City Council Mtg

WEST BOUNTIFUL CITY Mayor City Administrator Kenneth Romney Duane Huffman City Recorder City Council 550 North 800 West Cathy Brightwell West Bountiful, Utah 84087 James Ahlstrom City Engineer James Bruhn Phone (801) 292-4486 Kris Nilsen Kelly Enquist FAX (801) 292-6355 Mark Preece Public Works Director www.WBCity.org Rodney Wood Steve Maughan THE WEST BOUNTIFUL CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD ITS REGULAR MEETING AT 7:30 PM ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 AT THE CITY OFFICES, 550 N 800 WEST AGENDA: Invocation/Thought – James Bruhn; Pledge of Allegiance – Kelly Enquist 1. Approve Agenda. 2. Public Comment - two minutes per person, or five minutes if speaking on behalf of a group. 3. Proposal to Purchase Portion of Birnam Woods Park Property – Kellen Frey. 4. Electronic Speed Limit/Radar Signs. 5. Impact Fee Reduction, Marv Putnam, 187 N 1450 West. 6. Resolution 502-21, A Resolution Reappointing Jason Meservy and Renate Allen to the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee. 7. Ordinance 446-21, An Ordinance Creating a New Section, WBMC 17.50 Clear View Area and Fence Requirements, and Deleting Related Sections 17.14.100, 17.16.100, 17.20.100, and 17.24.100. 8. Meeting Minutes from August 17, 2021. 9. Staff Reports – Police, Public Works, Engineering, Community Development, Administration. 10. Mayor/Council Reports. 11. Closed Session for the Purpose of Discussing Items Allowed Pursuant to UCA § 52-4-205. 12. Adjourn. This agenda was posted on the State Public Notice website, the city website, emailed to the Mayor and City Council, and provided to the Davis Journal on September 3, 2021. From: Kellen Frey <frey.kellen@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 1:00 PM To: Duane Huffman Subject: Birnam Woods leased property Greetings Duane, Hope all is well. I wanted to review with you and the council a couple topics regarding the current agreement of leased land for equestrian use which I'm looking to further develop. I wanted to provide it in writing for your review and then I'd love to come to a council meeting and discuss it in person at the councils' convenience. 1) Current lease improvements: I'd like to further improve the land and bring in additional fill and do some grading to create a riding arena. The footing would be primarily sand based and I would anticipate locating it on the north end of the property. Please see map below for layout detail. Because of the additional investment required, I'd also like the council's consideration to add some additional language or amendment to the current lease to extend the notification period for cancellation. I'm open to discussing what could work here but would propose a 1 year notification period, and would also propose to extend the current lease for another 15 years. Red Line ‐ Oil and Gas Pipelines Blue Lines‐ Arena location Black Lines‐ Potential future modular barn location. 2) Potential Sale Consideration: In the event the City is willing to entertain a sale I would like the opportunity to evaluate this option. This is appealing for me because of the additional investment required to make the land more usable for horses and allows me to make more permanent upgrades. Long term I simply want to build a barn, add irrigation, grade the property, add more drainage, build a riding area, and create a more usable equestrian space. 1 We've discussed previously that the park area could still be kept by the City and expanded north if desired. If there is a desire to sell the entire portion (park included) I'd be open to that discussion as well. The current leased land west of the park is limited in use with the Power lines, gas lines, oil lines, and access is also a challenge. We have not had an appraisal done on the property and its value is difficult to assess due to its uniqueness. However, based on discussions I've had with a couple appraisers I would estimate the current leased property value to be in the $40,000 ‐ $60,000 range due to limited use and access. Because it's more attractive to me because of the equestrian use, I would be willing to pay above that range up to $80,000 or whatever a formal appraised value is assessed at. I'm also willing to work with the city on getting a formal appraisal completed to validate actual value if desired. If the city was interested in selling the entire parcel including the park portion, I would be willing to pay substantially more and I have no issues with applying use conditions to that property to guarantee it remains equestrian use. Lastly, I want to thank you and the City for the considerations and hope the City has found the relationship thus far beneficial. I think further improving that property and keeping it equestrian/farm use is the best use of the land and improves the visual appeal for the neighborhood and City. Kind Regards, Kellen Frey 2  MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 3, 2021 FROM: Staff RE: Electronic Speed Limit/Radar Signs _______________________________________________________________________________ This memo provides background information for a council discussion related to electronic speed limit signs. 1. Resident Request The city received a request from Mr. David Turpin at 177 North 1100 W for the installation of permanent electronic speed limit/radar signs on the southern portion of 1100 W (letter attached). This request came after a temporary radar trailer was placed on the street at his request. 2. Speed Data Unfortunately, the city does not have data from the recent temporary radar trailer, but the city does have data from the radar signs installed at 1250 North 1100 West and 714 North 1100 West. The sign at 714 North actually captures data from vehicles south of 400 N. The data has been broken out by week for 06/20/21 – 09/03/21. The data is sorted by 5 mile an hour increments with a total vehicle count, average speed, 50th percentile speed, and an 85th percentile speed for both locations. Data from the 714 North sign shows that 85% of vehicles travel at 32 mph or less. 3. Electronic Speed/Radar Signs In 2018, the city purchased the two solar powered electronic speed/radar signs currently installed on 1100 W. They were installed in a method that would allow the city to move them to different locations if so desired. Attached to this memo is a quote and spec sheet for additional signs (roughly $3,000 each). If the city is interested in installing additional signs, the police department recommends them for main thoroughfares such as 800 West, 600 W, Pages Lane, Porter, and with talks of development of the west end of 400 North; this may be an additional location in the future. Signs at these locations would be recommended before additional signs on the southern portion of 1100 W. When considering whether to move the signs or install additional signs, the council should think about the following: 1. Speeding complaints are fairly common – is the city prepared to tell some residents yes and some no for additional signs? What criteria will we use when determining if signs are needed? 2. Cost. If we installed two signs at just four additional locations, that would be roughly $24,000. 3. At the time that the signs on 1100 W were installed, there was significant development construction for the Kinross and Mountain View subdivisions – is it time to move them to a new location? 