City Council · 2015-08-25

CITY OF OREM 
CITY COUNCIL MEETING 
56 North State Street Orem, Utah 
August 25, 2015 
3:30 P.M. WORK SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
Mayor Richard F. Brunst 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 
Sumner 
Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy 
City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services 
Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, 
Public Works Director; Brett Larsen, Fire Marshall; Gary 
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, 
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; 
Paul Goodrich, Traffic Engineer; Sam Kelly, Engineer; 
Neal Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed Price, 
Maintenance Division Manager; Ryan Clark, Economic 
Development Division Manager; Brandon Stocksdale, 
Long Range Planner; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City 
Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager 
UPDATE - Crime Analytics Program 
Chief Giles introduced the City Council to the Crime Analytics program used by the Orem 
Police Department to track and monitor criminal activities throughout the city. The program 
could be accessed at www.raidsonline.com for public use, t…ough for obvious reasons certain
criminal activities were not available for the public to monitor. Icons on thr map didn't identify 
specific addresses to avoid target or embarrass people. Chief Giles said "pelican" boxes placed at 
specific intersections could remotely monitor traffic while blending in at the site. That enabled 
officers to identify traffic conditions in specific are'as for times of higher traffic speeds. It was a 
more efficient use of officers' time. He said these w†re especiall,Y_ helpful in school zones . 
.  
Mr. Andersen asked about the level of specificity the information could, provide, for example if it 
" 
l 
, 
i 
detailed whether vehicular accidents were related to drugs or alcohol.- Chief Giles said that would 
require a different level of inquiry from the system. He said he believed some vehicular accidents 
were drug- or alcohol-related, but not a majority. 
Chief Giles said his goal was for officers to improve "problem areas" for traffic and reduce the 
number of traffic accidents in the city. 
Mr. Andersen asked how many traffic tickets were written a day, and Chief Giles said anywhere 
from 80 to 120 tickets a month, depending on the specific targeting the traffic unit was doing at 
City Council Minutes - August 25, 2015 (p. I) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
the time. They were looking to solve problem behaviors to reduce the number of traffic 
accidents. 
REPORT - Victim Advocates 
Renee Flitton, Victim Advocate with the City of Orem Police Department, presented a report of 
the Victim Advocates program. She said Utah County was a fortunate place to live, as there were 
many resources available for victims of crime. The Children's Justice Center (CJC), located in 
Provo, was a great resource for the crimes involving children and minors. She shared a video 
presentation titled "Help Stop Child Abuse in Utah County - Children's Justice Center". The 
video could be found on www.youtube.com. 
Mrs. Crozier said Orem had a Jong history with .the CJC and some CDBG funding went to them. 
She reiterated the point made in the video that the facility was the responsibility of the 
community. The CJC had many community events and were always appreciative pf Orem's 
contributions. She said the CJC was a quality, Jong-term agency in the community and she could 
not think of a better group of professionals to help children. 
Mayor Bruns! asked where the CJC was located. Ms. Flitton said about 300 South I 00 East in 
Provo, but made services available for the whole county. The Division of Family and Child 
Services (DCFS) also met with children at the CJC. There were many volunteers who helped at 
the CJC, and there were counseling groups that worked with children at night. 
Mr. Andersen asked how many children were there on a regular basis. 
Ms. Flitton said they were never there over-night; if DCFS deemed that a child's situation was 
not acceptable, they set them up in. foster care situations. Ms. Flitton said only a few weeks ago 
Orem' s sex crime unit had twelve referrals .on one day. The unfortunate truth was that the crimes 
against children were present in the community, but there were great resources available to try 
and help these children gain some normalcy in their Jives. Ms. Flitton said there were other 
grants similar to Orem's Victim Advocates program that were federal grants allocated by the 
state. 
UPDATE- Dog Park Location 
Mr. Hirst said there was a Jot of public interest in building a dog park in Orem, as Provo's dog 
park was very popular. He received many phone calls a week from dog owners interested in 
having an Orem dog park. He said it would not be easy picking .the right spot for what people 
were calling "Orem's Bark Park", because there were pros and cons to each location and many 
differing opinions. He said the Recreation Advisory Commission (RAC) had looked at many 
proposed locations and he was now presenting their top recommendations. The RAC looked 
specifically at not taking away any flat grass areas that could be used for baseball, soccer, 
lacrosse, etc. as well as looking for adequate parking and water connections for fountains. Mr. 
Hirst.mentioned some of the RAC recommendations as follows: 
•
Bonneville Park
o
Pros:
•
Not located near school
•
Bathrooms close
•
Playground nearby
City CoWicil Minutes - August 25, 2015 (p2) 
'I 



o
Cons:
•
Issues with retention pond flooding
•
Limits open space for sports activities
•
Sharon Park
o
Pros:
•
Central location.
•
Mature trees
•
Park lighting in area
o
Cons:
•
Center of a trail
•
Often used for soccer
■
Not convenient for parking
•
Windsor Park
o
Pros:
•
Adequate parking
•
Interesting terrain and some mature trees
■
Screened from school
o
Cons:
•
Often programmed for sports
•
Hill would push park toward pavilion
•
Cascade Park - highly recommended
o
Pros:
•
Bathrooms nearby as well as pavilion and playground
•
Lent itself to culinary water connection
•
Mature trees
•
Lights in place
•
More than adequate parking
o
Cons:
•
Proximity to eastside neighbors
Mr. Hirst said thti shape of the identified dog park area at Cascade Park provided for small and 
large dog areas. He reiterated that each suggested location had pros and cons, but they were 
trying to look for a location that would be the most workable. 
Mayor Bruns! asked what would go into. the dog park. 
Mr. Hirst said it would include: 
•
A six-foot fence around the outside for the large dog area
•
A four-foot fence around the small dog area
•
.Water fountains for both the owners and the dogs
•
Entrances would have "double-double'' doors to keep the dogs from getting out of the
fenced areas
•
With further fundraising they could install benches and canine exercise equipment
Mrs. Black asked about using the alternative space identified at Cascade Park and whether it 
would be possible to move the ball field into the other area. She expressed concern about the 
proximity to homes. 
City Council Minutes - August 25, 2015 (pJ) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Hirst said the. alternative spot would move the ball field but the other area would be very 
tight to have a ball field in. The alternative spot would also be closer to the school. He 
understood the concerns about the homes but thought the lots were deep enough to provide some 
natural buffers, and most had their own landscaping screens. They could include more trees and 
hedges to shield the dog park on the east side. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if they would move the playground, and Mr. Hirst said they would not. 
Mr. Sumner asked about the budget to build and maintain this p!![k. 
Mr. Hirst said they had allocated $75,000 to build. The maintenance for that kind of park was a 
little more intensive than a park with a playground. 
Mayor Brunst asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Hirst said he would first get direction 
from the Council as to the location. Once they had the greenlight from the Council, the City 
would send the project out to bid. 
Mr. Downs said much of the feedback about the dog park had been positive. He reiterated Mr. 
Hirst' s point that no one park was an obvious location so some concerns had been voiced. 
Mayor Brunst asked about parking. Mr. Hirst said he anticipated a parking situation similar to 
Provo's dog park, which generally had between fifteen and twenty cars. 
Mr. Seastrand asked how the neighbors felt about this proposed location. 
Sid Sandberg, resident in the Cascade neighborhood, asked that the Council table the discussion 
to allow for input from the neighbors in the proposed dog park area. He said having a dog park 
against his backyard was not what he had in mind when he bought his home. He did not believe a 
dog park would be a favorable amenity to the neighborhood. 
Mr. Hirst said they were looking for the Council to narrow down the location possibilities, and 
then they would move forward with notifying the neighbors and getting necessary feedback. 
Mr. Sumner asked about Palisade Park as a potential location. 
Mr. Hirst said they planned to build the splash pad at Palisade Park, and a dog park would take 
up a lot of area there. He also advised it would not be wise to put too many attractions into one 
park. He said he would provide the Council with the finer points of the RAC discussion and 
would look to them for further guidance. 
DISCUSSION - Utility Service Plan 
Mr. Downs said the agreements were still being finalized, but when they were ready they would 
bring the agreement to the Council at the September 8, 2015 City Council meeting. 
Mayor Brunst said he spoke to the CEO of Utility Service Partners, Inc. and learned that they 
were partnered with cities like Atlanta, Phoenix, and San Diego to name a few. The CEO 
mentioned they typically had about ten to fifteen percent sign up in a City. The Macquarie Group 
was an investor in their company, but had no say in any of their operations. Mayor Brunst said he 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.4) 



