City Council

Minutes of the Millcreek City Council June 27, 2022 6:30 p.m. Work Meeting 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The City Council of Millcreek, Utah, met in a public work meeting and regular meeting on a June 27, 2022 at City Hall, located at 3330 S. 1300 E., Millcreek, UT 84106. The meeting was live streamed via the City's website with an option for online public comment. PRESENT: Council Members City Staff Jeff Silvestrini, Mayor Mike Winder, City Manager Silvia Catten, District I Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder Thom DeSirant, District 2 Francis Lilly, Assistant City Manager Cheri Jackson, District 3 Laurie Johnson, HR-Finance Director (electronic) Bev Uipi, District 4 Kurt Hansen, Facilities Director Rita Lund, Communications Director John Miller, Public Works Director (electronic) Robert May, Long Range Planner Andrew Clark, Emergency Manager Brad Sanderson, Current Planning Manager (electronic) Attendees: Luke Cartin, Rick Hansen, Tim Bachman, Laura Livnat, Mike B., Paige Peterson, Coy Clawson, Teresa Clawson, Kym Bradley, David Thompson, Mary Thompson, Lisa Bagley, Rhonda Bachman, Sophia M., Kevin Flynn, Alisha Hainrnett, Linda Granat, Lance Hobbs, Rashelle Hobbs, Mike Akerlow, Todd Reeder, Diane S. Hoggan, Deanna Foxley, Steve Bassett, Samantha DeSeelhorst, Chief Steve DeBry, Detective Tracy Boughn WORK MEETING - 6:30 p.m. TIME COMMENCED - 6:32 p.m. Mayor Silvestrini called the work meeting to order. 1. Utah 100 Communities Update; Samantha DeSeelhorst, Sustainability Analyst Samantha DeSeelhorst noted that Council Member Jackson and Mayor Silvestrini served on the Utah Community Renewable Energy Board. She gave a background on tlie Utah Community Renewable Energy Program and a high-level overview of how the program works. The program was enabled by H. B. 411 in the 2019 Utah Legislative session. It created a pathway for residents and businesses who municipality opts into the program to have the option of net-100% renewable electricity as their electricity source by 2030. Once the program is approved and ready Mnlcreek City Councn Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 2 of 12 to launch, participating communities will, in coordination with Rocky Mountain Power, procure new renewable energy resources and connect those resources to the existing electric grid. Customers will be automatically enrolled in the program with the option of opting out if they prefer to stay on standard electricity. If Millcreek adopts an ordinance to finalize participation, the city would have a voice in the procurement of resources. Program resources over time to 2030 would include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, storage, and energy efficiency. The key program principles are to meet participating communities' collective goals for making net 100% renewable electrical energy available to residents and businesses by 2030, design the program, implement low-income protections to make the program rate affordable and to minimize the impact on low-income customers, collaborate effectively with legal and technical experts, Rocky Mountain Power, and state regulators, and continually improve communications to make the complex program understandable for non-technical experts. DeSeelhorst went over Millcreek's history with the bill which included H.B. 411 getting passed in 2019, the Utah Public Service Commission adopting administrative rules in 2019-2020, Millcreek adopting a net 100% energy goal making it an eligible community in November 2019, Millcreek signing the Governance Agreement making it a member of the Community Renewable Energy Agency in May 2021, and Millcreek appointing Mayor Silvestrini and Council Member Jackson as board members in June 2021. The other member communities are Alta, Castle Valley, Coalville, Cottonwood Heights, Emigration Canyon Township, Francis, Grand County, Holladay, Kearns, Moab, Oakley, Ogden, Park City, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Summit County, and Springdale. The Agency structure is comprised of the board with two board members per community and the Program Design Committee, Low-Income Plan Committee, and Communications Committee. The major milestones of the program included launching the agency, which took place in 2021, designing the program, which was currently happening (2021-2022), Rocky Mountain Power filing a program application for state review and approval (2022), communities passing an ordinance to enter the program upon program approval (2023), the first renewable energy procurements and the program beginning (2023-2024), and that customers are notified about the program and the choice to opt out before utility bills reflect the program (2023-2024). Mayor Silvestrini said the communities will get to see Rocky Mountain Power's application to understand better what rates may be. He said proposals were far less of an increase than what he anticipated. DeSeelhorst briefly reviewed a list of policy consideration questions. Mayor Silvestrini said on June 29I'1 the Community Renewable Energy Board would do an orientation to educate new board members. The Design Committee has been negotiating with Rocky Mountain Power. The Agency has hired experts for creating a preliminary rate making study. The Comn'iunications Committee was working on noticing for residents. Luke Cartin, Park City, said Ogden and Salt Lake City had done resident surveys on the programs and prices. 2. Staff Reports There were none. 3. Discussion of Agenda Items, Correspondence, and/or Future Agenda Items Francis Lilly, who recently traveled to Europe, noted that international city centers had minimal parking spaces and park maintenance was struggling. Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 3 of 12 Council Member Uipi moved to adjourn the work meeting at 6:55 p.m. Council Member Jackson seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED: 7:03 p.m. 1. Welcome, Introduction and Preliminary Matters 1.1 Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Silvestrini called the meeting to order and led the pledge of allegiance. He invited the audience to attend the 4Ih of July parade. 1.2 Public Comment Kevin Flynn, 3474 S. 2300 E., said the 150"1 anniversary of the historic Baldwin Radio Factory celebration was happening August 27. The factory was the oldest nonresidential building in Millcreek and on the National Historic Register. It was the original high-tech center for Utah. The builder, Nathanial Baldwin, invented headphones. He asked for the city's assistance with the celebration. Mayor Silvestrini said the Council would discuss it and tlianked him for coming. Mayor Silvestrini said there was a successful Juneteenth celebration in Millcreek Common the prior week. He congratulated Aimee McConkie, Events Director, for putting together great events which were family friendly with roller skating and ice cream. 1.3 Unified Police Department Millcreek Precinct Officer of the Month for May 2022 Chief Steve Debry announced Detective Tracy Boughn as Officer of the Month for May 2022. He read a letter from Churchill Junior High's principal that praised Detective Boughn. The Citizens Advisory Board gave Detective Boughn a gift. Mayor Silvestrini thanked Detective Boughn for his service. He said he thought the more contact that kids have with police officers as role models, the better. He was supportive of the police and looked forward to sharing a city hall with the Millcreek Precinct. The Citizens Advisory Board recognized Chief Steve DeBry as having received the Steve Moore Award for demonstrating exceptional help to the Board. Mayor Silvestrini cornrnended Chief DeBry for his work for Millcreek. Chief DeBry expressed fondness for the Council and Millcreek. 1.4 Proclamation Recognizing Tim Bachman as an Outstanding Volunteer and CERT Program Manager Mayor Silvestrini proclaimed the following: A PROCLAMATIONRECOGNIZING TIMBACFjMANASAN OUTSTANDING VOLUNTEER AND CERT PROGRAAd MANAGER Mfflcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 4 of 12 WHEREAS, Tim Bachman has sperxt countless hours vohmteering time to coordinate, promote, teach, and mobilize the Millcreelc Community Emergency Response Team ("CERT"); and WHEREAS, Tim Bachman has voluritarily participated in outreach and response activities over the years that have had a great positive impact 072 the community; and WHEREAS,Millcreek recognizes Tim's dedication to the emergencypreparedness of the community and the generosity of Tim's time spent has been art incredible benefit to Millcreek and all of its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KATOFg becauseof the selfless time spent preparing the community for disaster response, that the Mayor and City Council of Millcreek do express their gratitude and appreciation by recognizing Tim Bachman as arx Outstanding Volunteer and CERT Program Manager, IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal ofMillcreelc this 27th day ofJune 2022. Council Member Uipi moved for Council concurrence of the proclamation. Council Member Jackson seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Andrew Clark said Bachman was one of many wonderful city volunteers and described his work for the cornrnunity through various positions. He presented Bachman with a plaque as an "Outstanding Community Volunteer." Tim Bachinan thanked Andrew Clark and his wife, Rhonda, for support. 1.5 Recognition of Spring CERT Group; Andrew Clark, Emergency Manager Mayor Silvestrini said the people who train, volunteer, and get certified with CERT were remarkable. The Council appreciated their efforts. Clark said this was the second full CERT course he had done. There were 5 participants in fall 2021 and 13 in spring 2022. Clark described the courses taught. Tim Bachman thanked the CERT group. 2. Planning Matters 2.1 Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 22-29, Amending Title 19 of the Mfflcreek Code of Ordinances with Respect to Accessory Dwelling Units Mayor Silvestrini noted tlie Council had a first reading of the item at the last meeting. Robert May said the amendments included new definitions for "window" and "translucent." In code section 19.89.063, the amendment added more clarity and introduced the teri'n "fixed" (non-operable) for the window on a fagade located within 15 feet of the adjacent property. In section 19.89.100, it established a date for existing buildings intended to be converted into accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and added more clarity to ADUs that are within 5 feet of an adjacent property line. The community councils and Planning Commission recominended approval with additional considerations. May noted that Brad Sanderson, Current Planning Manager, worked on the application. Applicant - Lance Hobbs, 2435 E. Lambourne Avenue, thanked the community council members, Planning Coinrnissioners, Council, and staff. The code would bring accessory structures converting into an ADU in line with development of new ADUs. Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 5 of 12 Mayor Silvestrini requested to add Susan Hurst's emailed comment into the record (see attached). He thanked Hobbs for going through the land use process to change the code. He said he met with Susan Hurst to discuss her concerns about windows facing her property. He felt the situation allowed for windows because of the greater setback to the ADU. He noted that windows improved quality of life and fire safety for those living in them. Council Member Jackson noted that she also met with Ms. Hurst and appreciated her perspective. She asked if the applicant would consider planting trees to act as a buffer to her yard. She felt it made sense to allow conversions to have the same standards as new detached ADUs. Council Member Uipi felt staff needed code consistency. Council Member Jackson moved to approve Ordinance 22-29, Amending Title 19 of the Millcreek Code of Ordinances with Respect to Accessory Dwelling Units. Council Member Catten seconded. The Recorder caned for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 2.2 Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 22-30, Rezoning Certain Property Located at Approximately 4101 S. Howick Street from M-1 (Manufacturing) to MD (Mixed Development) Robert May said there were changes to the proposal since the community council and Planning Commission reviewed the application. The project was proposed at 190 parking stalls which was reduced to 187, a ratio of 1.25, reduced amenity space from 20,000 square feet (sf) to 15,000, and from a 6-story building to 5 stories. The proposal was for 150 housing units with up to a 60% average median income with 1-4-bedroom units. The project helps with moderate-low-income housing. Staff recornrnended approval of the rezone and development agreement with staff/legal approval. Mayor Silvestrini noted that a lower parking ratio made sense with the low income and proximity to transit. Council Member DeSirant asked if there were other changes to the presentation since the first reading. May said it was essentially the same. Council Member Jackson commended the higher bedroom count units. Mayor Silvestrini said the rezone would be subject to the development agreement, so the developer constructed what was proposed. Applicant - Alisha Hammett, Shopworks Architecture, thanked staff, Council, and Cornrnunity Development Corporation of Utah. The 15,000-sf amenity was large and would provide a place for kids. The scale back came from the economy. In low-income tax credit projects, because of the income qualification requirements, it was rare that non- related people lived together and there was usually only one car per household. The parking study recommended a minimum of 157 parking spaces, and they were proposing more than that. Mayor Silvestrini asked for public comment. Deanna Foxley, 1208 E. Manor Circle, asked if the units would be rentals. Hammett confirmed. Foxley asked about rent prices. Hamrnett said the high end of the range was $1,100-1,700 for a four-bedroom unit, it was based on the household income. Foxley asked about unrelated people sharing the units. Harnmett said "household" was federally defined for the tax credits, so unrelated people would not be sharing a unit. Mfflcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 6 of 12 Council Member DeSirant said he was a proponent of owner-occupied housing but was also in favor of low-income housing. Council Member DeSirant moved to approve Ordinance 22-30, subject to a development agreement. Council Member Jackson seconded. The Recorder caned for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2.3 Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 22-31, Approving a Master Development Agreement for a 150 Unit Affordable Housing Project with Respect to Approximately 1.99 Acres of Real Property Located at Approximately 4101 South Howick Street Council Member DeSirant moved to approve Ordinance 22-31, subject to staff and city attorney approval. Council Member Catten seconded. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Financial Matters 3.1 Public Hearing on Opening and Amending the FY 2021-22 Budget Laurie Johnson said this was the final budget amendment for the fiscal year. Johnson maximized all the revenues to capture the unspent dollars to move them into the General Fund - Fund Balance or Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Balance. She said Millcreek received the second round of American Rescue Act Plan (ARPA) funds and those had been applied to CIP projects. The Misc. Income was listed at $925,835 to capture unexpended funds on the expense side. The number would not be reached, but the revenue needed to be listed. Expenses included all of payroll from June and 4 days into July for the pay period. Most of the expense budget adjustments were straightforward. The Non-Departmental budget captured the unspent funds at $1,006,674 though that number may not be reached. Mayor Silvestrini asked if both the ARPA fund installments were received in the same fiscal year. Johnson said the first one was received at the end of the last fiscal year, but she moved it into deferred income for FY 2021-22, so the city had time to expend the funds. She noted revenue was still coming in, but she anticipated having close to 35% in Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. If that threshold was exceeded, the excess funds would go into CIP. She mentioned that she had added a lot of detail to the CIP Fund budget and briefly highlighted a couple of items. She set up a category for H.B. 244 projects. Mayor Silvestrini said H.B. 244 awarded Millcreek money from the quarter of a quarter sales tax, about $7-8 million, over 15 years. The city will use that to improve 2000 E. The city would discuss borrowing to advance all of the money and pay it back as it was dispersed over the 15 years. Johnson noted minor changes in the Stormwater Fund to keep up with revenue. Council Member Uipi moved to open the public hearing. Council Member Catten seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. There were no comments Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 7 of 12 Council Member Uipi moved to close the public hearing. Council Member DeSirant seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 3.2 Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 22-32, Amending the 2021-22 Fiscal Year Budget Council Member Uipi moved to approve item 3.2, Ordinance 22-32. Council Member Jackson seconded. Council Member Jackson expressed gratitude to Johnson. Mayor Silvestrini said the Council would use part of the Fund Balance to pay part of the Unified Police Department contract for the following year. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passerl 11n'1Tffiiuua5. 3.3 Public Hearing to Obtain a Loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund in Aggregate Principal Amount of $5,200,000, Series 2021 Mayor Silvestrini said in the last legislative session, H.B. 244 provided a legislative appropriation sales tax award to Millcreek of $7 million to be used for roadway projects. That money would come in over a 15-year period. The resolution authorized the city to use the State's bonding capacity to advance funds now to execute improvements earlier. The city would borrow from the state of Utah then pay it back as the legislative appropriation got paid to Millcreek. There was no liability or effect to the budget. John Miller said an advantage with this, was that the city could borrow at a lower rate as compared to the rising construction costs. Council Member Jackson moved to open the public hearing. Council Member DeSirant seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously There were no comments. Council Member Jackson moved to close the public hearing. Council Member DeSirant seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 3.4 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 22-15, Authorizing an Infrastructure Loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund in Aggregate Principal Amount of $5,200,000, Series 2021; Fixing the Maximum Number of Years Over Which the Loan may Mature, the Maximum Interest Rate Which the Loan May Bear; Delegating to Certain Officers of the Issuer the Authority to Approve the Final Terms and Provisions of the Loan Within the Parameters Set Forth Herein; Providing for the Publication of a Notice of Public Hearing and Loan to be Authorized; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period and Setting of a Public Hearing Date; Authorizing and Approving the Execution of a Loan Agreement, and Other Documents Required in Connection Therewith; Authorizing the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the Transactions Contemplated by This Resolution; and Related Matters Council Member Jackson asked what the interest rate would be. Mayor Silvestrini and Miller did not la'iow the interest rate, though Miller said it was concurrent with the Mnlcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 8 of 12 market. Council Member DeSirant asked about the improvements to 2000 E. Miller said both phases could not be done with the existing funds, from Siggard to 3300 S. and then 3300 S. to the northern city boundary. He was optimistic two years ago that the whole project could be done for $4 million but with inflation only half could be done. He chose the southern section to be completed first due to the amount of flooding that had taken place there. The project scope was to pipe the open ditch, and add sidewalk, curb, and gutter on top. Residence driveways would be tied in and the existing turnouts for irrigation would be maintained. Holliday Water was willing to contribute to piping the ditch. He said there was a good chance of the city getting a federal grant of about a $4-5 million with a 7% match for phase two. Mayor Silvestrini said given the construction costs, the project would have to be phased. Council Member Jackson asked about communication to residents on the phased project. Miller said the city hired a consultant to communicate and there had also been an open house. They were still obtaining the right-of-way on the second phase. Miller said the work could not be done on the ditch with water in it, so work would start in the winter. The backorder for the pipe was 4-6 months. Council Member Jackson moved to adopt Resolution 22-15, Authorizing an Infrastructure Loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund. Council Member Catten seconded. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 4. Business Matters 4.1 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 22-16, Disclaiming an Interest in Real Property Located at or Near 3785 Ash Circle Mfflcreek, Utah and Authorizing and Directing the Mayor to Approve and File a Disclaimer Mayor Silvestrini said a quiet title action had been filed against the city with respect to a piece of property in the rear of 3785 Ash Circle which backed up against the freeway. It was unclear that the city owned it and there was no reason for the city to own it. The Ash Circle owners requested that the city disclaim it. Council Member DeSirant asked for clarification on the term "disclaim." Mayor Silvestrini said that the city had no claim to the property. Francis Lilly said the owner of the property approached the city to expand his home and learned that the property did not belong to him. He said UDOT used to, but ownership was never transferred from a vacation. Miller said the Skyline roundabout project would not be impacted by the quiet title. Council Member Uipi moved to approve item 4.1, Resolution 22-16. Council Member Jackson seconded. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 4.2 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 22-17, Adopting a Logo Mike Winder said the city had not formally adopted a city logo. When discussing logo uses, a more simplified logo was needed, so he had the current one redesigned. There would be a city flag approval later. The mill signified the city's heritage, Mt. Olympus was in the background, and the river in the foreground could be Mill Creek or the Jordan River. Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 9 of 12 Council Member Jackson moved to adopt Resolution 22-17, Adopting a City Logo. Council IMember DeSirant seconded. Mayor Silvestrini thanked staff for work on the logo. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 4.3 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 22-18, Adopting the Mincreek Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Andrew Clark said the purpose of the Millcreek EOP was to provide guidelines for planning, coordinating, and managing the overall response and recovery of Millcreek before, during, and after major disasters or emergency events. The EOP was developed in accordance with the requirements for local emergency management established under the State of Utah Local Emergency Management Act (53-2a-1403). The plan also met the requirements of other state and federal local emergency management programs. The contents of the Millcreek EOP are to provide a basis for planning and management of the types of disasters and emergencies that are most likely to impact the city. The major parts of the plan are the basic plan, the functional annexes, and the hazard annexes. Clark reviewed each plan section. The basic plan provides an overview of Millcreek's approach to emergency operations, identifies external organizations, and breaks down the concept of operations. The functional annexes outline key functional areas of operations that are essential to saving lives, protecting property, and restoring services following emergencies. They provide general guidance for specific functions. The hazard annexes outline primary hazards that Millcreek faces, provides in-depth information for each hazard and when to respond, and breaks down which functional annex may be critical during the response process. Clark's goals included getting Millcreek directors and officials trained on the incident command system, work with all staff on NIMS training, and do a tabletop exercise. Mayor Silvestrini thanked Clark for his work. Council Member Uipi asked about internal cornrnunication with emergencies. Mayor Silvestrini said there was city-wide texting with staff for emergencies. Clark said he would text the system regularly. Council Member Uipi indicated that she would like something more/better for the council. Council Member Catten moved to adopt Resolution 22-18, Adopting the Millcreek Emergency Operations Plan. Council Member Uipi seconded. The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 4.4 Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 22-19, Approving the Historic Preservation Commission Rules of Order and Procedure Elyse Sullivan said the Historic Preservation Board adopted their own Rules of Order and Procedure and staff felt it would be good to have the Council approve them as well since the Commission was an advisory body to the Council. Staff made some adjustments to the rules to be compliant with new changes to the Open and Public Meetings Act with respect to a quorum in an electronic meeting. Council Member DeSirant moved to adopt Resolution 22-19, Approving the Historic Preservation Commission Rules of Order and Procedure. Council Member Uipi seconded. Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 10 of 12 The Recorder called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Reports 5.1 Mayor's Report Mayor Silvestrini reported on recent city events. The feedback he had received on Millcreek Common had been positive. The splashpad was open, but not finished. 5.2 City Council Member Reports Council Member Jackson said she and Council Member Catten attended Venture Out! Council Member DeSirant said he enjoyed attending the city events. Council Member Uipi commended Aimee McConkie for the Juneteenth celebration. She wanted to work on engagement with black leaders in the community 5.3 City Treasurer's Report Council Member Jackson reported the following: As of today, the balance of the Series 2019 Bond was: $9,752.42 (Millcreek Cornrnon City Center). As of today, the balance of the Series 2021 Bond was: $35,174,538.92 (City Hall) a As of today, Millcreek's PTIF account balance was: $33,712,772.07. a As of today, 105.77% of originally projected property taxes have been received in theamountof$ll,715,308.21. Lastyearatthissametime,thecityhadreceived $11,585,505.58. a Asoftoday,81.43%ofprojectedsalestax(updatedprojection)havebeen received in the amount of $12,214,171.79. Last year at this same time, the city had received $10,723,500.42. 5.4 Staff Reports Mike Winder said a public comment was received online from Teresa Carlson, 3579 S. Crestwood Drive, regarding a number of topics, so he called her during the meeting. She had concerns about the splash pad but was pleased that it was unfinished, parking for the connection of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, the mining applications in Parley's Canyon, and speeding on 3300 S. and 3900 S. She also expressed a desire for a Trader Joes in the city. Mayor Silvestrini said Rep. Burgess Owens said a subcommittee approved an $800,000 appropriation for improving Neff's Canyon. He thanked the people that helped the appropriation go through. He said the County had not yet been served the lawsuit for the Tree Farm mining in Parley's Canyon though Millcreek had filed an objection to the new application. 5.5 Unified Fire Authority Report There was no report. 