550 North 800 West, West Bountiful, UT 84087 (801) 292-4486 August 12, 2021 To: West Bountiful City Counsel/Mayor Subject: Request for consideration for permanent speed awareness flashing signs for South End of 1100 West from 4th North to 5th South. To West Bountiful City Council: My name is David Turpin. I live at 177 North 1100 West in our city of West Bountiful. My wife, children and I have lived here and enjoyed out city since 1995. My children attended WB elementary school and now have grown and are raising families of their own. I am writing to request the City consider and install Permanent flashing speed signs (similar to those on 1100 west from 4th North going north to Pages Lane). A week ago I called and talked to our Police Chief and told him of my concern of the increasing speed over the years for Vehicles traveling south from 4th North to gain access to 5th South. I have concerns the speed continues to increase especially with large trucks headed to the landfill or traveling north to new build sites. On weekends the increased speed of vehicles seems to increase even more. The current speed limit is 30 mph. I can assure and guarantee you 90% of the vehicles do not go 30 mph. The chief was kind enough to set up a temporary speed sign trailer in front of my home at 177 North. I can’t tell you enough how much this has improved and slowed down vehicles speeds. I am writing this request of my concerns and many of my neighbors have the same concern. If you consider we have two large residential home developments that have been growing since the mid 2000’s. The newest one directly West of the Holly Refinery. With that new home development I am sure this will bring young children traveling to the WB school. There are not cross walks and very few sidewalks going to 4th North for them to walk or ride bikes to school. Even if there were the speed of vehicles on this 1100 West will continue. I feel it is very important and our duty to protect the pedestrians of West Bountiful. Which you do, in other areas of the City. Thank for that. I realize this request will have financial requirements so I don’t expect it is something that can happen immediately. So please consider this request. If possible put up a second temporary trailer for North bound traffic. Thank you David Turpin Resident of West Bountiful City  My Custom Report Location: 700 North 1100 West Report Period: 2021-07-01 to 2021-09-03 Address: 714 North 1100 West Total Vehicle Count: 114168 Speed Limit: From schedule 30 mph Date/Time 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 Total Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 50% Speed (mph) 85% Speed (mph) 2021-06-20 343 415 806 2287 1930 253 26 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 8 6692 25 28 H 32 2021-06-27 541 737 1379 3951 3533 468 35 5 1 1 0 0 4 3 12 15 11896 25 28 H 32 2021-07-04 589 H 776 H 1426 4223 3967 561 45 4 H4 2 0 1 9 H 16 H 32 H 53 H 13225 26 28 H 32 2021-07-11 591 694 1308 4173 3662 554 35 3 1 1 0 1 4 7 12 38 12452 26 28 H 32 2021-07-18 522 692 1247 4088 3702 498 H 55 H 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 12 31 12382 26 28 H 32 2021-07-25 510 710 1378 4125 3725 523 35 4 0 2 0 2 0 7 19 43 12335 H 27 28 H 32 2021-08-01 483 621 1213 H 4502 H 4084 H 562 34 2 2 1 1 2 6 15 18 31 12545 H 27 H 29 H 32 2021-08-08 518 571 1060 3566 3453 497 34 2 3 1 0 H6 6 9 11 26 11970 24 27 H 32 2021-08-15 H 607 730 1370 4207 3739 544 45 4 2 H5 2 1 H 11 10 23 29 12472 26 28 H 32 2021-08-22 396 502 962 2726 2457 342 20 4 1 1 H3 3 2 8 10 13 8199 26 28 H 32 Summary SUM: 114168 AVG: 26 mph AVG: 28 mph AVG: 32 mph H - highest value in the column, bolded H is highest H value in report ** "n/a" - means the sign did not collect any data at the time stipulated in the report. "n/a" values are NOT included in calculations. Generated on September 03, 2021 at 1:30 PM SafePace Cloud powered by Web Director®  My Custom Report Location: 1250 North 1100 West Report Period: 2021-07-01 to 2021-09-03 Address: 1201 North 1100 West Total Vehicle Count: 98302 Speed Limit: From schedule 30 mph Date/Time 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 Total Vehicle Average Speed (mph) 50% Speed (mph) 85% Speed (mph) 2021-06-20 817 86 164 942 2188 718 80 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5351 27 H 30 H 35 2021-06-27 1314 140 282 1631 3897 1279 142 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9411 27 H 30 H 35 2021-07-04 826 177 358 1871 4297 1397 169 17 0 0 H1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9879 H 28 H 30 H 35 2021-07-11 974 170 327 1793 3986 1287 112 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9659 27 H 30 34 2021-07-18 1237 176 359 1943 4120 1251 100 17 H4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10436 26 H 30 34 2021-07-25 1950 165 370 H 1993 4114 1419 131 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11305 25 H 30 34 2021-08-01 2078 155 357 1832 H 4717 H 1559 H 194 H 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11730 26 H 30 H 35 2021-08-08 H 3529 H 242 330 1797 3898 1289 121 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 12166 23 29 34 2021-08-15 1574 178 H 383 1957 4354 1275 118 21 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10348 27 H 30 34 2021-08-22 1916 130 233 1306 2974 883 79 11 1 H3 0 H1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8017 25 29 34 Summary SUM: 98302 AVG: 26 mph AVG: 30 mph AVG: 34 mph H - highest value in the column, bolded H is highest H value in report ** "n/a" - means the sign did not collect any data at the time stipulated in the report. "n/a" values are NOT included in calculations. Generated on September 03, 2021 at 1:33 PM SafePace Cloud powered by Web Director®  Traffic Logix Corporation 3 Harriett Lane Page | 1 Spring Valley, NY 10977 USA Quote Number QUO-17595-C4M2T4 Tel: (866) 915-6449 Created Date 8/26/2021 Fax: (844) 405-6449 Expiration Date 9/30/2021 www.trafficlogix.com Prepared by Nate Hill QUOTATION Contact: Duane Huffman West bountiful City Phone: 550 N 800 W Email: DHuffman@wbcity.org West Bountiful, Utah 84087 United States Shipping Address: 550 N 800 W West Bountiful, Utah 84087 United States Standard Features (Included) – Evolution Signs • The Evolution radar feedback signs come with 1 year of unlimited cloud access. At the end of this 12 month period the customer has the option to either renew the cloud at a cost of $400 per sign or resort back to a Bluetooth option at no cost. • Sign powers down when no traffic present • Programmable Speed Violator Flashing Strobe Light • Ambient Light Sensor and Automatic Brightness adjustment • Banding Mount Bracket • Safe Pace Management Software • Bluetooth Special Notes Quote Line Items – All Prices shown are in $USD Product Product Code Quantity Sales Price Total Price Evolution 15 Solar (SLOW DOWN) - EV15SDEYL-SOLLA 2.00000 $2,799.00 $5,598.00 Fixed Message RED LED - Multi Lingual - Includes UMB Totals Subtotal $5,598.00 Freight $290.00 Sales Tax (if applicable) $405.86 Grand Total $5,888.00  SafePace® Evolution 15 The Traffic Logix SafePace® Evolution 15 is the lightweight sign with full size impact. The Traffic Logix SafePace 15 driver feedback sign is a portable, lightweight radar sign with full size 15” digits. A speed activated message to slow down alerts speeding drivers. Digits are dual color while messaging is available in a choice of red or amber. The Evolution 15 sign can be mounted at multiple locations with universal mounting options and can function autonomously for weeks at a time with optional battery power. EV 15 Specifications Features Digit Size 15” MUTCD compliant with static “YOUR SPEED” message and highly visible 15” LED digits that are visible from up to 600 ft away. Height 33.1” Dual Color Display: LED digit color can be programmed to change Weight 28 lbs based on driver speed 24/7, 365 Scheduling P User-friendly software interface allows you to manage sign parameters such as threshold speeds and violator strobe Data Collection P remotely. Solar Compatibility P Ultra low power consumption including the most power‐efficient radar technology available, optional solar power, and optional Battery Operated P battery power that allows the sign to function autonomously for up to five weeks. Universal Mounting P Stealth Mode allows the sign to collect baseline traffic data while Cloud Compatibility P speed display appears blank to motorists. Trailer Compatibility P Slow Down Messaging: Sign flashes “Slow Down” message at drivers who exceed designated speed. Dolly Compatibility P Hitch Compatibility P Superior construction and durability for long‐lasting performance. Warranty 2 Years Universal Mounting: Optional mounting brackets let you use one sign at multiple locations with the turn of a key. Traffic Logix | T 866.915.6449 | F 844.405.6449  30” (w) Feature Specifications Power Options (Electrical Specifications) text AC power input 100~240 V AC 4” (h) DC power input 12 V DC DC battery options 12V, 18Ah Lead acid batteries Solar panel option 50W or 90W solar panel digits 15” (h) Radar 33.1” (h) Internal Radar: Doppler (FCC approved) Model DF 300 Radar RF out 5 mW maximum message 5” (h) Radar f-center 24.125 GHz center +/- 25 MHz Pickup distance Up to 1,200 feet digits Beam angle 24° (vertical) x 12° (horizontal) 8” (w) 5.625” (d) Beam polarization Linear CE Mark (Radar) Yes Feature Specifications Display Dimensions LEDs 484 Digits 15”(h) x 8”(w) 224 LEDs: Color: Yellow (590 nm) LED Message Text Letters 5”(h) spell “SLOW DOWN”, 1line Viewing angle at 50% IV: 30° Digits (Amber) Partial Flux (Brightness): 9000 – 22400 Unit with “YOUR Full size sign: 33.1”(h) x 30”(w) x Ev,[lux]/LED SPEED” sign mounted 5.625”(d) 224 LEDs: Color: Red (633 nm) Viewing angle at 50% IV: 30° Sign Weight (includes “YOUR SPEED” sign (2 lbs) mounted) Digits (Red) Partial Flux (Brightness): 7100 – 18000 Ev,[lux]/LED AC Powered 28 lbs 227 LEDs: Color: Red 633 nm) Battery Powered Model 28 lbs (not including batteries) Viewing angle at 50% IV: 30° Slow Down Message Partial Flux (Brightness): 7100 – 18000 28 lbs (does not include batteries, solar Ev,[lux]/LED Solar powered model panel or bracket) 36 LEDs: Color: White (2700 K – 6500 K) General Specifications Viewing angle at 50% IV: 150° Speed Violator Strobes Luminous Flux: typically 33lm @ 4000 K Operating Luminous Efficacy: typically 176 lm/W -40° (-40°) to 185° (85°) Temperatures F (C): @4000 K 3-Digit Speed Display 1 sensor and automatic brightness Miles per hour (mph) 3-99. Ambient light sensor with Slow Down adjustment Kilometers per hour (km/h) 5-160. message Enclosure High-Intensity prismatic reflective sheeting on “YOUR SPEED” signs with Vandal resistant, lightweight polymer. Faceplate black colored text. Matte black front for reduced glare and MUTCD approved colors and format Construction maximum contrast. Light gray body to minimize heat absorption Communications Bluetooth, GSM/GPRS SafePace® Pro management software Weatherproof, NEMA 3, IP55 level Weatherproof Rating SafePace® Cloud remote management compliant. Non-sealed and ventilated Programming 24/7 365 day unlimited programming and scheduling Warranty Sign 2 years Batteries 1 year www.trafficlogix.com | info@trafficlogix.com | Traffic Logix  MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 3, 2021 FROM: Duane Huffman, City Administrator RE: Impact Fee Reduction – Marv Putnam at 187 N 1450 W _______________________________________________________________________________ This memo recommends that the council approve a reduction of $3,769.14 in the culinary water impact fee for Mr. Marv Putnam at 187 N 1450 W in consideration for a previously granted easement for a city water line. Background West Bountiful Municipal Code 3.22.060 states that “The City Council may authorize, on a project-by-project basis and subject to the Act, exemptions or adjustments to the impact fee rate structure for development activity the City Council determines to be of such benefit to the community as a whole to justify the exemption or adjustment…” In June of 1999, the Putnam family granted West Bountiful City an easement consisting of 0.086 acres for the extension and maintenance of a culinary water line. At the time, the Putnams did not receive any compensation for the easement, but did receive a verbal commitment from city staff that they would be “taken care of” if they ever desired to connect to the city water system. In August of 2021, the Putnams made application to connect to the city water system (as well as annex their property into the city). The Putnams are required to pay the costs of installing a water line lateral, $8,126 in impact fees for a 1” water meter, $300 for a connection fee, and $1,070 for a water right fee. Recommendation Council member Bruhn was able to confirm that a former city administrator did indeed make a vague commitment to the Putnams in 1999. Staff has calculated an estimate of what the easement would be worth today (essentially 10% of the value of the land), and is comfortable recommending to the council that an impact fee reduction of $3,769.14 be granted in consideration of the benefit to the community previously provided by the Putnams. 550 North 800 West, West Bountiful, UT 84087 (801) 292-4486  WEST BOUNTIFUL CITY RESOLUTION #502-21 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMERS TO THE WEST BOUNTIFUL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the West Bountiful City Council established the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee (“EmPAC”) by adoption of Ordinance #354-14; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced Ordinance, the Mayor shall appoint five (5) voting members to serve staggered terms, with the advice and consent of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, two member’s terms have expired and they wish to be reappointed. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of West Bountiful that it consents to the Mayor’s re-appointment of the following individuals and respective terms: Appointee Office Term Expires Jason Meservy EmPAC December 31, 2025 Renate Allen EmPAC December 31, 2025 EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passing. Passed and approved by the City Council of West Bountiful City this 7th day of September 2021. ___________________________________ Kenneth Romney, Mayor Voting by the City Council: Aye Nay Councilmember Ahlstrom Councilmember Bruhn Councilmember Enquist Councilmember Preece Councilmember Wood ATTEST: _____________________________________ Cathy Brightwell, City Recorder  WEST BOUNTIFUL CITY ORDINANCE #446-21 AN ORDINANCE CREATING WBMC 17.50 CLEAR VIEW AREA/FENCE REQUIREMENTS AND DELETING RELATED SECTIONS 17.14.100, 17.16.100, 17.20.100, 17.24.100 WHEREAS, Utah Code Annotated §10-9a-101 et seq., also known as the “Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act,” grants authority to the West Bountiful City Council to make changes to its Zoning Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the West Bountiful Planning Commission identified issues related to front yard fencing and clear view areas needing clarification; and WHEREAS, following a properly noticed public hearing on August 10, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended open fencing be permitted in front yards, clear view areas be extended to driveways as well as street intersections, and these regulations be moved to a separate section of the Zoning Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF WEST BOUNTIFUL THAT WBMC 17.50 IS CREATED AND SECTIONS 17.14.100, 17.16.100, 17.20.100, and 17.24.100 BE DELETED AS SHOWN IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. This ordinance will become effective upon signing and posting. Adopted this 17th day of August 2021. By: __________________________________ Ken Romney, Mayor Voting by the City Council: Aye Nay Councilmember Ahlstrom Councilmember Bruhn Councilmember Enquist Councilmember Preece ____ Councilmember Wood ____ Attest: ________________________________ Cathy Brightwell, City Recorder 1  MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: September 2, 2021 FROM: Cathy Brightwell, Kris Nilsen, Steve Maughan RE: Review Fence Regulations _______________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND In 2015 and 2017 the city modified its fencing regulations by adding definitions, simplifying language, and making clarifications. The planning commission has been reviewing further changes based on observations of non-compliant front yard fencing in the city. In researching this issue, the commission also found that the current clear view area description needed clarification and expansion to include driveways as well as street intersections. Following discussion at the last city council meeting, staff has made modifications as shown on the attached draft and described below. 1. The clear view area for driveways is increased from 10 ft to 14 ft on the driveway side (see diagram). 2. The minimum percentage for Open Fencing is 70% instead of 75%. 