was not certain if Utility Service Partners, Inc. had a reinsurance group. He said they sent out 
only four mailers/fliers a year but helped educate residents as to what responsibilities they had 
•• 
with their utility connections. He thought this was a good program where people could sign up if 
they wanted an!! could cancel service at any time to seek out other options. 
Mrs. Black said there was an RFP done by the City looking for this kind of service, and she 
asked how many respondents there were to that RFP. 
Mr. Downs said there had been three respondents to the RFP. The City used BidSync to advertise 
the RFP, as well as listing the notice in the newspaper. He said there were a few specialized 
groups that offered these services for this magnitude. The partnership with Utility Service 
Partners, Inc. would ensure that any mailers being sent with the Orem logo were approved first 
by the City. He said the education to the residents was invaluable for the City and working 
together they could potentially solve specific concerns for Orem residents. 
DISCUSSION - Southwest Annexation 
Mr. Bench reviewed with the Council the process for the evening session's discussion about the 
proposed Southwest Annexation. He provided an outline explaining the sequence of events for 
the items on the agenda. 
Mr. Macdonald asked about further discussions with the developers about potential options that 
would work for their proposed projects. 
Mr. Bench said the PD zones would take away available ERUs in the remaining area. General 
Plan approval was a guideline, but a PD zone could still be adopted. He said there would be 
development agreements between the City and the developers, as well as a pioneering 
agreement, that would require them to install the necessary infrastructure. 
Mayor Brunst asked for clarification on the pioneering agreement. He also asked if Jeff Mansell, 
developer for the proposed PD-43 zone, was willing to pay for the initial infrastructure and then 
be reimbursed through impact fees. 
Mr. Bench said the pioneering agreement would reflect one or both of the developers depending 
on the Council's decisions on previous items. The pioneering agreement would also speak to the 
developer's responsibilities about installation of infrastructure and how the reimbursement 
through impact fees would work. 
Mr. Andersen said he wanted to address a statement from the culinary water report that Lewis 
and Young put out. "Orem City analyzed the water storage system and determined that there is 
no excess capacity which can be utilized by the annexation area. A new storage tank could be 
built to service the area, but the state storage requirements can also be met by constructing a new 
well in the area. The new well would be more cost effective and would still satisfy the state 
requirements. The City has chosen to pursue this course of action." He said a well would need to 
be built, and he thought that cost should also be covered by the developers. 
Mr. • Winterton said a well in that area would serve existing Orem area needs as well as the 
Southwest Annexation area. The two wells listed in the Master Plan were not required solely for 
the annexation area. 
CityCow,cil Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.5) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Fred Philpot, with Lewis and Young, said the Impact Fee Analysis did include well construction, 
with the well in the annexation area estimated for $1.25 million with additional distribution to 
get the total of approximately $3 million of infrastructure costs. Storage was being accounted for 
through the acquisition and construction of a well. If there was an agreement in place that the 
developer fund that cost, that would be a separate agreement and the impact fee in that case 
would be a reimbursement mechanism. 
Mr. Mansell said the construction of a well was not factored in to what the developers would 
pay. The proposal was that developers would put in the infrastructure to 'bring sewer, water, and 
storm drain down to the area and if there was an overage on that cost versus the impact fees, the 
additional impact fees would go toward additional improvements to the overall system. It would 
be paid for long-term through the impact fees, but it was not specifically identified in the number 
the developers had. 
Mr. Bench said these developers were not exclusively responsible for the build out of 
infrastructure in the area, but the infrastructure would be built out over time. 
Mr. Andersen said the storage and the water issue needed to be addressed and the $3 million 
would need to be added into the costs. Mr. Winterton said the City needed the well either way for 
strategic operational needs, and Mayor Brunst added that impact fees would pay for the capacity 
as units came online. 
Mr. Philpot said it may be a matter of borrowing capacity. The impact fee was about 
proportionality, making sure the new developments paid their fair share for infrastructure costs. 
With an annexation area there was the potential to use existing resources· to get the area 
"started", but the impact fees were still proportionate to allow new development. This had excess 
capacity; it was not being given to the annexation area. In the short-term some of the excess 
capacity may be utilized for the development to come online and as infrastructure was built 
through impact fees that infrastructure then replaced the borrowing of excess capacity. For the 
purpose of the calculation of impact fees they were including the I 00 percent cost of all new 
infrastructure, rather than taking an average of excess capacity versus future facility costs. 
Mayor Brunst said the report was not saying the City did not have excess capacity. It was saying 
that the capacity was not planned long-term for this facility, and the impact fees would pay for it. 
Mr. Bybee said the excess capacity could not subsidize the rate of the impact fee because a level 
of service had to be maintained for the new growth areas. 
Mr. Philpot said the impact fee included costs of $1.25 million for a well in the annexation area. 
If that cost was actually $3 million for just the well, then the impact fee would need to be 
updated. He believed that amount accounted for total construction costs for distribution lines and 
fire hydrants. The $ 1.25 million was. included in the impact fees; they were not borrowing or 
utilizing any excess capacity to offset the cost. The City needed to be aware that as development 
and capital cost realities came to fruition the impact fees might need to be adjusted to capture 
accurate costs. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.6) 



