Request Applicant : Myron Child : 17-6-01 Provided per …HDMP). This plan recognizes the continued evolution of the area surrounding Highland Drive as part of the City’s lifecycle

CITY OF HOLLADAY

City Council

July 6th, 2017

Item #??

Request: HDMP Text/Map Amendment for The Woods at Holladay

Applicant: Myron Child

File No: 17-6-01

Planner: Paul Allred, Jon Teerlink

Notice: Provided per State law and City policy

GOVERNING POLICIES/ORDINANCES:

� GENERAL PLAN – HIGHLAND DRIVE MASTER PLAN

EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY

The request (see PC staff report) is to amend the Highland Drive Master Plan map by removing the

Roots Nursery property on the corner of Arbor Lane and Highland Drive (see Map) from Segment B,

which discourages RM zoning. The applicant wishes to build town homes on the site which would

require a zone change from NC to RM. Staff recommended to the applicant that a map amendment be

applied for in conjunction with the rezone request. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to

recommend denial of the request to the City Council (see draft minutes) and postponed action on the

rezone request until Council action on the text/map change was completed

As noted in the PC staff report, the TRC gave some pro/con thoughts to this request and asked the PC

to consider consequences of recommending a potential zone change to RM. Staff opinion is that the

PC made conscious informed recommendation to the Council that provides support for a final

decision on the text/map amendment.

SUPPORTING MATERIALS

� Draft Text change to HDMP with accompanying map

� Staff Report to Planning Commission

� Draft PC Minutes including Commission recommendation to Council

� Developer Narrative including map

PROPOSED HDMP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

I. HIGHLAND DRIVE MASTER PLAN

This Appendix (K) to the City’s General Plan creates a Highland Drive Master Plan

(HDMP). This plan recognizes the continued evolution of the area surrounding Highland

Drive as part of the City’s lifecycle. While acknowledging the inevitability of growth and

change, the HDMP seeks to create policies that achieve balance between the constant

pressure for development and the protection of those characteristics that make this area and

the City of Holladay a unique and special place.

This plan recognizes that the historic development pattern along the Highland Drive corridor

includes the full range of uses from large lot single family residential to regional

commercial nodes. For ease of communication and for the purposes of this document,

Highland Drive and its associated properties will be considered in three segments. Each

segment has unique history, land use development patterns, streetscape characteristics and is

controlled by different jurisdictions.

1. Segment A: 3900 South to Arbor Lane and including those parcel(s) on the east side

of Highland which front Arbor Lane (North end);

Holladay controls the east side of Highland Drive to Murray Holladay Rd. and both sides

from there south to Arbor Lane. The street is currently developed with right-of-way widths

ranging from 80 feet to 106 feet. Land use patterns are primarily commercial and multi-

family residential developments.

2. Segment B: Arbor Lane to Van Winkle Expressway (Middle section);

Both sides of Highland Drive are within Holladay City and this segment is controlled

exclusively by the City. The street has a future planned right-of-way width of 80 feet. Land

use patterns are primarily single-family residential with limited commercial and higher-

density (not high-density) single and multi-family residential developments interspersed

throughout the segment.

3. Segment C: Van Winkle Expressway to City boundary at I-215 (South end);

Holladay controls the east side of Highland Drive in this area. The street is currently

developed with a 106 foot right-of-way width. Land use patterns are exclusively

commercial development. The west side of the road is in Murray City. UDOT manages this

section.

Adopted by CC on 4-17-14

IV. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

A. Land Use and Zoning Infill opportunities are limited, open spaces and energy resources are diminishing. The Plan suggests new zoning patterns along Highland Drive.

1. Segment A:

Existing zoning in this segment has developed a healthy mix of commercial and higher

density residential uses. Any changes to the current zoning patterns should be considered

only if the new zoning will enhance the existing uses and strengthen the whole City.

2. Segment B:

Commercial Uses a. No new commercial use should be allowed in Segment B; however, the city recognizes the legal right of existing commercial uses to continue in commercial use.

Residential Uses

b. For the mid-block sections of Segment B, where appropriate, higher-density (not

high-density) single family uses such as the R-1-15, R-1-10, R-1-8 zones, and lower-

density multi-family residential zoning such as the R-2 zones should be given priority, in

that order of preference. Any proposal for non-residential use within Segment B should

not be approved unless the property owner demonstrates that there is no economically

viable residential use for the property. No new R-M Zoning should be allowed in

Section B.

c. When considering non-residential

zoning, the depth of the zone should be

appropriate to surrounding land uses. It

should not generally reach beyond 200 feet

deep from Highland Drive.

d. The impact of new development on existing

residents should be thoroughly evaluated. Nuisance

factors such as excess noise, light, and odors should be

minimized with buffering measures.

Example of existing higher density

Residential development.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

CITY OF HOLLADAY

Planning Commission

June 6th

2017

Item #3

Request: HDMP Map Amendment for The Woods at Holladay

Applicant: Myron Child

File No: 17-6-01

Planner: Paul Allred

GOVERNING POLICIES/ORDINANCES:

� General Plan -- HDMP

EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicants wish to build high end townhomes directly across from the old Mall

site where Roots Nursery operated until recently. The property, (one acre in area)

in question is not zoned for townhomes – it is zoned Neighborhood Commercial

NC, instead and is located in Segment B of the Highland Drive Master Plan

(HDMP). To build townhomes that land must be rezoned to RM. However, the

HDMP for Segment B declares, “No new R-M Zoning should be allowed in

Section B.” Therefore, the applicants desire to have this land removed from

Segment B and included in Segment A, which has no prohibition for RM zoning.