3. In the planning commission recommendation, tree branches in clear view areas were proposed to be a minimum of 14 ft above the ground based on the city’s goal to have branches higher than snowplows and garbage trucks. After additional consideration, staff believes that in the clear view area, line of sight is a better measurement, so we are proposing the restriction be reduced to 10 ft and that ‘branches’ be changed to ‘foliage.’ 4. Language was found in Title 15 – Building & Construction that allows the city to require the erection of fences as a prerequisite to approval of a project or granting of a building permit in certain situations. We are proposing a reference to the new fencing regulations be added to ensure consistency. 550 North 800 West, West Bountiful, UT 84087 (801) 292-4486 OPEN FENCING: LESS THAN 70% OPEN  EXHIBIT A 9/03/2021- Redline NEW SECTION 17.50 Clear View Area and Fence Requirements 17.50.010 Purpose The following standards will govern the height and location of fences, walls, plant growth, or other obstructions to provide adequate open vision of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 17.50.020 Clear View Area A clear view area shall be maintained at the intersection of every street, whether public or private, and at the intersection of every driveway with a public or private street. The clear view provisions are considered life safety standards and shall supersede any conflicting provisions of this title. No provision of this section shall be construed to allow the continuance of any nonconforming tree, shrub, plant or plant growth, fence, wall, or other screening material, or other obstruction which interferes with the safety of pedestrians or vehicle traffic. A. The clear view area for a street intersection is a triangle with a forty-foot side along each intersecting street, beginning at the point of intersection of the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines, and encompassing a portion of the street right- of-way and the adjoining lot (see diagram). Within the clear view area, the following shall apply: 1. Solid fences, walls, sight obscuring vegetation or other sight obscuring devices shall not exceed two (2) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 2. Chain link fences or fences which are seventy five percent (705%) or more open shall not exceed foursix (46) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 3. Trees in excess of these heights may be located or maintained, provided they are pruned clear of all branches foliage between the ground and a height of fourteen ten (1410) feet and are planted at least ten (10) feet apart. Tree canopies or other growth shall not block signs or signals. 4. No sign shall be allowed unless it is specifically permitted by this title, and the City Engineer determines that it is not a safety hazard. 5. No obstruction of any sort shall be allowed which interferes with the safety of pedestrians or traffic unless it is specifically permitted by this title, and the City Engineer determines that it is not a safety hazard. 6. No vehicle parking is allowed. 1  B. The clear view area for the intersection of a driveway and a street is an area triangle on each side of the driveway, each with two ten-foot sides, beginning at the point of intersection of the driveway edge and the back of curb line or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt line, with one side extending along the back of curb or edge of asphalt line ten (10) feet away from the driveway, and the other side extending fourteen (10) feet along the edge of the driveway from the front or street side lot line toward the interior of the lot (see diagram). The City Engineer may reduce the required length of the side along the back of curb or edge of asphalt line to six (6) feet or more where existing conditions will not permit a length of ten (10) feet. Within the clear view area, the following shall apply: 1. Solid fences, walls, sight obscuring vegetation and/or other sight obscuring devices shall not exceed two (2) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 2. Chain link fences or fences which are seventy five percent (705%) or more open shall not exceed four six (46) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 3. Trees in excess of these heights may be located or maintained, provided they are pruned clear of all branches between the ground and a height of fourteen ten (1410) feet and are planted at least ten (10) feet apart. Tree canopies or other growth shall not block signs or signals. 17.50.030 Front Yard Fences Subject to the clear view area regulations in this chapter, fences installed in a front yard shall comply with the following requirements: A. A fence that is seventy five percent (705%) or more open is allowed up to six (6) feet in height. B. A fence, wall, or hedge that is not seventy five percent (705%) or more open is allowed up to four (4) feet in height if located more than three (3) feet from any street right of way or sidewalk, whichever is closer to the primary building on the lot; and up to six (6) feet in height if not located within the minimum front yard setback. 17.50.040 Rear, Side Yard, and Street Side Yard Fences A. Rear yard. Fences, walls, and hedges shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any rear yard. B. Side yard. Fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any side yard . C. Street side yard. Subject to the clear view area regulations in this chapter, fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any street side yard. 2 17.50.050 Additional Height/Exceptions A. The planning commission may approve the erection of a fence to a height greater than six (6) feet within any required rear yard or side yard upon a showing that the increased height is reasonably necessary to protect the property from an adjacent incompatible land use. B When a fence, wall, or hedge is located along a property line separating two lots and there is a difference in the grade of the properties on the two sides of the property line, the fence, wall or hedge may be erected or allowed to the maximum height permitted as measured from the higher grade. C. A fence enclosing a recreational facility (whether private or public), such as a tennis court, swimming pool, or ball diamond, may be allowed up to fourteen (14) feet in height, as long as it is “open style” and not site obscuring, is located at least five (5) feet away from the property line, and is not within the clear view area or minimum front yard setback area. 17.50.060 Building Permit Required Construction of fences and retaining walls must meet applicable requirements of Title 15 of this Code. A building permit must be secured for construction of all fences over six feet high and retaining walls over four feet high. ------------------------------ Title 15 Building & Construction 15.08.020 Building Permit H. The City may require the erection of fences as a prerequisite to approval of any project or to the granting of any building permit when it is necessary to protect life or property. Such fences may be of a type and size necessary to accomplish the above stated purpose, as determined by the City consistent with Title WBMC 17.50. ----------------------------------- 3  EXHIBIT A 9/03/2021- Clean NEW SECTION 17.50 Clear View Area and Fence Requirements 17.50.010 Purpose The following standards will govern the height and location of fences, walls, plant growth, or other obstructions to provide adequate open vision of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 17.50.020 Clear View Area A clear view area shall be maintained at the intersection of every street, whether public or private, and at the intersection of every driveway with a public or private street. The clear view provisions are considered life safety standards and shall supersede any conflicting provisions of this title. No provision of this section shall be construed to allow the continuance of any nonconforming tree, shrub, plant or plant growth, fence, wall, or other screening material, or other obstruction which interferes with the safety of pedestrians or vehicle traffic. A. The clear view area for a street intersection is a triangle with a forty-foot side along each intersecting street, beginning at the point of intersection of the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines, and encompassing a portion of the street right- of-way and the adjoining lot (see diagram). Within the clear view area, the following shall apply: 1. Solid fences, walls, sight obscuring vegetation or other sight obscuring devices shall not exceed two (2) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 2. Chain link fences or fences which are seventy percent (70%) or more open shall not exceed six (6) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 3. Trees in excess of these heights may be located or maintained, provided they are pruned clear of all foliage between the ground and a height of ten (10) feet and are planted at least ten (10) feet apart. Tree canopies or other growth shall not block signs or signals. 