Mayor Brunst said the City adjusted. fees every year in the budget according to need. He said the 
City would. not be stuck with the cost of the well, but it would be paid for through impact fees as 
development occurred. 
Mr. Winterton reiterated that the City needed the well, and with the impact fees in the annexation 
area coming on!ine current residents would not have to help pay for the well, but new 
development would pay for it. 
Mr. Seastrand said the City was trying to utilize capacity effectively, utilize water shares 
effectively, and manage the rt;source effectively. 
Mayor Bruhst said the storage tank only covered 22 million gallons, and during summer months 
the City went through 60 million gallons a day. There was storage by the hour. In the winter, 10 
million gallons were used. Regardless of anything going on in the annexation area, there was 
great need to build another storage tank. 
Mrs. Black stated that the well was needed in the area, even if the area was not annexed. This 
was a means to receive help in paying for needs in the area. 
Ken Olsen, working with the McDougal project, said the McDougal property was an integral part 
in looping the sixteen inch water line through the area. The major expense would be on the 
developers and not the City. 
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 
CONDUCTING 
ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
Mayor Richard F .. Brunst 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 
Sumner 
Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy 
City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services 
Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl 
Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works 
Director; Brett Hansen, Fire Marshall; Gary Giles, Police 
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; 
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Sam Kelly, 
Engineer; Neal Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed 
Price, 
Maintenance 
Division 
Manager; 
Brandon 
Stocksdale, Long Range Planner; Steven Downs, Assistant 
to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City 
Recorder 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager 
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items 
Staffpresented a preview of upcoming agenda items, 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.7) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Agenda Review 
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda. 
City Council New Business 
Mr. Bybee said they had improved the application process for those interested in serving on an 
advisory board or commission. He shared.the updated application with the Council. 
Mayor Bruns! said a flier recently distributed by Mr. Andersen was not from the City, but from 
Mr. Andersen alone. The Mayor also·referred Mr. Andersen to consult the Candidates Guide as 
far as parking his camP,aign van in front of the City Center. 
Mr. Earl said the City's sign ordinance said a vehicle sign was allowed unless it was used for the 
purpose of displaying advertising. He said using a vehicle with signs on it during the ordinary 
course of one's business was fine, but parking at busy intersection with no other purpose than to 
advertise was illegal. 
Mayor Brunst gave a brief.update about meetings with the Utah County Clerk's Office and the 
City about the special election November 2015 and using the Vote By Mail system for Orem. 
Mr. Andersen asked if anyone was interested in discussing a change of government for the City. 
Mayor Bruns! said he thought there would be better times to discuss that. 
The Council adjourned at 5:51 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting. 
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 
CONDUCTING 
. ELECTED OFFICIALS 
APPOINTED STAFF 
EXCUSED 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.8) 
Mayor Richard F. Bruns!, Jr. 
Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent 
Sumner 
Brenn Bybee, Assistant City Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy 
City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services 
Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl 
Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works 
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary 
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier, 
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; 
Sam Kelly, Engineer; Neal Winterton, Water Division 
Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager; 
Heather Schriever, Deputy City Attorney; Brandon 
Stocksdale, Long Range Planner; Steven Downs, Assistant 
to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City 
Recorder 
Jamie Davidson, City Manager 



INVOCATION I
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
Paul Mulliner 
Noah Leafgren 
Mr. Sumner moved to approve the June 24, 2015, Joint City Council/Alpine School District 
meeting minutes. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, 
Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, ·Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent 
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFEhD BY COUNCIL 
Upcoming Events 
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet. 
Appointments to Boards and Commissions 
Mrs. Black moved to appoint Barry Merrell and John Reinhard to the Arts Council. 
Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard 
F. • Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
I 
Mrs. Black moved to appoint Sheralyn Bennett and Chelsie Young to the Beautification 
I
Advisory Commission. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, 
Margaret Black, Richard F. • Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent 
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
Mrs. Black moved to reappoint Paul Crossett to the Recreation Advisory Commission. 
Mr. Seastrand secon_ded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard 
F.
Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action Officers 
Mr. Seastrand moved to appoint Lance King as the Lakeridge neighborhood chair. Mrs. Black 
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, 
Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed 
unanimously. 
CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENTS 
Appointments to Boards.and Commissions 
There were no appointments to boards and commissions. 
PERSONAL AJ>PEARANCES 
City Council Minutes - August 25, 2015 (p,9) I 



I 
I 
I 
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on 
the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments 
were limited to three minutes or less. 
May Gossard, resident, expressed concern about declining conditions in her neighborhood due to 
many rentals. She said there should be business license requirements for rentals. She said this 
was not the first time she had come before the City on this issue. She felt the Neighborhood 
Preservation Unit officers needed additional help as well. 
Curtis Wood, resident, said he wanted to address the proposed e-cigarette ban. He said two 
phone calls were creating a new ordinance banning e-cigarettes, which exhaled vapor. Vapor was 
water in a mist form. He said he had many suggestions for other new laws, because apparently it 
only took two phone calls to get the ball rolling. His opinion. was that this proposed law was 
stupid. 
Sharon Anderson, resident, said she attended the utility open house about the proposed utility fee 
increases and use of smart meters. She distributed a flier to the Council detailing some of her 
concerns. She voiced concern about one Council member who became angry over her flier. She 
said some of her information came from numbers in the City's newsletter, so if her information 
was wrong so was the City's. She urged the Council to learn more about the matter and consider 
how to treat residents. 
Kathy Young, resident, spoke in opposition to a utility fee increase. She shared some neighbors' 
comments on the matter. It would be a great hardship on the families of the City because they 
could not afford the increases. 
Barbara Petty, resident, said she wanted consideration for the people who needed mercy the 
most. She asked if the utility fee increases were adding to or easing financial burdens on the 
Orem residents. She shared statistics about the poverty level in Orem, saying more than one in 
six was living below the poverty line. She said scriptures reminded us of the need to protect the 
needs of the poor and appealed to the compassionate side of the Council to think of the people 
who would be burdened by the increases. 
CONSENT ITEMS 
There were no Consent Items. 
SCHEDULED ITEMS 
MOTION Canvass and Certification 2015 Municipal Primary Election Results 
Donna Weaver, City Recorder, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council complete 
the canvass and, by motion, certify the 2015 Municipal Primary Election results. Pursuant to 
State law, it is necessary for the City Council, as the _Board of Canvassers, to canvass the election 
no sooner than fourteen days after the completion. of the ballot. After the canvassing has been 
completed, it will be necessary for the Council to officially certify the results -of the Canvass. 
Mrs. Weaver said the Vote By Mail (VBM) effort was a phenomenal success, with 
approximately 25% voter turnout. Voter turnout was better than even the 2013 General Election 
City Cow,cil Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p.10) 