The request is somewhat straightforward in staff opinion and is really a matter of

whether or not the boundary between Segments A and B should be changed to

accommodate the use or not, and, if townhomes are appropriate there or not. The

Commission should review the new General Plan regarding the MU-T

designation on the Future Land Use Map as well as other pertinent sections to

understand what the City is desires for land use overall, and, for this location.

TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW Staff opinion is that boundary at this location is not untouchable, because of prior

commercial uses on the land. Residential or commercial (RM allows office and

some other low key commercial uses) on this land is not inappropriate. Single

family uses are to the east and higher density residential is directly to the south,

Highland Drive is to the west and coming residential and commercial development

will likely be built to the north on the old Mall site. The RM represents a

somewhat benign zoning option here, and certainly nice townhomes would be a

good neighbor. However, it should be noted that the potential loss of NC zoning

here removes the possibility of some attractive uses (like Café’ Madrid) with its

accompanying flexibility and design features. As always, there is an opportunity

cost when one option is chosen over another. Given that the Mall site will likely

have both residential and commercial land uses within it, office or townhomes at

this location are non-controversial in our opinion. But, depending on one’s point

of view, this site should perhaps be preserved for additional commercial

possibilities given the fact that restaurants and offices opportunities are harder to

find than purely residential ones. Again Staff urges the PC to review and

consider implications of various goals of the General Plan.

TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends taking public comment and determining if it is in the best

interest of the city to move the boundary between Segments A and B to allow for

the possibility of development of uses allowed in the RM zone, including the

townhomes planned by the applicants. If the Commission is not comfortable

making a recommendation at this meeting, they may wish to continue the matter

(public hearing may be continued as well, if deemed necessary) to a subsequent

meeting. If not, a recommendation in favor of, or not, should be made to the

Council upon findings and conclusions.

POSSIBLE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO SUPPORT A

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

In favor:

� The boundary between Segments A and B is not scientific and Segment A

could’ve originally been placed on the south side of the site in question

when the HDMP was first adopted.

� The relocation of the boundary will produce no harm to the public and will

not disturb the balance of land uses in this area of the city.

� The land in question has had a variety of uses on it over the years, including

commercial.

� This site should be looked at as more compatible with future development to

the north and on the west side of Highland than the residential uses to the

south and east.

� The boundary change does not conflict with either the goals or pbjectives of

the HDMP or the new 2016 General Plan.

Opposed:

� Regardless of what occurs on the old Mall site, this map should not change

so that the goals of Segment B can be accomplished at this location.

� The City needs more commercial uses and the NC zone is a better option at

this location than the RM which allows a variety of commercial uses that

may be objectionable to abutting residential uses.

� The change in boundary does not support the goals and objectives of the

General Plan or the HDMP.

SUPPORTING MATERIALS

� Copy of Public Hearing Notice

� Proposed Map Amendment

� Applicable sections of the HDMP/General Plan

� Applicant narrative.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

MINUTES AND ACTION FROM 6/6/17 PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING

1. PUBLIC HEARING – General Plan Amendment; Highland Drive Small Area

Master Plan. (19:43:54) Mr. Teerlink presented the staff report and stated that the Highland Drive Small Area

Master Plan focuses on Highland Drive and divides it into three segments. The northern segment

comprises 3900 South to Arbor Lane; the middle portion includes Arbor Lane to 6200 South;

and the final segment consists of 6200 South to the freeway. The applicant is requesting to

rezone the property in the middle segment from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to RM

(Residential Multi-Family). The property in question is in Segment B, which no longer allows

for RM. The subject property was RM until 2012 when the Garden Spot went out of business.

The property owners maintained a retail space there for many years and are allowed to continue

under a grandfathered right. A new business would like to open in the proposed location;

however, the RM zone does not allow it. The applicants requested that the zoning be changed to

NC to allow for the Roots Nursery to continue to operate there. The applicant was requesting a

General Plan Amendment to change the description of Segment B to allow for the one parcel to

relocate into Segment A.

The applicant, Kent Hogan, commented that he and his partner, Myron Child, feel this is a good

transition between the existing residential property to the south and the Mall to the north. He felt

that they would be compatible with the neighbors and that the product is needed in the area.

They are proposing a senior townhome community with four units per building. Each unit will

have an elevator and two-car parking beneath. The units will be low maintenance and high

quality.

Chair Snow opened the public hearing.

(19:50:25) Sidney Robertson gave his address as 2006 Arbor Lane and asked for clarification on

whether it can be only be a two-story structure. Mr. Teerlink explained that the applicant is

limited to 35 feet, which would allow for two stories. He noted that there is a footprint

maximum in the NC zone of 5,000 square feet. No residential is currently allowed in the NC

zone. In order for the applicants to proceed, they would need a zone change.

In response to a question raised, Mr. Teerlink stated that the committee discussed where the

boundaries should be. Commercial Retail was intended to end at the Cottonwood Mall and the

property to the south was to be Low Density Residential.