4. No sign shall be allowed unless it is specifically permitted by this title, and the City Engineer determines that it is not a safety hazard. 5. No obstruction of any sort shall be allowed which interferes with the safety of pedestrians or traffic unless it is specifically permitted by this title, and the City Engineer determines that it is not a safety hazard. 6. No vehicle parking is allowed. 1  B. The clear view area for the intersection of a driveway and a street is an area on each side of the driveway, beginning at the point of intersection of the driveway edge and the back of curb line or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt line, with one side extending along the back of curb or edge of asphalt line ten (10) feet away from the driveway, and the other side extending fourteen (10) feet along the edge of the driveway from the front or street side lot line toward the interior of the lot (see diagram). The City Engineer may reduce the required length of the side along the back of curb or edge of asphalt line to six (6) feet or more where existing conditions will not permit a length of ten (10) feet. Within the clear view area, the following shall apply: 1. Solid fences, walls, sight obscuring vegetation and/or other sight obscuring devices shall not exceed two (2) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 2. Chain link fences or fences which are seventy percent (70%) or more open shall not exceed six (6) feet in height above the back of curb lines or, if there is no curb, the edge of asphalt lines. 3. Trees in excess of these heights may be located or maintained, provided they are pruned clear of all branches between the ground and a height of ten 10) feet and are planted at least ten (10) feet apart. Tree canopies or other growth shall not block signs or signals. 17.50.030 Front Yard Fences Subject to the clear view area regulations in this chapter, fences installed in a front yard shall comply with the following requirements: A. A fence that is seventy percent (70%) or more open is allowed up to six (6) feet in height. B. A fence, wall, or hedge that is not seventy percent (70%) or more open is allowed up to four (4) feet in height if located more than three (3) feet from any street right of way or sidewalk, whichever is closer to the primary building on the lot; and up to six (6) feet in height if not located within the minimum front yard setback. 17.50.040 Rear, Side Yard, and Street Side Yard Fences A. Rear yard. Fences, walls, and hedges shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any rear yard. B. Side yard. Fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any side yard. C. Street side yard. Subject to the clear view area regulations in this chapter, fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within any street side yard. 2 17.50.050 Additional Height/Exceptions A. The planning commission may approve the erection of a fence to a height greater than six (6) feet within any required rear yard or side yard upon a showing that the increased height is reasonably necessary to protect the property from an adjacent incompatible land use. B When a fence, wall, or hedge is located along a property line separating two lots and there is a difference in the grade of the properties on the two sides of the property line, the fence, wall or hedge may be erected or allowed to the maximum height permitted as measured from the higher grade. C. A fence enclosing a recreational facility (whether private or public), such as a tennis court, swimming pool, or ball diamond, may be allowed up to fourteen (14) feet in height, as long as it is “open style” and not site obscuring, is located at least five (5) feet away from the property line, and is not within the clear view area or minimum front yard setback area. 17.50.060 Building Permit Required Construction of fences and retaining walls must meet applicable requirements of Title 15 of this Code. A building permit must be secured for construction of all fences over six feet high and retaining walls over four feet high. ------------------------------ Title 15 Building & Construction 15.08.020 Building Permit H. The City may require the erection of fences as a prerequisite to approval of any project or to the granting of any building permit when it is necessary to protect life or property. Such fences may be of a type and size necessary to accomplish the above stated purpose, as determined by the City consistent with WBMC 17.50. ----------------------------------- 3  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 1 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 1 PENDING – NOT YET APPROVED 2 3 Minutes of the West Bountiful City Council meeting held on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, at West 4 Bountiful City Hall, 550 N 800 West, Davis County, Utah. 5 6 MEMBERS: Mayor Ken Romney, Council members James Ahlstrom, James Bruhn, Kelly 7 Enquist, Mark Preece, and Rod Wood. 8 9 STAFF: Duane Huffman (City Administrator), Steve Doxey (City Attorney), Chief Brandon 10 Erekson, Steve Maughan, (Public Works), Kris Nilsen (City Engineer), Cathy 11 Brightwell (City Recorder), Josh Virostko (Lakeside Superintendent) 12 13 PUBLIC: Alan Malan, Richmond Thornley, Marv Putnam 14 15 Mayor Romney called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Mark Preece provided an invocation, 16 and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by James Ahlstrom. 17 18 1. Approve the Agenda. 19 20 MOTION: Mark Preece made a motion to approve the agenda. Kelly Enquist seconded 21 the Motion which PASSED by unanimous vote of all members present. 22 23 2. Public Comment. 24 25 Duane Huffman introduced Marv Putnam, 187 N 1450 West, and explained that he contacted the 26 city about connecting to the city’s culinary water system as his well is no longer adequate. He has 27 also expressed interest in annexing his property into the city. There was a miscommunication and 28 Mr. Putnam came back from vacation thinking the water connection issue would be considered at 29 tonight’s meeting. Mr. Huffman said that this is not something the city does very often so more 30 research was needed to determine what is required to complete the connection and what fees are 31 due. Mr. Putnam’s situation will be expensive as the water line will need to cross 1450 W. He said 32 that in 1999, the city was working on a water line extension to the auto auction and Mr. Putnam 33 granted an easement to the city to cross his property at no cost, but we are still reviewing the 34 records which indicate that the easement has now become part of a city road. More research is also 35 necessary to determine if water rights credits are transferable. 36 37 Mr. Huffman added that Mike Demas, at 287 N 1450 West has also contacted the city asking for a 38 water connection and was told that the city council may want him to annex into the city if a water 39 connection is made. 40 41 There was discussion about how to handle these requests in a timely manner. Mayor Romney noted 42 that we will likely get several of these requests given the current drought situation and having staff 43 handle them is probably the most efficient way. 44 45 3. Award of Architect/Engineering Services for 2021 Public Works Facility Project to 46 CRSA for a Total Fee of $373,200.  