turnout which had a mayoral race and two money issues on the ballot. She said the post office 
assured her that they had done everything they could to help the ballots be returned in a timely I
manner. She noted that there was some push to canvass earlier, and she while she recognized the 
tough situation it was for candidates to wait for the canvass there were state law requirements 
that a canvass could not be conducted prior to thirteen days a,fter the election. The idea was to 
allow for military and overseas voters enough time to postmark and return their ballots so those 
voters were not disenfranchised. :Mrs. Weaver noted that the manner of counting the ballots was 
the same method used in previous years with optical scanners. One thing done in the canvass was 
reviewing the preliminary figures, and i.t was found that the Excel spreadsheet that .was used to 
input figures had a small error where :Mr. Grierson's numbers were duplicated in one precinct. A 
few input typos were found and corrected, and the Excel formula was corrected. She said they 
were able to count 1,383 additional ballots, including provisional ballots cast by in-person voters 
that may not have received a mailǮd ballot or needed to correct their address information. 
Mrs. Black moved that the City Council: 
I.
Ratify the following changes to the preliminary results:
•
Lorne Grierson from 2593 to 2215
•
Jessica Joy Street from 980 to 969
•
Tai Riser from 3083 to 3084
•
Claude C. Richards from 2312 to 2311
2.
Certify the election results with the following changes:
Mark Seastrand ......................... .4678 ......................... 5433 
Hans V. Andersen ...................... 3761 ......................... 4445 
Debby Laure! ............................. 3630 ......................... 4257 
Tai Riser ..................................... 3084 ......................... 3635 
Sam Lentz .................................. 2768 ......................... 3279 
Claude C. Richards .................... 2311 ......................... 2778 
Lom:e Grierson ........................... 2215 ......................... 2684 
CurtisWood ............................... 1369 ......................... 1580 
Jessica Joy Street ......................... 969 ......................... 1084 
Shirl Joseph Finch ........................ 855 ........................... 965 
3.
Declare 4-year term City Council candidates Mark Seastrand, Hans V. Andersen, Debby
Laure!, Tai Riser, Sam Lentz, and Claude C. Richards to. be nominated to the General
Municipal Election on November 3, 2015.
Mayor Bruns! seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, 
Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David .Spencer, Brent Sumner. The 
motion passed unanimously. 
ORDINANCE - Amend Section 13-1ǯ1 of the Orem City Code to define electronic 
cigarette and to prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes on City-owned property or at mass 
gatherings 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.l I) 
I 
1-



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Hirst, Recreation Director, recommended that the City Council, by ordinance, amend 
Section 13-1-1 of the Orem City Code to define electronic cigarette and prohibit the use of 
electronic cigarettes on City-owned property or at mass gatherings. 
The City currently prohibited the use or smoking of arty lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any 
kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment on City-owned property and at mass gatherings. In 
recent years, there had been a dramatic increase in the use and sale of electronic cigarettes or e­
cigarettes. An electronic cigarette was a battery-powered device that atomized a nicotine­
containing solution that the consumer inhaled similar to a conventional cigarette. 
During the 2015 legislation session, the Utah State Legislature' enacted laws that regulated the 
• manufacturing of e-juice (the nicotinescontaining solution that was vaporized when an electronic
cigarette was inhaled) and the sale of electronic cigarettes, equipment, and supplies.
Additionally, the Utah State Legislature had banned the use of electronic cigarettes in the same
indoor areas where smoking was prohibited. See Utah Indoor Clean Air Act, title 26, chapter 38
of the Utah Code.
Like the smoking of traditional cigarettes, the use of electronic cigarettes may pose significant
health threats to those using the electronic cigarettes and those in close proximity. In recent
months, the Director of Recreation had received a number of complaints about the use of
electronic cigarettes on City-owned property or during mass gatherings.
To protect the health and safety of residents and those who visit City-owned property and
participate in mass gatherings, the Director of Recreation recommended that the Orem City .
Council prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes on City-owned property and at mass gatherings
to the same extent those prohibitions apply to traditional cigarettes. Mr. Hirst gave some time to
Jackie Larson with the Utah County Department of Public Health.
Ms. Larson shared some concerns and recommendations from the County about e-cigarettes. It
could send a confusing message to have smoking banned but using e-cigarettes, or vaping,
allowed in certain areas. Police were beginning to warn of people using e-cigarettes to smoke
other things, like marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, forms of LSD, etc., in the public eye. Teen usage
of e-cigarettes in Utah had tripled from 2011 to 2013, and it was a reasonable assumption that
number had gone up since 2013. The key ingredient in an e-cigarette was nicotine, which had
been proven to be toxic and could change the physical chemistry of a brain. Youth were more
sensitive to nicotine, and tended to become more dependent more quickly. According to the
Journal of American Medical Association, e-cigarettes were a gateway to regular cigarettes. The
vapor being exhaled from an e-cigarette was not water vapor, but an aerosol. When the products
were combusted it could change the chemistry of the compounds and research had found
formaldehyde and other harmful chemicals like lead in the aerosol. Nicotine could still be
absorbed from second-hand vapor. While some people used e-cigarettes as a tool to quit
smoking, research found that the majority of e-cigarette users were also smoking regular
cigarettes, making them dual users. The Utah County Department of Public Health was
recommending the ban of e-cigarettes for these reasons.
Mayor Brunst said he was aware of the issue of other drugs being used in e-cigarettes, and
thought this was an important issue. He asked if there was a standard by which compounds used
in e-cigarettes were regulated.
City Council Minutes - August 25, 2015 (pJ2) 