(19:53:47) Camille Pierce gave her address as 2052 East Arbor Lane and expressed concern with

the additional high-density multi-family development proposed with this project and by Ivory.

She was concerned about her neighborhood and the cost of providing services to thousands of

new residents. She commented that with more residents, there will be fewer services available.

She urged the Commission to not allow ingress and egress on Arbor Lane for the project because

it is a narrow, winding lane with no shoulder. Ms. Pierce commented that it is already difficult

to get in and out onto Highland Drive and to access their driveway because of increased traffic.

She asked that the Commission require both entrances be from Highland Drive and that no

additional parking be allowed on Arbor Lane. Ms. Pierce also asked that the lighting be down

facing to not shine into the neighborhood. She noted that their neighborhood is comprised of

larger properties on the creek that have a rural feel. She also did not want to see sidewalks along

Arbor Lane because they will destroy the rural feel of the lane. She wanted vegetation but no

walls along Arbor Lane near the proposed development. If her conditions cannot be met she

asked that the property remain commercial.

Sarah Pierce gave her address as 2004 Arbor Lane and stated that her property directly borders

the subject property to the east. She had design concerns relative to the requested zone change.

She expressed concern with height, density, and egress onto Arbor Lane. Initially, she preferred

residential but now that she understands the density, she was not so sure. The neighborhood is

very quiet and she hoped to preserve that to the extent possible. She recognized that that will

change when the Mall property is developed.

(19:58:48) Steve Glaser gave his address as 2052 East Arbor Lane and expressed opposition to

changing the General Plan. A neighborhood meeting was conducted and it was reported that in

order to allow residential development, they need a second exit onto Arbor Lane. That is directly

across from where Ivory is planning an entrance into their development once the Mall is

developed. Having the two accesses across from one other had the potential to be a problem.

Mr. Glaser’s preference was to retain the area as Neighborhood Commercial. He commented

that when he moved to Holladay 18 years ago, the property was the Garden Spot Nursery. His

primary concerns were traffic on Arbor Lane and density.

(20:01:37) Steve Breitling identified himself as the current owner of the property and stated that

he considered the proposal to be an enhancement. They have waited many years for the Mall to

develop and still do not know when and if anything will happen. He understood the concerns

raised and stated that even as commercial, the property will generate a significant amount of

traffic and even perhaps more than residential depending on the use. He commented that the

property has always been accessed off of Arbor Lane and has never had an entrance directly onto

Highland Drive. If anything, the proposed plan will alleviate traffic because there would be an

option to use both Highland Drive and Arbor Lane. Mr. Breitling stated that the proposed

project will be of a lower profile than what exists to the south. With regard to design, Mr.

Breitling reported that he owned the property for a number of years and wants it to be an

enhancement and asset to the community. If the property remains NC it could be developed as a

restaurant or other use that could be viewed as a greater negative to the neighborhood than what

is proposed.

Mr. Hogan commented that perhaps the proposed use will generate less traffic than a normal

residential area because it will be senior living and seniors do not drive as much as younger

people. The main access to the property will be off of Highland Drive. In terms of height the

structures will be lower than what exists to the south. The main structure will be 22 to 24 feet

tall. In response to a comment made by Chair Snow, Mr. Hogan stated that they would not be

opposed to a gated entrance.

(20:07:42) Mr. Teerlink explained that when the City Council considers rezone possibilities and

potential, one of their concerns is whether a developer is actually going to build what they are

promising. Most of the time a Development Agreement is entered into that is tied directly to the

approval. If the agreement is broken, the applicant loses the zoning.

Kristin Brown gave her address as 1784 East 3900 South and stated that the development next to

her was originally proposed and approved as single-level 1,600 to 2,100 square-foot homes. The

developers later changed the plan drastically. She asked if there was any assurance that what is

proposed will be built. Chair Snow stated that approval can be tied to the original proposal. If

the applicant does not see the project through, another developer would have to start the process

over.

(20:11:14) Project Architect, Nolan Mendenhall, gave his address as 1409 South Spring Lane

and was curious to see what the Neighborhood Commercial height limitation was relative to the

RM zone, which allows up to 35 feet. Mr. Teerlink clarified that the height limitation is the

same for both zones. Mr. Mendenhall commented that in terms of parking on the street, it is

owned by the City who can dictate whether there can be on-street parking. Night lighting issues

were discussed as well as limiting light trespass onto neighboring properties. With regard to

fencing along Arbor Lane, Mr. Mendenhall stated that in other communities, if a fence is placed

along a public road, they typically put in wrought iron fencing which is more decorative than a

privacy fence. A gated entry into the site had not yet been discussed. It was noted that

sidewalks are also under the directive of the City. Mr. Mendenhall’s opinion was that if Arbor

Lane had curb, gutter, and sidewalk in place there would be enhanced safety for pedestrians.

(20:16:50) Camille Pierce reported that she raised the issue of money because she knew that the

Cottonwood Mall generated a great deal of sales tax that went directly to the City. She did not

think residential units would do the same unless the residents shop in the community.

There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Carter appreciated the neighbors’ concerns about the future. Given the current

and proposed zoning, they should determine what would be the maximum intensity of the use in

terms of traffic, lighting, trucks, hours, etc. He felt that the first step should be to determine

whether the commercial area should be allowed to be developed as residential before specifying

the zoning or the intensity of the use. He envisioned the parcel being higher intensity residential

and was not opposed to amending the plan to allow consideration of residential uses.