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 2 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 47 48 Using materials from the State of Utah’s Division of Facilities and Construction Management 49 (DFCM), in June, the city issued two separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs) – one for Architect/ 50 Engineering Services and Construction Management/General Contractor Services for the Public 51 Works west yard facility. These RFPs were modeled to select firms on a value-based selection 52 method. 53 54 For the Architect/Engineering Services, the firms were evaluated on selection criteria that included: 55 Past Performance, Project Team Experience, Project Specific Team Experience, Team Delivery 56 Method Experience, Team Member Availability, Project Architects Experience, Preconstruction 57 Services, Budget Control Plan, Schedule Control Plan, Value Added Ideas, and Project Team 58 Interaction. Firms submitted proposals addressing these issues, and the five firms that submitted 59 proposals made presentations/interviews for the selection committee. 60 61 The selection committee was made up of Kris Nilsen (City Engineer), Ben White (Taylorsville City 62 Engineer and former WBC Engineer), and Steve Maughan (Public Works Director). Selection 63 committee members signed Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Statements and Non-Disclosure 64 Statements. Darrell Hunting, Assistant Director - Capital Improvements for DFCM participated in 65 the interviews and scoring session to assist the city with process. After evaluation of the proposals, 66 each committee member ranked the firms, and unanimously recommended the selection of CRSA. 67 Under the value-based selection method, the city is now negotiating a fee for the services, which 68 will be in line with fees paid for similar services by the state. If for any reason the city cannot come 69 to terms with CRSA, we would move to the next highest ranked firm. 70 71 There was discussion on scoring and the fee schedule with consensus that the process was handled 72 well with blind scoring and council members are comfortable with the outcome. 73 74 MOTION: Mark Preece made a Motion to Award the Architect/Engineering Services 75 for 2021 Public Works Facility Project to CRSA for a Total “Not to 76 Exceed” Fee of $373,200. Rod Wood seconded the Motion which PASSED 77 as reflected below. 78 79 James Ahlstrom – aye James Bruhn – aye 80 Kelly Enquist – aye Mark Preece – aye 81 Rod Wood - aye 82 83 4. Award of Construction Manager/General Contractor Services for 2021 Public Works 84 Facility Project to Gramoll Construction for an Estimated Fee of $655,000. 85 86 Mayor Romney disclosed that he is an employee of Gramoll Construction and was not involved in 87 the proposal submitted to the city or in the selection process by the city. If the contract is awarded 88 to Gramoll, he proposes the Mayor Pro Tem sign the agreements. 89 90 For Construction Manager/General Contractor Services, the firms were evaluated on selection 91 criteria that included: Past Performance, Project Team Experience, Team Member Availability, 92 Project Manager Experience, Superintendent Experience, Project Estimator Experience, Cost 93 Control Plan, Scope Control Plan, Site and Staging Plan, Risk Identification and Mitigation Plan,  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 3 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 94 and Safety Plan. Eight proposing firms were short-listed by the selection committee to 4, and these 95 made presentations and went through interviews. 96 97 The selection committee was made up of Kris Nilsen, City Engineer; Ben White, Taylorsville 98 City Engineer and former WBC Engineer; and Darrell Hunting, Assistant Director - Capital 99 Improvements for DFCM with the State of Utah. Selection committee members signed Conflict of 100 Interest & Confidentiality Statements and Non-Disclosure Statements. 101 102 Because of their association with one of the proposing firms, neither Mayor Romney nor Public 103 Works Director Steve Maughan were involved in evaluating firms at any level. 104 105 After evaluation of the proposals, each committee member ranked the firms, and unanimously 106 recommended the selection of Gramoll Construction. 107 108 Duane Huffman stated that staff recognizes the potential appearance of a conflict of interest in 109 selecting a firm that employs the mayor of the city as well as a family member of the public works 110 director and assured the council that no one affiliated with Gramoll Construction nor anyone that 111 directly reports to Mayor Romney or Steve Maughan was involved in evaluating the firms or 112 making the recommendation. The inclusion of an employee of the state’s DFCM in the selection 113 process helped to ensure a fair process. He added that he believes the selection committee 114 recommended this firm based on the best value to the city. 115 116 The fees for CM/GC services were set in advance using standards from the state of Utah. This 117 levels the playing field for all the proposals, helps ensure that the city is getting value-based 118 services, and limits the potential for future disputes or conflicts of interest during the construction 119 phase. 120 121 There was discussion about the costs included in the bid. Duane said the estimate is about $655,000. 122 It’s difficult to know exactly as the total building costs were bid at $6 million but the contractor is 123 hopeful it will go down to $5.5 million. One of the reasons Gramoll Construction was rated so 124 highly is their methods to ensure the best pricing and value for the project, such as putting out 125 RFP’s, etc. Rather than providing incentives if they come in lower which can result in corners being 126 cut, value based engineering is based on performance ratings for things such as did the project come 127 in on time and on budget. A good rating is important to the contractor if they want future work with 128 the state. 129 130 Council member Wood added that his experience with value-based pricing has been great. 131 132 Mr. Huffman said the team has been focused on site location selecting where each part of the 133 facility will be located and working toward having space for future flexibility for other city projects. 134 Also looking at soil studies and future road improvements, etc. There was discussion about possibly 135 adding some recreational space, which we may be able to consider as part of landscaping. 136 137 There was agreement that going forward the mayor should be fully involved as part of the team 138 along with the contractor, the architect, and staff in the work process and meetings as he brings a lot 139 of value to the project. If there are any disputes, those issues will go to the full council. 140  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 4 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 141 MOTION: James Ahlstrom made a Motion to Award Construction Manager /General 142 Contractor Services for the 2021 Public Works Facility Project to Gramoll 143 Construction for an Estimated Fee of $655,000 and to Authorize the Mayor 144 or Mayor Pro Tem to Sign the Contract. Rod Wood seconded the Motion 145 which PASSED as reflected below. 146 147 James Ahlstrom – aye James Bruhn – aye 148 Kelly Enquist – aye Mark Preece – aye 149 Rod Wood - aye 150 151 152 5. Approval of $6,000,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bond for 2021 Public Works Facility 153 Project. 154 155 The city has worked for several years now on planning for the construction of a new public works 156 facility on 1200 North. The master plan completed in 2019 estimated costs at over $7 million. In 157 2021, the city explored cost-saving measures in the design of the facility, specifically the use of a 158 metal-structure and combining functions such as office/shop/wash bay all into one metal building. 