Ms. Larson said there was very little, if any, regulation on the manufacturing of the chemical I
compounds. In a study the Salt Lake County Health Department had conducted, they found that 
60 percent of labels were incorrect as to how much nicotine was in a given product. The various 
"flavors" available were also considered respiratory'irritants in many cases. 
Mrs. Schriever said the ordinance before the Council was to adopt the State's definition of an 
electronic cigarette into Chapter 13 of the Orem City Code, and to include e-cigarettes as one of 
the means of smoking that would be prohibited on city property and at mass gatherings. 
Mr. Sumner asked for clarification on whether having cigarettes or e-cigarettes in one's 
possession were banned. Mrs. Schriever said cigarettes or e-cigarettes were banned if they were 
lit or combustible. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance,. to amend Section 13-1-1 of the Orem City Code to define 
electronic cigarette and to prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes on City-owned property or at 
mass gatherings. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard 
F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Breht Sumner. Those voting
nay: Hans Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-Storm Water Utility 
ORDINANCE - Rename and amend Chapter 23 of the Orem City Code - Storm Water 
Utility Ordinance and amend Chapters 17 and 22 to implement amendments to Chapter 23 
Mr. Price recommended that the City Council, by ordinance, amend and rename Chapter 23 of 
the Orem City Code - Storm Water Utility and make correlative changes to Chapters 17 and 22 
of the Orem City Code. 
In 1996, the Orem City Council enacted Chapter 23 of the Orem City Code establishing a Storm 
Sewer Utility. Chapter 23 established a Storm Sewer Utility and outlined storm water 
management practices to be used in operating and managing the City's storm water system. The 
City's storm water management system was designed pursuant to requirements mandated by 
Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Utah's Department of Environmental Quality -
Division of Water Quality administered .the Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(UPDES) which was a component of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES). The City was required to obtain a UPDES permit before it could lawfully discharge 
storm water into the waters of the United States and the State of Utah. The City's current UPDES 
permit expired on July 31, 2015. 
In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System - Regulations for Revision • of the Water Pollution Control Program 
Addressing Storm Water Discharges. (Federal Register, Vol. 64; No. 235, pages 68722-68852). 
These regulations had since been updated, and it was now necessary for the City Council to 
consider amending the City's Code to comply with state and federal rules and regulations. 
Summary Of Proposed Amendments: 
The following types of amendments to Chapters 17, 22, and 23 were being proposed: 
I. Renaming, renumbering, and relocating existing provisions (general housekeeping);
City Council Minutes-August 25, io15 (p.13) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
2. Adding new regulatory provisions to comply with changes in state and federal rules and
regulations; and
3. Including new storm water system management practices into the City's zoning and
subdivision requirements.
Storm water management and the associated rules and regulations implementing management 
practices had evolved since the City ordinance was first adopted and that evolution was reflected 
in the requirements the City must meet to obtain its UPDES permit. The Public Works Director 
had determined that renaming the 'Storm Sewer Utility to the Storm Water Utility more 
accurately reflected the nature of the system and complied with what had become the industry 
standard ano norm. The same reasons were the basis for renamii\.g the Storm Water Construction 
Activity Permit to a Land Use Disturbance Permit. 
The current ordinance had separate enforcement procedures that were found throughout the 
ordinance. The suggested amendments moved all of the enforcement provisions to Article 23-5 
for ease of application and reference. The ordinance had been renumbered to reflect these 
relocations. 
The bulk of the proposed amendments implemented new state and federal rules and regulations 
that required the City to manage and oversee the implementation of Long Term Storm Water 
Management in new developments and in redeveloped areas. The City was now required to 
"develop, implement and enforce a program to address post-construction storm water runoff to 
the MS4 [City's storm water system] from new development and redevelopment construction 
sites disturbing greater than or equal to one acre ... " See Small MS4 General UPDES Permit, 
Permit No. UTR090000. The addition of Section 23-4-8 to the ordinance fulfilled this 
requirement. Additionally, changes to general performance criteria for storm water management 
and facilities were proposed in order to incorporate low impact designs (L!Ds) and green 
infrastructure, and to encourage and require developers to develop and design projects that 
mirror the land's pre-construction hydrology. 
Changes to the illegal and prohibited discharge portions of the ordinance were suggested. The 
content and structure of these sections should be reorganized and the types of prohibited acts 
should be enlarged to address new concerns. Minor changes were being proposed to the illicit 
discharge portion of the ordinance, and this section.had also been relocated for ease ofreference. 
The proposed changes to Chapters 17 and 22 merely implemented the new LID and post­
construction management requirements found in Chapter 23 and updated any references in those 
chapters to Chapter 23. 
Mr. Price shared a presentation with the Council about storm water utilities and Orem's storm 
water utility history and codes. He reviewed the definition of storm water and the need for storm 
water in the city. He said similar to fire codes, storm water codes were to control and manage the 
potential storm water disasters and manage their impact. Managing storm water was a mandate 
from the federal government that was passed down through the state government to the 
municipalities to have storm water utilities. Storm water codes were to ensure good water quality 
and to protect the health and safety of the public. He said Orem's storm water system was 
considered an MS4, or Municipal .Separate Storm Sewer System. The MS4 distinction could 
refer to the infrastructure used to convey storm water runoff such as the pipes and sumps, or it 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p.14) 



could refer to the City or organization that owned the infr,istructure. He reviewed the history of 
Orem's storm water utility. He said similar to how fire codes had changed over the years, storm I· 
water codes needed to change to adapt for best practices. The philosophical approach for storm 
water had changed and storm water was treated as a resource rather than .a waste product. In 
2010 Orem's permit was updated and renewed, and,the ordinance before the Council-was to 
reflect necessary changes in the code and begin the renewal process for the City's permit. The 
summary of proposed changes to City Code Sections 23 and 22 and 17 included: 
•
Section 23 - Storm Water Utility
o
General housekeeping
o
Changes made required by Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
•
Strengthen BMPs
•
Ensure long-term storm water runoff control
•
Require·post-construction maintenance
•
Clarifies violations and penalties
•
Sections 17 & 22
o
Ensure long-term storm water runoff control
o
Requirements to retain water on-site
Mr. Price further enumerated the various proposed changes to the specified code sections. 
Mr. Sumner asked why the change about landscaping of front yards from one year to six months, 
and if that was only for residential or if that applied to commercial as well. He concern was that 
some residents purchased homes in late fall or winter months where landscaping was difficult. 
Mrs. Schriever said that particular provision would only apply to residential. Mr. Price .said the 
sooner a landscaped yard was in place it handled storm water better. That was the thought behind 
the change. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the six month timeframe was state recommendation. Mrs. Schriever said 
it was an attempt to put the low impact design (LID) requirements into place. It was a somewhat 
arbitrary number, and if the Council preferred to enlarge the timeframe that would not affect the 
permit in any way. 
Mayor Brunst thought six months was not enough time, and if they wanted to move away from a 
one year timeframe then nine months was more reasonable. 
Mr. Andersen preferred to leave the timeframe at one year. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst 
closed the public hearing. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to rename and amend Chapter 23 of the Orem City Code -
Storm Water Utility Ordinance and amend Chapters 17 and 22 to implement amendments to 
Chapter 23 leaving Section 22-14-7(B) unchanged. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion .. Those 
voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. 
Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.15) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- PD-45 - 12x12 NW Crossing Rezone- 1187 North 1200 
West 
ORDINANCE - Enacting Section 22-11-58 {PD-45 zone) and Appendix MM, and 
amending Section 22-5-1 and Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of Orem City to 
change the zone on 4.77 acres generally at 1187 North 1200 West from the Highway 
Services (HS) zone to the PD-45 zone 
Mr. Bench reviewed with the Council the applicant's request that the City enact Section 22-11-
58 (PD-45 zone) and Appendix MM, and amend Section 22-5-1 and Section 22-5-3(A) and the 
zoning map of the City of Orem to change the zone on 4.77' acres located generally at 1187 
North 1200 West from the Highway Services (HS) zone to the PD-45 zone. 
The applicant would like to construct a new development consisting of two 140 foot tall office 
buildings on the west side of 1200 West at 1187 North 1200 West. In order to allow this type of 
development, the applicant requested that the City Council approve the creation of the PD-45 
zone. 
The proposed PD-45 zone would incorporate most of the standards of the HS zone (which is the 
current zoning on the subject property) with a few modifications. For example, the PD-45 zone 
would allow a building height of 180 feet whereas the HS zone only allowed a building height of 
60 feet. The PD-45 zone would also expand the list of acceptable exterior finishing materials to 
include stone, glass fiber reinforced concrete, composite metal panel and architectural formed 
concrete. Lastly, the PD-45 zone would require three accesses from 1200 West to meet the needs 
of this particular property. All other development standards would be the same as the HS zone. 
The applicant's concept plan showed underground parking in both buildings. The concept plan 
also required a six ( 6) foot sidewalk buffered by an eight foot landscaped strip along the length 
of the applicant's property. 
As part of this project, 1200 West would be widened to five lanes from 1200 North to the 
southern boundary of the subject property. Although the full five lanes would be paved in this 
area, only three lanes will be striped until traffic levels justify the need for all five lanes. Longer 
term, it was anticipated that 1200 West would be widened to five lanes between 800 North and 
1600 North as funding allowed or as re-development occurred. 
A neighborhood meeting was held on May 7, 2015. Fourteen people were in attendance 
including the applicants and City staff. Those in attendance brought up concerns regarding 
traffic and improvements on 1200 West to accommodate the additional traffic as well as making 
sure there was adequate parking on site. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council enact Section 22-11-58 (PD-45 zone) 
and Appendix MM, and amend Section 22-5-1 and Article 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the 
City of Orem to rezone property located generally at 1187 North 1200 West from the HS zone to 
the PD-45 zone. City staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. 
Mr. Bench said the proposal included the following elements: 1 - Height; 180 feet maximum; 
current buildings being proposed were 140 feet (HS currently allowed for 60 feet). 2 - Finishing 
City Cowtcil Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.16) 