Chair Snow pointed out that there would be residential uses on three sides of the property. The

Mall will be across Arbor Lane. Commissioner Carter commented that the commercial on the

west side of Highland Drive has historically related to the commercial at the Mall site. He did

not believe that the commercial on the subject parcel relates well to the Mall site and seemed to

be an island of commercial. Chair Snow felt that residential zoning perhaps makes more sense.

(20:22:51) Commissioner Ricks was of the opinion that the Highland Drive Master Plan in this

section allows for small commercial areas on the corners and adds variety, character, and an

opportunity for small businesses in the community. She did not believe the City needs another

age restrictive use. She commented that the corner has a lot of character and to include it in the

Mall zoning will detract from its appeal.

Commissioner Garver agreed with Commissioner Ricks and gave examples of successful

businesses in the various neighborhoods. He thought it was better to not place all businesses in

one location. He was opposed to moving the property into Segment A and felt that the road

serves as a good boundary. He was not sure that making a decision tonight was the prudent thing

to do.

(20:26:30) Commissioner Ricks’ opinion was swayed after hearing from the residents. She

suggested that the zoning remain as-is.

Commissioner Mackin agreed that the zoning should not be changed. She commented that the

staff report states that the potential loss of NC zoning eliminates the possibility of attractive uses

and flexibility in design.

Commissioner Lloyd thought that one of the benefits of living in Holladay is that there is a

balance of space and commerce. She did not consider the proposed rezone to be appropriate.

Commissioner Carter commented that will happen on the Cottonwood Mall site is unknown and

was something the Commission should contemplate.

(20:30:18) Richard Duggar gave his address as 6173 Carriage Park Circle and identified himself

as an area property owner. He wanted to know what is to be done with the Mall property. He

recognized that his property is an eyesore with rundown buildings. He wants to be a good

landlord but it has been difficult to keep the property in good condition. He has rented it but has

had to release each tenant from their lease early because they could not make a profit. He

commented that it is an empty space that needs something. The reality is that it is difficult for

businesses in the area to succeed. Mr. Duggar did not expect anything to happen on the Mall site

for a very long time. He viewed the proposal as an opportunity to improve the area and begin

development. He apologized for the condition of his property and stated that he would try to

improve it even if it continues to sit vacant. Mr. Duggar wanted to see the property developed

and would consider anything presented to him.

(20:36:43) Commissioner Ricks moved to recommend denial to the City Council of the request

to remove the property at 5025 South Highland Drive from Segment B and relocate it to

Segment A based on the following:

Finding:

1. The City needs more commercial uses like the NC zone, which is a better option in this

location. This adds variety to our commercial uses, and is more consistent with the

objective of the Holladay City Master Plan.

Commissioner Mackin seconded the motion. Vote on motion: Jim Carter-Aye, Marianne

Ricks-Aye, Alyssa Lloyd-Aye, Ann Mackin-Aye, John Garver-Aye, Chair Matt Snow-Nay. The

motion passed 5-to-1.

APPLICANT NARRATIVE REQUESTING

AMENDMENT

MAP OF AREA IN QUESTION FROM SEGMENT B

TO SEGMENT A – ROOTS NURSERY

CITY OF HOLLADAY

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-__

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AND RENEWAL TO AN AGREEMENT FOR

PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND

THE CITY OF HOLLADAY.

WHEREAS, Salt Lake County Public Works, on behalf of Salt Lake County, has

submitted a proposal to maintain and provide the necessary services for public works including

road maintenance, snow removal, sign, street light, and traffic signal maintenance, and other

miscellaneous related services as authorized in Exhibit A of the Agreement within the City of

Holladay (the “City”); and

WHEREAS, said services shall be conducted with the broad direction and supervision of

the City Manager and City Engineer; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to contract for said services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Holladay as

follows:

Section 1. Approval. The Mayor is authorized to execute the agreement for providing for

public works for Fiscal Year 2017/2018 as set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment and Renewal as

set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 15th

day of June, 2017.

HOLLADAY CITY COUNCIL

By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

[SEAL] VOTING: Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay

Mark Stewart Yea Nay

Sabrina R. Petersen Yea Nay

Patricia Pignanelli Yea Nay

Steven H. Gunn Yea Nay

Robert Dahle Yea Nay

2

ATTEST:

____________________________

Stephanie N. Carlson, MMC

DEPOSITED in the office of the City Recorder this 15th

day of June, 2017.

RECORDED this 15th

day of June, 2017.

CITY OF HOLLADAY

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-__

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT FOR THE 2017/2018 OVERLAY, CHIP SEAL AND

SLURRY PROGRAM SERVICES BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY

AND THE CITY OF HOLLADAY.

WHEREAS, Salt Lake County Public Works, on behalf of Salt Lake County, has

submitted a proposal to maintain and provide the necessary services for overlay, chip seal and

slurry program services as authorized in Exhibit A of the Agreement within the City of Holladay

(the “City”); and

WHEREAS, said services shall be conducted with the broad direction and supervision of

the City Manager and City Engineer; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to contract for said services.


follows:

Section 1. Approval. The Mayor is authorized to execute the agreement for providing for

overlay, chip seal and slurry program for Fiscal Year 2017/2018 as set forth in the Interlocal

Agreement attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.


day of June, 2017.