159 Costs are now estimated between $5.5-$6.5 million. An architectural firm and a construction 160 manager/general contractor have been selected through the procurement process. 161 162 After a noticed public hearing, the city council adopted a Parameters Resolution for sales tax 163 revenue bonds. So that the city could act efficiently in the future, this resolution authorized the city 164 administrator (or mayor in his absence) to issue bonds for the public works project, pledging sales 165 tax revenues as the collateral. The parameters set forth were: 166 • Maximum Principal Amount: $7,000,000 (the city expected the amount to ultimately be 167 lower). 168 • Maximum Interest Rate: 5% (the city also expected this amount to be much lower) 169 • Maximum Term: 21 years 170 171 The city can now move forward without any additional council action, but staff believes it prudent 172 for the council to review and approve the final terms. 173 174 Current Proposal 175 As discussed at the August 3rd council meeting, through the help of our financial advisor with 176 Zions Bank, the city has secured financing under the following terms through a direct purchase 177 arrangement with the Bank of Utah with closing currently scheduled for August 26. 178 • Principal Amount: $6,000,000 179 • True Interest: 1.8215106% 180 • Term: 20 years 181 • Average Annual Debt Service: $358,500 182 • Call Options: 183 o Unspent funds at conclusion of the project may be returned under a one-time “strip call.” 184 The debt schedule will then be re-done to lower the annual payments. 185 o The bond may be paid in full at any time without penalty. 186  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 5 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 187 Duane Huffman asked council members how much they would like to be involved as the project 188 moves forward and to contact him with any questions. He will add a section in the weekly staff 189 notes with updates as the project moves forward. 190 191 MOTION: Kelly Enquist made a Motion to Approve the $6 million Sales Tax Bond 192 Under the terms described Above. James Bruhn seconded the Motion 193 which PASSED as reflected below. 194 195 James Ahlstrom – aye James Bruhn – aye 196 Kelly Enquist – aye Mark Preece – aye 197 Rod Wood - aye 198 199 200 6. Resolution 501-21, A Resolution Authorizing Allocation of $21,000 of ARPA Funding 201 to South Davis Sewer District. 202 203 The city has received the first allotment of federal ARPA funds which have been distributed 204 through the State of Utah to mitigate the fiscal effects related to COVID-19. ARPA set forth the use 205 of the funds to include making necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure. 206 207 This issue was discussed at the last meeting following a presentation by the South Davis Sewer 208 District and request from them for a portion of the city’s ARPA funds. This contribution will help 209 achieve the objectives associated with the District’s services within the City’s jurisdiction through 210 the North Plant Nutrient Removal Project. 211 212 MOTION: James Ahlstrom made a Motion to Approve Resolution 501-21 Allocating 213 $21,000 of ARPA Funding to South Davis Sewer District. Mark Preece 214 seconded the Motion which PASSED as reflected below. 215 216 James Ahlstrom – aye James Bruhn – aye 217 Kelly Enquist – aye Mark Preece – aye 218 Rod Wood - aye 219 220 221 7. Expenditure Approvals: Parks Power Mower ($13,309.53); Police Vehicles and 222 Equipment ($159,000); and Golf Course Pond Irrigation Pump ($23,778.21). 223 224 The city’s procurement code requires that certain expenditures of $10,000 or more first be approved 225 by the city council. Approval is requested for the following: 226 1. Parks Mower – The FY 22 budget included $13,500 for a new parks mower. Staff 227 recommends the purchase of a John Deere mower and equipment for $13,309.53 based on a 228 quote from John Deere. 229 2. Police Vehicles and Equipment - The FY 22 budget included $165,600 for three new police 230 vehicles (two replacements and an addition to the fleet for the new position). Staff 231 recommends the purchases for a total of $159,443. Two current vehicles will be sold with a 232 budgeted offset of $49,000.  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 6 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 233 3. Golf Course Pump Upgrades - With the secondary water being shut off on September 20th, it 234 will be necessary to use the pond just west of 1100 W (north of the #12 green) to irrigate. The 235 pond is fed by artesian wells on the golf course as well as storm water run-off, and for many 236 years it has had a small pump for similar circumstances. Staff recommends the addition of a 237 new pump/motor and additional controls. If adequate water can be kept in the ponds, this new 238 system should be sufficient to protect the course. Two options are provided below. 239 a. The first is an upgrade to an existing small pump that would help it do its job better. If 240 the pump is not sufficient, we may need to make an emergency connection to culinary. 241 b. A larger pump replaces the existing pump and would be used instead of a culinary 242 connection. The risk is availability of water and pump maintenance. The larger pump 243 is out about three weeks and will take 1-2 days to install and there may be some 244 additional cost for electrical work. 245 246 In light of the water situation, staff is currently reevaluating previously budgeted golf course 247 improvements, and will likely hold off on doing anything significant on Hole #16 (budgeted at 248 $60,000). 249 250 Councilmember Wood commented that Eaglewood uses 1-1.5 million gallons per day and 251 commended Josh for an efficient operation, and both Bountiful Ridge and Eaglewood are also 252 connected to culinary water. 253 254 Councilmember Bruhn said his experience with pumps has been a nightmare. He prefers going with 255 the culinary connection. It is a cleaner service with less needed maintenance. 256 257 There was concern about using culinary water after the Weber shut-off and how residents may react 258 to the city continuing to water when they cannot. It may be better to go with the larger pump to use 259 in emergency situations for a cost of approximately $30,000. 260 261 Josh said Lakeside is the only golf course he has ever worked that did not pump its water. We must 262 have water after September 20, so we need a pump. He recommends investing in the larger pump 263 but noted we may also need to go with the small one due to timing. 264 265 There was concern that Rocky Mountain Power may not be able to have power for us when we need 266 to hook up the pump. Duane said he has already contacted them to let them know we may need a 267 quick connection. 268 269 Mayor Romney commented that he has gone back and forth on the issue. The electrical costs will be 270 incurred either way and he is leaning toward the large pump which will decrease culinary use and 271 not take as much as work. It will not be a waste; but will provide flexibility for future water needs. 272 273 MOTION: Rod Wood made a Motion to authorize expenditures 1 & 2 proposed by 274 staff above which are included in the budget. Regarding #3, staff is 275 authorized to purchase the large pump, for a cost not to exceed $35,000. 276 James Ahlstrom seconded the Motion which PASSED by unanimous vote 277 of all members present. 278  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 7 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 279 8. Ordinance 446-21, An Ordinance Creating a New Section, WBMC 17.50 Clear View 280 Area and Fence Requirements, and Deleting Related Sections 17.14.100, 17.16.100, 281 17.20.100, and 17.24.100. 282 283 Based on observations of non-compliant front yards within the city, and the desire to improve clear 284 view area regulations, the planning commission has been considering updates to fencing regulations 285 focusing on the following issues: 286 1. Clear view area. Fencing regulations are in place primarily for safety reasons. Vehicular 287 traffic and pedestrians must be able to see clearly around corners as they pass through 288 intersections and back out of driveways without having visibility blocked by fences or 289 vegetation. 