materials: glass, stucco, stone, glass fiber reinforced concrete, composite metal panel, 
architectural formed concrete, and brick (HS allowed for brick, fluted block, colored textured I
block, glass, stucco, wood). 3 -Widening 1200 West to five lanes. He said the proposed concept 
plan had phases. Phase one was for a I 40 foot office building with surface parking and some 
underground parking, and the second phase would be a mirror-image building in the same 
location with more underground parking. If the area was rezoned, the applicant would come back 
to the Planning Commission for site plan approval. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the elevations showed an accurate height reflection for the nearby power 
line. Mr. Bench said he believed it was. 
Rondo Fehlberg, representing the applicant, said the proposed office building was intended to be 
a headquarters for Jive Communications. They planned to occupy six of the proposed nine floors. 
Mr. Fehlberg said Jive was a growing company that had outgrown their current office space. 
They hoped to have this building as a significant statement for their business and raise awareness 
for their company with a prominent location near the freeway. 
Mr. Sumner asked for clarification about the height at I 80 feet. 
Mr. Fehlberg said they were asking for approval at 180 feet but were not intending to build the 
phase one building to that height. They wanted the flexibility with the height maximum as there 
had been discussions about having the phase two building be potentially taller to create a more 
interesting skyline. That flexibility could also lend itself to some interesting architecture. 
Mr. Sumner asked about the height of the University Mall office building. Mr. Bench said the 
first building would be approximately seventy feet, with about five stories. He further clarified 
that the University Mall office buildings were approved for 180 feet. 
Mr. Seastrand asked about parking and traffic impact. 
Mr. Fehlberg said the first building would have a large parking lot covering the available space, 
with approximately 170 parking spaces underneath the first building. Jive encouraged employees 
to feel free to commute to work in various ways, including public transit or riding a bike to work. 
He said his understanding was that part ofOrem's urban planning was to push concentrated road 
uses closer to traffic arterials and away from residential areas. He said with the expansion of 
1200 West they expected traffic to flow normally, and anticipated it would keep as much traffic 
as was reasonable out of the neighborhoods. 
Mr. Seastrand asked about the plan for widening 1200 West into the future. 
Mr. Bench said the developers were widening the street for the full width of a five-lane corridor, 
but it would be striped for the existing three-lane alignment. In time when the road was widened 
the full striping would take place. He said 1200 West would be widened as development 
continued down the road, and the master plan anticipated the widening from 800 North to 1600 
North. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.17) 
I. 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Seastrand clarified that the developer was doing their portion of the widening of 1200 West 
with the proposed project. Mr. Bench added it was in coordination with the City in accordance to 
the master plan 
Mr. Seastrand asked how many employees phase one would accommodate, and Mr. Fehlberg 
said between 550 to 600 employees in the first building, occupying about six of the proposed 
nine floors. 
Mr. Seastrand asked about the process the developers had gone through and how the 
neighborhood discussions had gone. 
Mr. Fehlberg said his group was involved in two projects along the corridor and had had a 
number of neighborhood meetings. He said generally speaking the input they received was 
positive. There had been some concerns about how this project would affect people's view, but 
he had also heard from people who were pleased that the area would see some revitalization and 
property values could go up. They had reached out to the neighborhood chairs in hopes to get 
feedback, but only a handful of neighbors had come. 
Mr. Seastrand said a big concern he had heard from neighbors was the height of the building. He 
asked about the height differential from the telephone pole to the top of the building as shown in 
the concept drawing for the proposed building elevations. 
Mr. Bench said it was approximately a thirty foot differential from the top of the telephone pole 
to the top of the proposed building. 
Mrs. Black asked about the unique architecture that may have voids in the building. Mr. Fehlberg 
said they had looked at some design techniques that would have open spaces or voids within the 
building. 
Mrs. Black said she had spoken to the neighbors about the height. She noticed the building plans 
were to have the building sit at an angle to lessen some of the view obstruction. 
Mr. Sumner asked about the underground parking configuration. Mr. Fehlberg said the under­
building parking would be the bottom floor; it would be open to the back and could be seen from 
the freeway. 
Mr. Sumner asked about the City's responsibilities in the widening of 1200 West. Mr. Bench 
said the City was in negotiations as to the City's participation would be. 
Ryan Clark, Orem Economic Development Division Manager, said they were still in negotiations 
and this road widening was a little different than other roads. Jive Communications qualified for 
incentives from the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED) to stay in the area, 
and part of that qualification required a local incentive. The City saw contributing to the road 
width expansion as a good incentive that would be mutually beneficial. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if it was part of the City's plan to widen that road eventually. Mr. Clark said 
he heard from Mr. Goodrich that the Transportation Master Plan included the widening of 1200 
West. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.18) 