By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

[SEAL] VOTING: Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay

Mark Stewart Yea Nay





ATTEST:

____________________________


- 2 -


day of June, 2017.

RECORDED this 15th

day of June, 2017.

CITY OF HOLLADAY

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT

FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WITH SALT LAKE COUNTY

WHEREAS, City of Holladay (“Holladay”) and Salt Lake County (“County”) entered into

an Agreement for the provision of animal control services within Holladay commencing

October 1, 2010; and

WHEREAS, County has requested that the annual fee for the animal services be amended

and increased for FY 2017-2018; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of Holladay has reviewed such request and has included said

requested amount in the tentative budget for FY 2017-2018;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Holladay, Utah

as follows:

Section 1. Approval. The City Council of the City of Holladay hereby approves that

certain Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control Services, attached hereto as Exhibit A and

incorporated herein by reference. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement for

and in behalf of the City.

Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its

passage.


day of June, 2017.

By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

[SEAL] VOTING: Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay Mark H. Stewart Yea Nay

Sabrina R. Petersen Yea Nay Patricia Pignanelli Yea Nay



ATTEST:

_____________________________


City Recorder

DEPOSITED in the office of the City Recorder this 15

th day of June, 2017.

RECORDED this 15th

day of June, 2017.

CITY OF HOLLADAY

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-20

A RESOLUTION GRANTING ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE CITY

COUNCIL FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE

HISTORICAL COMMISSION AS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION

2.08010E OF THE HOLLADAY CITY CODE.

WHEREAS, the City Manager has the responsibility and authority pursuant to Section

2.08.010B, City of Holladay, Code of Ordinances to appoint individuals to various boards and

commissions; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager has appointed five members to serve as members of the

Historical Commission for staggered terms not to exceed three (3) years; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has the responsibility pursuant to Section 2.08.010 to give

advice and consent on all appointments to City boards and commissions; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has met in a regular session to consider these appointments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Holladay, Utah

as follows:

Section 1. Appointment. The City Council hereby gives advice and its consent to the

appointment of the following to the Historical Commission for a term as specified. Said term

shall be as follows:

Name Date Term Begins Date Term Ends

Tom Nelson (Chair) July 1, 2017 June 30, 2018

Barry Topham July 1, 2017 June 30, 2018

Sandy Meadows-Owens (Vice Chair) July 1, 2017 June 30, 2019

Doris Salmon July 1, 2017 June 30, 2018

Shari Sohm July 1, 2017 June 30, 2020

Ann Engar July 1, 2017 June 30, 2020

Linda Brubidge July 1, 2017 June 30, 2020


day of June, 2017.


By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

- 2 -

[SEAL] VOTING:

Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay Mark H. Stewart Yea Nay



Steven H. Gunn Yea Nay Robert Dahle Yea Nay

ATTEST:

____________________________



day of June, 2017.

RECORDED this 15th

day of June, 2017.

CITY OF HOLLADAY


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLADAY APPROVING

THAT CERTAIN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND

THE CITY RELATING TO BAILIFF AND SECURITY SERVICES

WHEREAS, the City of Holladay operates the Holladay Justice Court; and

WHEREAS, Salt Lake County Sherriff’s Office is willing and able to provide bailiff and

security services at the Holladay Justice Court; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Holladay has reviewed the Interlocal

Agreement with Salt Lake County and finds it is in the public interest and will promote the

public welfare to enter into the agreement with Salt Lake County;


follows:

1. Approval of Agreement. The City Council of the City of Holladay hereby

approves that certain Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake County and the City of Holladay

relating to bailiff and security services, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by

reference. The Mayor of the City of Holladay is hereby authorized to sign this Agreement on

behalf of the City.

2. Severability. If any section, part or provision of this Resolution is held invalid or

unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other portion of this

Resolution, and all sections, parts and provisions of this Resolution shall be severable.

3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its

approval by the City Council.

PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of July, 2017.


By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

- 2 -

[SEAL] VOTING:

Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay

Mark H. Stewart Yea Nay ___

Sabrina R. Petersen Yea Nay ___

Steven H. Gunn Yea Nay ___

Patricia Pignanelli Yea Nay ___

Robert Dahle Yea Nay ___

ATTEST:

_____________________________


City Recorder

DEPOSITED in the office of the City Recorder this ___ day of July, 2017.

RECORDED this ___ day of July, 2017.

CITY OF HOLLADAY


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLADAY APPROVING

THAT CERTAIN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND

THE CITY RELATING TO USE OF COUNTY RECREATION BOND FUNDS FOR

KNUDSEN NATURE PARK

WHEREAS, the City of Holladay has been awarded a grant from Salt Lake County to

provide for funding for the acquisition, construction and equipping of Knudsen Nature Park

within the City; and

WHEREAS, the City intends to use the funding provided by the Recreation Bond to

develop a new public park; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Holladay has reviewed the Interlocal

Agreement with Salt Lake County and finds it is in the public interest and will promote the

public welfare to enter into the agreement with Salt Lake County;


follows:

1. Approval of Agreement. The City Council of the City of Holladay hereby

approves that certain Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake County and the City of Holladay

relating to Recreation Bonds, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

The Mayor of the City of Holladay is hereby authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the

City.