5.6 Unified Police Department Chief DeBry announced an existing officer would be filling a new mental health position that would start on July 3. He said there would be operations in South Salt Lake to curb speeding on 700 E. Everything was good to go for the 4' of July parade and firework enforcement. The Mayor said the chief helped him in creating a "Slow Down in Your Mfflcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 11 of 12 Town" video public announcement. He also described a voicemail from a woman who had a positive experience with an officer. Chief DeBry reported the crime statistics for May 2022. There were 2,824 calls for service, 895 total cases, 362 citations, and 48 booking arrests. There were 19 assaults, 15 burglaries, 18 drug offenses, 87 family offenses, 101 larcenies, 5 robberies, 5 sex offenses, and 32 stolen vehicles. He said detectives from the c.o.p. Community Crime Suppression Unit and Millcreek Street Crimes detectives were involved in daily bicycle patrols throughout Millcreek. Detectives were engaged in proactive patrols and meeting with citizens and business owners. The Millcreek c.o.p. Unit was joined by UPD cadets at Venture Out. This year's events included UPD resources like the SWAT Rescue Vehicle, Jail Produce, Motor Officers, Search and Rescue, and Forensics. Sergeant Allen worked with the South Salt Lake Police Department's Police Athletics League (PAL) to work out an agreement so Millcreek officers could go to the PAL gym, 2797 S. 200 E., and work out with the youth members of the gym. Sgt. Allen and other officers teach boxing. The UPD Motor Unit, featuring 12 motorcycle officers, spent June 15th in Millcreek in a traffic enforcement saturation event. The officers focused on traffic and pedestrian safety by issuing citations for speeding and other violations. Millcreek C.O.P. Detectives investigated three cases of graffiti in the areas of 950 E. 3825 s., goo E. 3800 s., and 3100 S. Highland Drive. The graffiti was cleaned by the UPD Graffiti Removal Unit. 6. Consent Agenda 6.1 Approval of May 23, 2022 Work Meeting and Regular Meeting Minutes Council Member Jackson moved to accept the work meeting and regular meeting minutes from May 23, 2022. Council Member Catten seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. An Council Members voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 7. New Items for Subsequent Consideration Council Member DeSirant requested an update to the January strategic meeting. Mike Winder recommended an update during an upcoming work meeting. Council Member Uipi would like an update on action items from the Sustainability Plan from Samantha DeSeelhorst. Mayor Silvestrini brought up the Council considering water conservation. 8. Calendar of Upcoming Events * Plaru'iing Commission Mtg., 6/29/22, 5:00 p.m. @ Community Council Mtgs. TBD ADJOURNED: Council Member Uipi moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Council Member Jackson seconded. Mayor Silvestrini called for the vote. All Council Members voted yes. The motion passed u Millcreek City Council Meeting Minutes 27 June 2022 Page 12 of 12 Attest: Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder  RE: Hobbs Proposed ADU Code Change I am the neighbor to the north. My family has 2 duplexes closely adjacent to the Hobbs' property. The duplexes have been there since 1963 and have no front yards, rather the only yards are little courtyards in the back facing the Hobbs stmcture, The backsides of these units are also all windows, as such, the proposed ADU has the potential to effect the desirability and rental value of our properties greatly. Upfront I want to state that I am not contesting Mr. Hobbs right to convert his garage/shop, nor am I contesting the size of his structure. My issues are with second story windows. The initial Staff Report presented to the Community Councils focused solely on setbacks, and failed to also take into account mass, impact and the spirit and intent within which the code was written and I think the intent is very much the issue at hand. There are some positions being put forth that I'd like to push back on. 1. The language in the existing conversion standards that prohibits windows facing adjacent properties was an oversight. There are four times in Title 19 ADU code that window standards are mentioned: (a) Existing Conversion Standards [19.89.100 D2c] reads, "The detached building does not have any balconies, porches, or windowsfacing an adjacent property, unlessfacing an RMor C zonedproperty." (b) Attached Standards [19.89.100 Clc] also reads,"The attachedADUdoes not have any balconies, porches, or windowsfacing an adjacent property, unlessfacing an RMor C zonedproperty." Obviously consideration was given to this language because exceptions are mentioned here - an RM zone or a commercial zone. Thought was given, it's permissible in some cases but not in others. No mention of setbacks. (c) This language is further bolstered when you read the ADU intro page from the website. It reads, " OurADU regulations are designed to allow ADUs in a manner that is least impactfid aspossible to surrogmditxg residents. Transparent windows, doors, exterior lights and balconies mustface away from neighboring residential property." Again, recognizing windows as impactful. (d) New Build Standards[19.89.063 E] reads, "Windows on a faqade within 15 feet of an adjacent property shall be transhtcent or not visible from an adjacent property or installed as a skylight." This is the outlier in that it mentions setbacks,but it is also the only situation where there is a control on size. And it too imposes restrictions on windows, also cognizant of their impact. So in tmee out of the four mentions the intent to not have windows facing adjacent properties is stated or acknowledged. To say this was an oversight would mean that the language slipped by the 9 person Planning Commission, the 5 person City Council and the entire Planning Department three times in Title 19. Suggesting that no thought was ever given to what that standard would look like realistically. That cannot be. This is specific and intentional