petition for the 'Creek Road West' annexation and direct the city recorder to determine whether the petition complies with statutory requirements, all as provided in Utah Code Ann. 10-2-405).

UPDATES

OLD MILL Demolition Variance Request which was heard by City of Cottonwood Heights' Appeals Hearing Officer on November 14, 2024, a conclusion has been reached: 

Conclusion:

Hearing Officer may grant a variance to Applicants from strict compliance with Chapters 19.86

and 19.84 of the Code only if five conditions specified in section 19.92.030 of the Code (similar

in substance to section 10-9a-702 of the Utah Code) are met. Applicants have the burden to show

that all five (5) conditions have been met. Hearing Officer finds that Applicants have not shown

that all five (5) conditions have been met. Accordingly, the request by the Applicants for a

variance from the requirements of Chapters 19.86 and 19.84 of the Code is denied.

Dated November 27, 2024.

Frank Nakamura, Appeals Hearing Officer

Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation wants YOUR input!

We're conductinga countywide survey to learn what residents value most, how we can improve our parks nd recreation services.

https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/5b51376100da46b38022647d5ff2ac24

Survey closes 12/20/2024.

Ellen's statement regarding the passage of approval for the City to bond for $30,000,000 to establish a city center for Cottonwood Heights:

“While I have demonstrated support for a city center that would anchor a walkable Main Street on Fort Union Blvd for Cottonwood Heights and a shift away from strip malls favoring instead:

• Market and policy driven transformation of Cottonwood Heights’ Fort Union Blvd from Hillside Plaza west through the commercial district to a “Main Street” feeling giving advantages for higher patronage to local businesses, lessoning VMT (vehicle miles travelled), encouraging walking and rolling, lessoning vehicular violence & road maintenance costs, building civic morale & camaraderie amongst residents and visitors

• Meeting the State’s additional housing demands with an emphasis on affordable, dense, “for-purchase” housing along transit routes (Fort Union and Highland Drive). This strengthens our community by allowing youth and seniors to continue to live in our city when they would otherwise be priced-out AND helps working people — our teachers, first responders, those who work in service or retail — to live near their place of employment

  Thus, it is my responsibility to point out that 47% of the registered voters that the Council represents expressed opposition to the city taking on the $30M debt for a city center. Specific concerns varied. Some expressed growing expenditures related to home ownership and the forthcoming burden of double digit percentage of increase to their annual tax bill. For others it was inadequate due diligence (financial study or risk assessment, viability, legal risk, operational risk, liquidity risk, market risk, demand analysis, profit and loss statement, with revenue and costs, estimate of buildings and lease income).

We need to assure these citizens that we are listening and answer as fully as possible their concerns before making decision to execute the bond.

If using TIF Tax Increment Financing is going to be a central vehicle, let Canyon Centre be a cautionary tale of a promised park built with accumulation of funds. Even ten years after the development began, is still not realized.

If the U.S. economy goes through a severe downturn, and with the policies of the forthcoming administration this is likely, it will be difficult for businesses to fill in this space. “