2. Severability. If any section, part or provision of this Resolution is held invalid or

unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other portion of this

Resolution, and all sections, parts and provisions of this Resolution shall be severable.

3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its

approval by the City Council.

PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of July, 2017.


By: ____________________________________

Robert Dahle, Mayor

- 2 -

[SEAL] VOTING:

Lynn H. Pace Yea Nay

Mark H. Stewart Yea Nay ___

Sabrina R. Petersen Yea Nay ___

Steven H. Gunn Yea Nay ___

Patricia Pignanelli Yea Nay ___

Robert Dahle Yea Nay ___

ATTEST:

_____________________________


City Recorder

DEPOSITED in the office of the City Recorder this ___ day of July, 2017.

RECORDED this ___ day of July, 2017.

1

County Contract No. _________

District Attorney No. 2017-07876

INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT

By and between

SALT LAKE COUNTY

For its Parks and Recreation Division

and

THE CITY OF HOLLADAY

for

Knudsen Nature Park

THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and

entered into this ______ day of ____________________, 2017, by and between SALT LAKE

COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah on behalf of its Division of Parks

and Recreation (“County”), and the City of Holladay (“City”), a municipal corporation of the

State of Utah. The County and City are sometimes referred to as the “Parties.”

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Utah Code Ann. §11-13-202 provides that any two or more public

agencies may enter into an agreement with one another for joint or cooperative action; and

WHEREAS, County and City are public agencies as contemplated in the referenced

section of the Utah Code (more specifically referred to as Utah Code Ann. §11-13-101, et

seq., known as the Interlocal Cooperation Act).

WHEREAS, County operates a Parks and Recreation program (the “Program”) which is

2

intended to enhance resident and visitor experiences through recreational offerings;

WHEREAS, the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code

Annotated (the “Act”), provides that the County may issue bonds to finance the costs of

acquiring, improving or extending any improvements that it is authorized by law to acquire,

improve, or extend; and

WHEREAS, to fund the acquisition, construction, renovation, and equipping of parks and

recreation facilities and related improvements, County sought approval by voters in the

November 8, 2016 general election to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed

Ninety Million Dollars ($90,000,000) (the “Recreation Bonds); and

WHEREAS, to fulfill the purpose of the Recreation Bonds, County has solicited

applications from interested parties for funding parks and recreation projects; and

WHEREAS, City owns an approximately 7.5-acre parcel of open space located near the

intersection of Holladay Boulevard and 6200 South; and

WHEREAS, City submitted a Recreation Bonds Application (“Application”) requesting a

contribution of County Recreation Bonds funds in the amount of $2.7M to acquire the last .5 acre

parcel needed to develop a new public park on the above mentioned open space (“Facility”); and

WHEREAS, the County desires to utilize certain revenues from the Recreation Bonds for

City to acquire the parcel and develop the Facility; and

WHEREAS, City acknowledges and agrees to accept revenues from the Recreation Bond

to fund the purchase and development of its Facility;

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to establish their mutual rights

and responsibilities with regards to the funding, acquisition and development of the Facility.

3

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, mutual covenants and the

payments herein mentioned to be performed and paid, the Parties agree as follows:

1. The above stated recitals are hereby incorporated into the Agreement.

2. City shall acquire a .5 acre parcel at the Facility and develop the Facility as follows:

a. Cause to be constructed in a cost-efficient and high-quality manner a Park

consistent with the description in Exhibit 1, attached and incorporated herein by

reference;

b. Add approximately one mile of trails connecting to existing trails;

c. Restore 475 linear feet of Big Cottonwood Creek;

d. Cause to be constructed in a cost-efficient and high-quality manner amenities

including a playground, open lawn, pavilions with fire pits, picnic tables,

interactive education features such as a hand pump well, a fishing pond, preserved

oak forest, tree education node, wildlife education center, wildlife education node,

amphitheater, river education node, water mill education center, mill stone history

node with historic cabin and pioneer features, entrance monument and signage,

trailhead with transit kiosk, water access, restroom facilities, covered bridges,

regional overlook platform, bicycle racks, and onsite vehicle parking; and

e. Utilize xeriscaping, water-saving sod, and energy efficient lighting and restore

the riverbank whenever and wherever possible;

3. City shall manage all aspects of the purchase and development of the Facility, including

all bidding procedures and construction management. City will assure that the funds allocated

by the County for Facility purchase and development are spent on authorized project costs in

4

accordance with rules and regulations governing disposition of the Recreation Bonds’ funds.

4. City may not use any portion of the Bond proceeds for any “private business use” within

the meaning of Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code and no portion of the Bond Proceeds

shall be used to make any loans. City shall not transfer ownership to any portions of the Facility.

No portion of the Facility shall be leased or managed by a private person or company pursuant to

a management contract with the City. The City will notify the County prior to entering into a

contract for the sale, lease or management of the Facility to ensure that such agreement will not

adversely impact the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. The City shall keep records of the

expenditure of all Bond proceeds, and upon request of the County provide such accounting

records and annually confirm the use of the Bond financed Facility.