language. It recognizes the impact windows have to neighbors and it's intention to mitigate that impact. This language addresses impact but it does not suggest setbacks as a remedy, rather no windows is the solution, and it's good code, because even at a 25 to 30' setback, the Hobbs property still looms large for us. Here's what it looks like from our side or the fence: A 2. Only allowing windows on one facade would be the equivalent to forcing people to live in a basement. Not true. Windows on only one wall is a common occurrence. The many minds that created the current code had to have given this scenario thought. Think of aparttnents that come off a central hallway, or rooms that come off a central hallway. In those situations windows can only be on one wall (unless it's a corner room or apartment). Take for example one of our units (being renovated). All three bedrooms have windows on only one wall. 10.5' x I I ' bedroom. West Master bedroom I I 'x 12' ro the same sized bedrooms Mr. Hobbs stnicture would have. North facing. 3. The comparison of ADUs to SFR standards. "Look around, this kind of development is happening everywhere." BUT, this is an accessory building not a SFR. AJI)Us are subject to a different set of much stricter standards, as the intent of ADU code states,"to be as least impadful as possible to surrounding residents." As such, there are many additional limitations on windows, door placement, exterior lights, balconies, stairways, porches, parking stalls and visibility of parking. Building materials and roof pitch. They cannot create, "any new visual impacts that cannot be othemise mitigated by a fence or a wall," and importantly, a limit to overall size of a new build at 850 SF. 850 SF encourages single story constniction. It is the size of an apartment, or one side of a duplex that would, [19.89.010 Purposel "Provide housing optionsfor family caretakers, adult children, aging parents, and families seeking smaller house holds." Again, the intent is small, unobtnisive. All these standards provide for a nice little rental. The goal was not a SFR. TheHobbsstnicturehas1200 SF of livable space,plenty of room for a family."2 adultsand any numberof children " is what is currently allowed in code. If not for the unusually severe slope of the front side of the roof, the livable space could be 1700 SF. As large or larger than many of the houses in the area. The Hobbs accessory building is the size of a SFR. ADU code [19.89.100 Purpose Al] states, "Create new housing units while respecting the appearance, neighborhood character, and scale of single family residential development." Also, [19.89.020 Interpretation] reads. 'Vt is the intent of the City that the adoption of this ordinance shall not be xmderstood as increasing the densiffl of the underlyirig zorxedesignation. An ADUshall always be accessory to the principal dwelling." Is allowing accessory buildings the size of SFRs - without the additional restrictions that are currently in place - what was intended? Repeatedly Title 19 says no. But this is the situation I face currently. See the next photo. View from the tio of one of our units. Lots of real estate here. If current existing conversion code is abandoned and unrestricted windows are allowed on accessory buildings the size of an SFR, what then, is the identifiable difference? Why would it not be be the equivalent of two SFR on one lot? And doesn't that scenario potentially open up the door to density issues? This is a view from the gate going into the yard of one of our units. If you took 2 steps forward and 4 steps to the right you would be at the beginning of the 12' window that makes up the south side of the unit. '1 Windows on the second story of the Hobbs ADU would stare down not only into the yards, but directly into the living area of that unit.... anrl thprp's nothing I can do to mitigate that impact. I cannot build a fence or a screen high enough. I don'l have lhe yards to put in a large tree, or the time it would take to grow it. I've looked into shade sails, also a no. Existing conversion standards [10.89.100 D2f] states 'Does not create any new visual impacts that cannot be mitigated by a fence or wall." If current existing conversion standards are abandoned and unrestricted windows are allowed on a second stories, then, in essence, it will be the adjacent properties who will bear the impact of the ADUs, instead of the home owners wanting to convert. There would most certainly be windows on the rear and sides of the conversions. Honest question; how many windows do you think would be put on the fagade facing the homeowner? In my situation: On Mr. Hobbs side of his structure; he lias the nice slope of the roof, away from his primary dwelling On my side of the fence; the monolithic wall. On his side: no windows impacting his privacy. On my side: many windows that invade interior space that cannot be mitigated He: will be enjoying the added income of a rental I: face the very real possibility of loss of rental income in lowered rents and also higher tunnover rates from a now much less desirable property. I will be bearinz all of the impact of his conversion. It's the equivalent of dumping the garbage of his accessory building into the front yards of our primary dwellings. It is unjust. And the opposite of the intent of ADU code. I think it's important to mention here that Mr. Hobbs could in fact convert his garage/shop into an ADU under the current code. He doesn't want to incur the expense of moving the solar panels on the south side, therefore having an issue with egress since he needs windows that open. The LUHO allowed him translucent, un-opening windows on facades facing adjacent properties but this didn't solve the problem with egress, so he submitted the application to change the code. He said he's found a skylight that will satisfy the requirement for egress but they too, are expensive and he would obviously prefer to have zero restrictions on windows... so here we are. His request isn't a need, it's a want. The solar panels are a self inflicted hardship. They could be moved and perhaps only a 1/3 of them would need to be to accommodate the dormers and windows he wants to put in. The Hobbs house has 3920 SF of main floor area and a 1363 SF attached garage, surely there is space on that vast roof to do so. I applaud him for choosing solar but the fact remains that the burden to convert, and the resulting impact should be borne by the home owner wanting to do so. Not the neighbors. 