Mr. Andersen asked if there was anything else the City was looking at as far as participation. 
Mr. Clark said there may be some utility assistance with storm drain in the roadway. 1200 West 
had a storm drain pipeline that may not be adequate once the road was widened. There was a 
connection that could be made to the storm pipe that crossed 1-15 near the site, and this could be 
an opportunity to team with a developer to install that pipe. The developer and the City would 
share the cost of the pipe. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Dan Howlett, resident,. said he was a retired public safety officer and had concerns about the 
additional traffic this would add to the area. He thought this was of particular concern for school 
children walking home. He was also concerned about adequate fire safety measures for a 
building of this height because fire truck ladders would not be able to reach .. He said they knew 
there would be some commercial development in the area when they purchased their home, but 
thought zoning would prohibit too much commercial development. He and the neighbors he 
spoke with were concerned about the size of the project and were opposed to it. 
Chris Spencer, resident, said he felt the noticing to the neighborhood about this project was 
inadequate, as he had only heard about the project a few days prior to this meeting. He 
understood development for buildings even up to sixty feet, but was concerned about a building 
with allowances for 180 feet. The south view had already been lost, at one point they were told 
rooflines would not extend above the current housing line, but they had gone above. He saw no 
advantage to the City with this project, for property value or otherwise. He echoed Mr. Howlett's 
concern about fire safety for a building that height, as well as concerns about the additional 
traffic that would come with the proposed development and the widening of 1200 West. He was 
concerned about the cost of roads and upkeep. 
Isaac Northland, resident, wanted to echo some of the sentiments already shared, particularly in 
regards to neighborhood notice and view obstruction. He did not see how this would raise 
property values, and was concerned about the equity of his home going down. He was also 
concerned about the height, stating that the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City 
was 182 feet. He thought 180 feet in this area was excessive. He said in winter months tht; roads 
in the area were very slick and potentially dangerous, especially with added traffic. He was not 
opposed to development but did not feel the project was in keeping with Orem's "Family City 
USA" moniker. 
Al Spencer, resident, said his view of the mountains and the lake would disappear. He said the 
area developed by where the old City garages used to be were not supposed to be any higher than 
the existing rooflines of residential. Now the first thing he saw when he walked out of his home 
was a large apartment building with its accompanying noise and traffic. The area. already had 
traffic concerns, especially around the larger intersections like 1200 West and 800 North. He said 
he had been waiting for 1200 West to be widened for ten years, but funding had not allowed. He 
was concerned that it would take ten or fifteen more years to finish the widening. Mr. Spencer 
was concerned that the area had not gotten the development they were promised, but had seen 
many changes to the zoning to allow for different developments. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.19) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Lance Helsten, resident, reiterated some of the concerns about view obstruction and 
neighborhood noticing, which he felt had not been handled properly. He said he had done the 
math for the top of the building, and said 180 feet was above the high tension lines. He was not 
against development in the area, but he was concerned about a building that height. He said he 
was not sure how this project would affect property values, but the increased traffic was a 
concern. He had seen lots of traffic on 1200 West from people getting off the freeway to avoid 
the accidents on I-15. He said these buildings would be the third and fourth tallest buildings in 
the county. 
Gene Harris, resident, said he sh,ared many of the same concerns about increased traffic and 
neighborhood noticing. He felt notice of the project should have been brought to neighborhood 
doors. He wondered the percentage of property tax the City collected from small businesses 
versus large business developments. He was concerned that the City had given up on small 
businesses. It was difficult to find a reasonably priced space to rent for a small startup business. 
He worried about "exacting money" from small businesses along 1200 West to help with the 
road widening, especially those that had already paid to move telephone poles. He was not sure 
the disadvantages of the project were thought through, and was opposed to the project. 
Charles Schultheiss, resident, asked Mr. Fehlberg some questions about phases one and two of 
the proposed development. His first question was about available parking, and how that parking 
dynamic would change if/when phase two moved forward. Secondly he asked about the current 
profile of Jive's workforce and what type of jobs they brought in, especially relating to traffic 
flow. Were they 9 to 5 type jobs, or around the clock? Lastly he asked if Jive was a direct 
competitor with Adobe, or with Convergys. 
Mr. Fehlberg said there were about 1,200 parking spaces that would be available during phase 
one, which would accommodate the 550-600 expected employees. Phase two would go to 
structural parking, but that would not go to phase two unless they could attract a tenant that could 
assist in providing that structural parking. He said they would have flex hours for their 
employees, so it would not all be 9 to 5 type hours. He was not sure of the breakdown for jobs in 
support, customer service, IT, etc. and could not speak to who Jive's direct competitors were, but 
knew Jive had been an attractive employer for "Gen-X" applicants. 
Natalie Nordland, resident, said she was not as concerned about the view but her main concern 
was the safety of her child and children in the neighborhood. She did not have a problem with 
Jive specifically, but also did not think a .building that height belonged that close to a young 
residential neighborhood. She has loved the neighborhood, but this project had caused some 
concern about whether she or her neighbors would stay. She thought the area should be 
developed but she was concerned about the additional traffic it would bring to an already 
congested and speedy area. She also wondered how they could widen 1200 North without getting 
rid of houses along the road. 
Debby Fletcher, resident, said the road construction on 1200 North had caused some issues with 
stress fractures in her ceiling from the pounding to compact the sand. She was worried about 
more construction and its aftermath. She was concerned about the fire and police being able to 
respond in the neighborhood, because there were already so many cars there. Traffic was a big 
concern, as it was already difficult for her to back out of her driveway, and would be worse in 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p,20) 



the winter months with additional traffic. She thought the area needed to be developed, but 
thought it should stay within the guidelines. 
Stefanie Price, resident, said the Planning Commission had worried about shade and glare issues 
off the building for freeway drivers. There would be the same issues in the neighborhood in the 
shadow of the building. She felt traffic in the area was already bad, and this project would make 
it worse. She thought it would be good to have some nice businesses in the .area, but felt this was 
too much. 
Brian Kelly, resident and Timpview neighborhood chair, said he was never notified about the 
project except for one email about the meeting agenda. He and his children worked very hard to 
let the neighbors know about this item. He wanted to commend the City for recognizing his 
friend Gladeeh Begaye a few months back. He said the bedrock of this city was the stable 
residents like Ms. Begaye and his neighbors who volunteered their time to serve their 
community. He loved Orem, and had his business in Orem. He believed the height of the 
building was the primary issue for most neighbors, and urged them to look at that issue 1019. 
Doug Moore, resident, shared the same concerns as his neighbors and wanted to add his voice. 
He felt a project like this would kill the neighborhood, and he was appreciative of those who 
cared about their community and voiced their concerns. His house backed to 1200 North and he 
could not imagine the increase of exhaust in his backyard from the additional traffic. He too was 
concerned about school children walking along these already busy roads. He thought big 
buildings like this needed to be with other big buildings in big building areas, not in 
neighborhoods. He did not think this would increase property values, but would affect many 
homes. 
Dan Gonzalez, resident, wanted to echo the same concerns and add his voice. He said they were 
not notified until the neighbors alerted him. He felt many more neighbors would be there if they 
had more notice. He felt the project was right on the edge of the neighborhood, and he thought it 
would be better to move the project across the freeway where it would affect fewer homes. 
Dave Jeddo, resident, said there had been nothing said about the infrastructure problems this 
would cause. Orem was building all over town, especially apartments. He felt 1200 West smelled 
bad, because everything settled at 1200 West. There had been talk about widening the road, but 
he had heard nothing about what would be done to improve the smell throughout the town. He 
had not seen any new sewer pipes in many years, and thought this was a serious issue. A big 
building along 1200 West would add to ,those issues.
Terry Morgan, resident, said she was up the street but was concerned for her neighbors that 
would be affected. She read the whole proposal which said neighbors within 500 feet were 
notified, but she did not think neighbors were notified properly. She had spoken to three city 
council members the night before the meeting and was promised that the neighborhood 
comments that were made would be taken into consideration, and she hoped that was true. She 
concurred with every comment that had been made. 
Mayor Bruns! closed the public hearing. 
City Cow,cil Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.21) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mayor Brunst asked Mr. Bench if notice was sent within 500 feet of the proposed project area. 
Mr. Bench said a mailing notice was sent to properties within that 500 foot radius. 
Mayor Bruns! said if homes were damaged during construction he was sure the developers would 
address that. Jive was a company that started and had grown in Orem, not a large outside 
company. He said a few years ago over 2,000 jobs left the area, and keeping jobs in Orem was a 
concern. He felt property owners had the right to develop their properties, and any height of 
building would affect the view in some way. He agreed that traffic was tough in that area, but 
thought they were working to resolve some of those issues with widening roads, new striping, 
etc. He said there had been discussions about the City potentially buying a new fire engine to 
accommodate taller buildings. There were also fire control standards and fire codes in place that 
would address fire safety issues. They had kept this area zoned for commercial, and he thought 
the project would buffer some of the freeway noise. He felt the development would help the area 
and would benefit the ever-evolving community in preserving jobs. 
Mr. Macdonald asked about traffic studies that may have been done in the project area. Mr. 
Goodrich said Hales Engineering did a detailed traffic analysis on 1200 West from 1600 North to 
800 South and included intersections and different access points. He said the current 
Transportation Master Plan had 1200 West designated as a minor arterial, which for years had 
been identified as a road that might need to go as wide as five lanes. Horrocks Engineering, the 
consulting firm working with the City for the Transportation Master Plan, had confirmed the 
City would need to widen the road in the future. 
Mr. Sumner asked if there was a timeline for the road widening. Mr. Goodrich said they did not 
have a specified timeline yet. They had some federal funds for improvements to 1600 North in 
about two years, which would widen the intersection at 1600 North and 1200 West and do a 
study for how to widen 1600 North from three lanes to five. He hoped 1200 West would be high 
on the priority list for federal funding in the furu,re. Part of the idea behind the Transportation 
Master Plan update was to help convince those who made funding determinations of the need for 
these road expansions. 
Mr. Macdonald thanked the neighbors for their efforts and for coming to add their voices. He 
thought there should be development in the area, whether it was this particular project or another. 
He was concerned about the notification issues and wondered if it would make sense to continue 
the item to allow the neighbors to meet with the applicants and discuss some of their concerns. 
He was not certain there was a resolution where all parties were happy, but thought it might be 
worth exploring. 
Mr. Fehlberg said Jive believed they would grow in a relatively short time and hoped to provide 
jobs for the children of this community. He said he too was concerned about the noticing and 
wished there had been more dialogue before this point. He said Jive felt there had already been 
some compromise with the project, and he was not sure what more could be done. 
Mr. Seastrand thanked the neighbors for coming to the meeting, and he felt it was important to 
sort through all the issues. He asked Mr. Fehlberg how they intended to address issues of 
stability and liquefaction. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.22) 