5. County shall pay City in an amount not to exceed Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand

Dollars ($2.7M) for the purchase and development of the Facility, pursuant to the terms of this

Agreement.

a. To receive payment from County, City shall submit periodic invoices to County

for expenses City has incurred to purchase, design, and construct the Facility as proposed in

Exhibit 1. Such invoices shall describe with particularity the items proposed in Exhibit 1 which

have been designed, constructed, or installed and for which City desires payment.

b. Upon receipt of an invoice as described in paragraph a. above, County shall have

30 calendar days to inspect the items identified in City’s invoice to ensure the work has been

completed consistent with Exhibit 1.

c. Upon County’s satisfaction that the work identified in City’s invoice has been

completed consistent with Exhibit 1, County shall issue City a payment for the invoice, no later

than 45 days after its receipt.

5

6. County shall not be liable to City for any extra costs or overruns on the Facility purchase

and development, or any additional funding in excess of the total amount stated above, without a

prior written amendment to this Agreement.

7. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall terminate three

(3) years thereafter.

8. Amendment. This Agreement may only be modified or terminated prior to the end of its

term by written amendment, signed by both Parties.

9. Indemnification.

a. City agrees to protect, defend, release, indemnify and hold harmless County, and

any affiliates, successors, contractors, officers, trustees, agents and employees of County from

and against any and all losses arising out of or resulting from: (1) the design, engineering, or

construction of the Facility; (2) the use or operation of the Facility by City’s officers, directors,

employees, invitees, or the public at large; (3) negligence in the operation or use of Facility by

City or any employees, principals, contractors or agents of City; or (4) City’s breach of any

provision of this Agreement.

b. Except to the extent that County’s negligence was a contributing factor to losses

incurred by City, City hereby releases County from, and agrees not to seek recourse against

County with respect to, any claims, damages, fees, expenses or other losses proximately caused

by third persons arising out of or resulting from (1) the design, engineering, or construction of

the Facility; (2) the use or operation of the Facility by City’s officers, directors, employees,

invitees or the public at large

c. The provisions of this Paragraph 9 shall survive the termination of this

Agreement.

6

10. Authority of Signators. The Parties represent that the person executing this instrument on

their behalf has the authority to do so and the authority to bind that Party.

11. Notices. All notices and other communications, provided for in this Agreement, shall be

in writing and shall be sufficient for all purposes if personally delivered or mailed by certified or

registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested postage prepaid, and addressed to the respective

Party at the address set forth below or at such addresses as such Party may hereafter designate by

written notice to the other Party.

To the County: Director - Division of Parks and Recreation

2001 South State Street, S4 700

Salt Lake City. Utah 84114

and

Contracts Administrator

Salt Lake County

2001 South State, Suite, N4 500

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

To the City: Gina Chamness, City Manager

City of Holladay

4580 South 2300 East

Holladay, Utah 84117

12. Interlocal Cooperation Act.

a. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 11-13-206, the Parties agree that no new entity is

created by the provisions of this Agreement.

b. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 11-13-207, the Parties agree that the cooperative

undertaking under this Agreement shall be administered by a joint board consisting of the

County’s designee and the City’s designee. The joint board shall meet as needed to review the

7

operation of this Agreement. To the extent necessary, voting will be based upon one vote per

Party, pursuant to U.C.A. § 11-13-206(1)(g).

c. This Agreement will not take effect until: (a) it has been approved by both Parties,

as required by Utah Code Ann. §§ 11-13-202(2), it has been submitted to the attorney authorized

to represent each Party for review as to proper form and compliance with law, as required by

Utah Code Ann. § 11-13-203, and (c) it has been filed with the keeper of records of each Party,

as required by Utah Code Ann. § 11-13-209.

13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of

which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same

instrument.

[Signature page to follow]

8

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County have caused this agreement to be

duly executed as of the dates indicated below.

SALT LAKE COUNTY

By: _______________________________

Mayor, Salt Lake County

Date: _____________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND

LEGALITY

By: _______________________________

MEGAN L. SMITH

Salt Lake County Deputy District Attorney

CITY OF HOLLADAY

By: _______________________________

City Manager

Date: _____________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND

LEGALITY

By: _______________________________

Name:_____________________________

Date:______________________________

Page 1 of 3

City of Holladay

Helping Hands of Holladay Awards Celebrating spirited champions, selfless volunteers, and quiet heroes of Holladay.

Program Information

The Helping Hands of Holladay Awards Program is an annual recognition process sponsored by the Holladay City Council to commemorate and publicly recognize a maximum of 3 individuals, groups, organizations, and/or businesses that are actively helping make Holladay great through acts of volunteerism, service, and leadership. Award recipients are celebrated for their community contributions in a variety of areas, including, but not limited to, education, low-income assistance, youth mentorship, arts and culture, senior services, public safety, health and recreation, refugee support, compassionate service, historic preservation, and environmental sustainability.

Holladay celebrates the spirited champions, selfless volunteers, and less-known, quiet contributors that have and continue to make a difference in our City. Their helping hands are an inspiration and example to all, reminding us of the importance to give back, do more, and be more!

Criteria

The following criteria must be met for the volunteer to receive consideration for a “Helping Hands” Award:

• Nominators may not nominate themselves.

• Nominees work must directly benefit City of Holladay residents; no age limit.