4. New Build vs. Existing standards. Is this the best lens from which to view ADU standards if the idea is to align and simplify? Staff Report submits that a new build ADU would be more impactful than an existing conversion because the existing building is already there. Would it be? Take these two examples: Below is a photo of a garage that's currently being built and he intends to convert to an ADU at some point. Although this is new construction, it will be an existing conversion when he applies to do so. I think it's fair to say it's as big as a SFR and second story windows would definitely be impactful even two doors down.  The white house is two lots away. IV ( 01 ."T>.,,;. r Closer view. Notice the car for perspective. Also, let's look at the Hobbs stnicture: The original justification for this proposed code change is that Mr. Hobbs is not allowed windows on sides facing adjacent properties currently, but if he were to build new he could have them. That's a bit of a misleading statement. It leads you to believe he could build the exact same structure. Not true. At 850 SF his structure would be much less impactful. As a visual exercise, what might that look like... His structure has 1200 livable SF and an attached 2 car garage. According to the SLCo Assessor, the livable space on the first floor is 572 SF - that's half of the first floor with the garage taking up the other half. With 850 SF allowed for a new build ADU, that would leave 278 SF of ihe second story. Looking back at the photos, consider that 278 SF would be less than 1/2 of the mass of the second story that exists now. And, if the stnicture's front roof pitch matched that of the back - a more common scenario - only about % of that second story mass would exist. A much Iess impactful building either way. Even if Mr. Hobbs were to have built the entire 850 SF as a second story over a three car garage, the building would still be about 1/3 less of the size it is now as the dimensions would be 26'x 33' instead of the 26 X46' that it is now. In these cases the new build would be less impactful. The Hobbs stnucture is also considered existing even though it's only been there for about 4 years. So existing conversion isn't always the old garage or rumpus room built way back-a-when, that neighbors have lived with for many, many years and are used to. Existing conversions are new construction as well, not beginning as ADUs or built to those more limiting standards. Truly older buildings, including some primary dwellings as well, may have been built closer to property lines, but new 'existing' structures can be, and I'd argue usually are, much taller than the single story neighborhoods they're built in. Perhaps impact should be assessed not by 'new build' or 'existing conversion' but instead by the ability to mitigate it? 4. A Better Way. The revised Staff Report includes the recommendation of a limit of 850 SF of livable space in existing conversions, inline with new build standards - currently there is no size limitation on conversions. While definitely an important addition, how would you enforce such a standard? Would you require Mr. Hobbs to remove windows in the unused space? Otherwise he could easily utilize that space after permits were given. Also, it offers no relief for second story window intrusion. In addition to this new limitation of square footage, also align the two window standards. Apply the new build standards to first stories since first story windows, especially with only 850 SF, could be mitigated with fencing or younger trees even if the building were on a higher grade. And keep the existing standard for second stories. Doing so would be in alignment with the intent of the ADU codeto, "be as least impactful aspossible to peighboring properties," protecting neighbors living next to larger than intended ADUs with second stories. It would further encourage single story construction and discourage mass on the second story but not prohibit it, thereby also addressing the scenario of the entire 850 SF allowance being built as a second story over garage space. It would keep the burden of the impact on the homeowner wanting to convert, where it should be. It would align the standards and be a fair application to all. It's a simple finesseof what is already adoptedcode and it takes already affordedprotections from no one. Many people spent many hours on the current ADU code and it's good, considerate code. It provides meaningfidprotections for neighborsand all four of the ADU window standardsrecognize windows as impactful. Adopting Mr. Hobbs' proposed change is a 180 from this. Parsing whether a window is translucent or transparent at 5 feet or 15 does nothing to remedy the real situation being presented here of second story intnision. This isn't just a simple language change. The people that live on the other side of Mr. Hobbs fence...these are their homes, this would effect all of us profoundly and I'm our situation isn't isolated. I urge you to reject the proposed changes to window standards and seek something better.