290 2. Open fencing. Existing regulations limit front yard fencing to 4 feet in height within any 291 front yard setback and 2 feet in height within 3 feet of any street right of way or sidewalk. It 292 does not provide an exception for open fencing. Staff has identified many properties in the 293 city with non-compliant front yard fencing, some of which may qualify as open fencing. 294 After researching other city’s regulations, staff found that the majority allow some form of 295 open fencing, such as chain link, rail, and some rod iron, in front yards. 296 3. Reorganize/consolidate regulations into a new, separate section. 297 298 After several months of review and consideration, a public hearing was held on August 10, and the 299 planning commission recommended the following amended ordinance to the city council: 300 A. Clear View Area – 301 o Intersections – clarifies the clear view area for street intersections as a triangle with a 40-ft 302 side along each intersecting street. This triangle is measured from the intersection of the back 303 of the curb lines or asphalt lines, if no curb. 304  Solid fences, walls, vegetation, etc. - up to 2 ft in height; 305  Open fencing – up to 4 ft in height; 306  Trees must be pruned clear of branches up to 14 ft and be 10 ft apart; 307  No vehicle parking (primarily applies to commercial locations). 308 o Driveways – (NEW) defines the intersection of a driveway and a street as a triangle on each 309 side of the driveway with 2 -10 ft sides beginning at the intersection of the driveway edge and 310 back of curb line, or edge of asphalt if no curb line, toward the interior of the lot. 311  Solid fences, walls, vegetation, etc. - up to 2 ft in height; 312  Open fencing – up to 4 ft in height; 313  Trees must be pruned clear of branches up to 14 ft and be 10 ft apart. 314 315 B. Front Yard fences – (subject to clear view area regulations) 316 o Open fencing is allowed up to 6 ft in height. 317 o Solid fences, walls, and hedges – up to 4 ft in height if more than 3 ft from street right of 318 way or sidewalk, and up to 6 ft if beyond the front 30 ft. setback. 319 C. Rear and Side Yard fences – up to 6 ft. 320 D. Street Side Yard fences – (subject to clear view area regulations) up to 6 ft. 321 E. Exceptions – (NEW) open fencing enclosing a recreational facility (public or private) such as 322 tennis court, swimming pool, ball diamond, may be up to 14 ft if at least 5 ft from property line and 323 not within the clear view area or minimum front yard setback area.  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 8 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 324 Cathy Brightwell referenced a staff-prepared diagram depicting the clear view areas. Council 325 member Bruhn noted that the clear view area for the driveway needs to be lengthened. The current 326 proposal measures 10 feet from the street along the driveway and 10 feet from the same corner 327 along the street. The resulting triangle only includes a two foot corner of the yard when standard 328 four foot sidewalks and four foot parkstrips are used. James suggested the length along the 329 driveway be increased to 14 feet to provide more opportunity for drivers backing out to see 330 oncoming traffic. 331 332 There was also discussion about whether there is a need to limit front yard fencing to four feet, as 333 proposed, if it is outside the clear view area and not creating a safety hazard. If open fencing is 334 used, a six foot fence may be acceptable. 335 336 Staff was asked to make the suggested changes and bring a new draft back to the next meeting. 337 338 MOTION: James Ahlstrom made a Motion to table this agenda item. Rod Wood 339 seconded the Motion which PASSED by unanimous vote of all members 340 present. 341 342 343 9. Minutes from August 3, 2021, City Council Meeting. 344 345 MOTION: Kelly Enquist made a Motion to approve the meeting minutes from August 346 3, 2021, as presented. Mark Preece seconded the Motion which PASSED by 347 unanimous vote of all members present. 348 349 350 10. Staff Reports 351 352 Police – Brandon Erekson 353 • The new trucks have arrived and are in service. Explorers should arrive this week and the old 354 vehicles are on schedule to be sold at auction. 355 • Bountiful IT will work with us to move forward on the new computer system. 356 357 Public Works – Steve Maughan 358 • Paving is complete and street striping is almost done. 359 • Miscellaneous concrete replacement project is almost wrapped up. 360 • Crews are cleaning out ditches as time permits. 361 • A contractor ran over a hydrant at 1800 N/600 W, which caused a pipe to break after a 362 replacement was installed. The entire length of 600 W between 1600 N and 2200 N is in bad 363 shape. This project is budgeted for later this year and there is a concern about attempting such a 364 large project while the public works project is under construction. 365 366 Engineering – Kris Nilsen 367 • Pickle ball shade structures should be shipped mid-August. 368 • Public Works facility planning continues. The team is working on property layout and has 369 helped with surveying.  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 9 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 370 • Well construction is progressing. Construction should be done Jan. 15, 22. If we had to, we can 371 turn well on earlier, but building construction won’t be done until Jan. 372 373 Community Development – Cathy Brightwell 374 • We received a Notice of Intent to Annex from Marv Putnam on 1450 West. He only wants to 375 bring in the .81 acre parcel his home is on and not the adjoining 1.5 acre parcel to the rear of the 376 home. A notice will be sent to the County so they can begin their notification process. We 377 intend to contact the other property owners on 1450 W to encourage them to join in the Petition 378 even though we are hearing some do not want to come into the city. 379 • Meet the Candidates night is scheduled for October 4 beginning at 6:30 pm at city hall, which is 380 one week before ballots begin arriving in the mail. 381 382 Administrative Report – Duane Huffman 383 Mr. Huffman recommended a closed session to discuss the sale or purchase of real property. 384 385 386 11. Mayor / Council Reports 387 388 Kelly Enquist – Mosquito Abatement reported 162 possible pools of West Nile. They have sprayed 389 and fogged nearly 300,000 acres and report that West Nile is most prolific between 10–11:30 pm. 390 391 James Bruhn – No report 392 393 James Ahlstrom – Youth Council held their first meeting last week. They will keep their meetings 394 on the second Thursday and advisors, Kim & Pat McReynolds will help as their schedules permit. 395 The Council is beginning to plan for a retreat in September/October. 396 397 Mark Preece – No report 398 399 Rod Wood – No report 400 401 Mayor Romney – The South Davis Metro Fire board adopted its budget last night. 402 403 404 12. Closed Session Pursuant to UCA § 52-4-205. 405 406 MOTION: James Ahlstrom made a Motion to Move into Closed Session for the 407 Purpose of Discussing the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real Property. 408 Adjournment of the closed session will also close the regular meeting. Kelly 409 Enquist seconded the Motion which PASSED as reflected below. 410 411 James Ahlstrom – aye James Bruhn – aye 412 Kelly Enquist – aye Mark Preece – aye 413 Rod Wood - aye 414  WEST BOUNTIFUL Page 10 of 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 17, 2021 415 MOTION: James Bruhn made a Motion to adjourn the Closed Session and the regular 416 meeting. James Ahlstrom seconded the Motion which PASSED by 417 unanimous vote of all members present. 418 419 13. Adjourn. 420 421 See above 422 423 ------------------------ 424 425 The foregoing was approved by the West Bountiful City Council by unanimous vote of all members 426 present on Tuesday, September 7, 2021. 427 428 ___________________________________ 429 Cathy Brightwell, City Recorder 430