• Nominee’s contributions must take place within the City of Holladay city limits or benefit City of Holladay residents.

• Nominee efforts must be volunteer, non-compensated, and not part of regular employment.

• The nomination must reflect the actual accomplishments achieved through voluntary service.

• Nominator may submit one application for an individual, group, organization, or business per annual award cycle.

• Nominator must provide contact information to enable the Award Selection Committee to follow-up, if needed.

• At least 2 references must be provided on application to verify scope and extent of nominee's activities.

General Annual Award Selection Timeline

January Call for Nominees

February Application Deadline

Staff Preliminary Review

March Committee Meeting (1x)

March Award recipient(s) update provided at City Council Meeting

April Formal Award(s) presented to recipient(s) at City Council Meeting (Coinciding with National Volunteer Week)

In addition to City Council recognition, award recipient(s) also featured in the City’s monthly newsletter, on social media, and/or in a press release.

For additional information, please contact [name] at [email address] or [telephone number].

Page 2 of 3

City of Holladay

Helping Hands of Holladay Awards Celebrating spirited champions, selfless volunteers, and quiet heroes of Holladay.

NOMINATION FORM Click here to enter a date.

Nominee Information (required)

Name Click here to enter text.

Street Address Click here to enter text.

City ST ZIP Code Click here to enter text.

Home Phone Click here to enter text.

Cell Phone Click here to enter text.

E-Mail Address Click here to enter text.

Volunteer Role Click here to enter text.

Area(s) of the nominee’s volunteer work within the City of Holladay or efforts made on behalf of Holladay residents. (Mark all that apply.)

education arts and culture health and rec environment

low-income assistance senior services refugee support community service

youth mentorship public safety historic preservation OTH:

Nominator Information (required)





Work Phone Click here to enter text.


Relationship to Nominee Click here to enter text.

Additional Nominee Reference 1 (required)








Additional Nominee Reference 2 (required)








Page 3 of 3

Description of Nominee’s Volunteer Work (required)

In the space provided, describe the nominee’s community service activities and demonstrate how those activities address the needs of the community, group or individual residents. Include information on how this volunteer has and continues to make an ongoing, sustained impact. Summarize the nominee’s volunteer contributions including details such as, but not limited to, the individuals/groups served, volunteer time (date/year service commenced, service hours per week, or total service hours per project), future plans of continued service, quotes from beneficiaries/ co-

volunteers/etc. Nominee efforts must be volunteer, non-compensated, and not part of regular employment.

Click here to enter text.

Supplemental Information (optional)

Attach letters of support, photographs, news articles, and other documents to highlight the nominee’s volunteer work. Please limit supplemental information to 5 items.

THANKS!

Thank you for your nomination and your interest in recognizing the good works of others in our community. The City Council Award Selection Committee will evaluate all nominations received. Award recipients to be announced at a future meeting of the Holladay City Council; details posted on the City of Holladay website, www.cityofholladay.com.

City of Holladay

Helping Hands of Holladay Awards Celebrating spirited champions, selfless volunteers, and quiet heroes of Holladay

Awardee Selection Process

General Annual Award Selection Timeline

December Award Selection Committee Formed

City Staff Program Coordinator Identified

January Call for Nominees

February Application Deadline

Staff Preliminary Review

March Committee Meeting (1x)

March Award recipient(s) update provided at City Council Meeting

April Formal Award(s) presented to recipient(s) at City Council Meeting (Coinciding with National Volunteer Week)

Detailed Process

1. Determine the 4-member Award Selection Committee, potentially including #2 City Council members and #2 citizen representatives. A member of City staff will serve as the selection process point-of-contact and program coordinator.

2. City of Holladay staff issues a call for nominees via the City’s website, newsletter, social media, and email blasts. The nomination form (PDF-fillable format) made available on the City’s website.

3. Nominations are due approximately 4 weeks from the date of call for nominations, in early February. Nominations are directed to the staff program coordinator.

4. Staff program coordinator performs a preliminary review to verify nominee information.

5. Staff program coordinator provides a summary of nominees, including preliminary review notes, and copy of all nomination materials to the Committee for review prior to their meeting. Each Committee member provides their top 3 nominees at the March meeting for full group consideration.

6. Committee meets in early March to review recommendations for awards and determine final awardee list. It is anticipated that a maximum of 3 awards will be given annually, depending on the volume of nominations received and quality of candidates. Committee also approves the type of award item given to recipient(s) and reviews the wording of the award engraving and the award notification letter.

7. Recommended award recipient(s) update provided at a City Council Meeting in March.

8. Staff program coordinator prepares a letter from the Committee to notify recipient(s) of their award that provides details for the City Council meeting for the formal presentation. Staff confirms recipient(s) attendance at award presentation.

9. Staff program coordinator works with a vendor to acquire award item(s) with engravings.

10. Formal award(s) presented to recipient(s) at a City Council Meeting in April, ideally, to coincide with National Volunteer Week.

11. In addition to City Council recognition, award recipient(s) also featured in the City’s monthly newsletter, on social media, and/or in a press release.

12. Lessons learned from the pilot year of the award program are recorded and adjustments made for the next annual process.

Documents

Request Applicant : Myron Child : 17-6-01 Provided per …HDMP). This plan recognizes the continued evolution of the area surrounding Highland Drive as part of the City’s lifecycle