Mr. Fehlberg said the codes had required extensive geotechnical surveys done .prior to 
development. Deep borings were taken to determine the stability of the soil and what kind of I
structural engineering needed to be considered for the building. He said there were some 
dumpings found in the borings, but they believed it would be stable enough to build without the 
big driving piles and the structure would be adequate to support the building. 
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Kelly if he had a suggestion about the height aspect. Mr. Kelly said he 
felt it would be worth meeting with the applicants about the development, as that had been 
successful for other projects. He said Midtown 360 was ninety-six feet, which was high. They 
felt sixty feet was high, but a better compromise. 
Mr. Seastrand had wanted to see if neighbors would be flexible about the development. He 
agreed with Mr. Macdonald that there would be development in that area in the future, even if it 
was not this project. He asked if the building would be level with 1200 South or ifit would drop 
down. Mr. Fehlberg said it would drop down and have parking, and the building would go up 
over that. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if developers would be able to complete the project with a lower height that 
what was proposed. Mr. Fehlberg said he was not certain if the project could be completed or if 
the company would stay in the area. Jive had looked at several sites along the I-15 corridor but 
hoped· to stay in Orem where they began and provide jobs for residents. It would change 
everything about the project to change the height, and he felt the difference between 140 feet and 
180 feet was minimal in terms of blocking the view. He said that making decisions about these 
complex neighborhood issues could not be easy. 
Mrs. Black asked if the building was limited to 140 feet if the project could still move forward. 
Mr. Fehlberg said there was a specific way buildings were measured. He thought they would 
need to go back to the drawing board if the building was limited in height. Jive was hoping to 
make an impressive statement for their company and for the City with a prominent building 
along the I-15 corridor with a beautiful building, not just a monolithic block. 
Mayor Brunst said there were areas of the city that needed to be redeveloped, and he felt this 
area would benefit from a development like this project. 
Mr. Spencer asked about the attendance for the neighborhood meetings. He said a compromise of 
limiting to 140 feet would still be tall, and would include the electrical equipment on top of the 
building. 
Mr. Andersen said in light of the neighborhood noticing issue he thought it was best to continue 
the item and come up with a compromise. He did not think moving forward at this point was a 
good idea. 
Mr. Seastrand thought there were some questions with no answers. He thought valuable 
discussions could be. had between neighbors and the developers and applicants about the height 
issue. 
Mr. Fehlberg said he knew how long this project had been in the works. He thought it interesting 
that there had been comments .about building this project in Lehi where the big buildings 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p,23) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
belonged, when that had not been the case years ago. He thought the company would likely go 
where they found a friendly environment. He felt if Jive was going to be "beaten up" over and 
over again they would likely move on, but he would be happy to meet with neighbors for 
productive and open discussions about their concerns. 
Mr. Sumner asked for clarification on the state incentives. He said there was only so much 
money that could be allocated for road improvements. Mr. Clark said Jive qualified for GOED 
incentives if there was some incentive from the City. The costs of the road widening would be 
negotiated between the parties. 
Mrs. Black said she wanted to find a way to make this a workable project. She thought there 
would be a more successful outcome in discussing the project rather than drawing a line in the 
sand. She felt economic development was important for improving the city and balancing Orem 
as a place to live, play, and work. 
Mayor Brunst moved to postpone the item for two weeks until the City Council meeting on 
September 8, 2015. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, 
Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent 
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGƴ PD-41 Amendment - Fence Height 1042 West Center 
Street 
ORDINANCE-Amending Section 22-l l-54(F)(10) pertaining to fence heights in the PD-
41 zone located generally at 1042 West Center Street 
Mr. Bench reviewed the applicant's request that the City amend Section 22-l l-54(F)(10) 
pertaining to fence heights in the PD-41 zone located generally at 1042 West Center Street. 
The applicant requested that the PD-41 zone be amended to allow an eight foot fence around the 
perimeter of the zone. The applicant's site plan, which was approved in February, 2015, showed 
a seven (7) foot fence between the project and adjacent residential property and the PD-41 zone 
allows a maximum fence height of seven feet. 
The applicant would like to use a pre-manufactured fence made by SimTek. However, upon 
reviewing the fencing material provided by SimTek, the applicant discovered that their pre­
manufactured fence was only sold in six (6) and eight (8) foot heights. The applicant considered 
purchasing the eight foot fence panels and then burying these panels to a depth of one foot, but 
burying any portion of the fence would void the warranty on the fencing material. 
The applicant was proposing to modify the PD-41 zone to allow a perimeter fence height of eight 
feet as a more practical solution. 
The applicant had contacted the neighbors that would be affected by the change and no 
objections were received. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Section 22-11-54(F)(l0) 
pertaining to fence heights in the PD-41 zone located generally at I 042 West Center Street. City 
staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p24) 



Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. There were no public comments so Mayor Brunst 
•• 
closed the public hearing. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the eight-foot fence caused a greater wind issue. 
Mr. Bench said he was not aware of any wind issues caused by the slight additional height. 
Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-54(F)(IO) pertaining to fence 
heights in the PD-41 zone located generally at 1042 West Center Street. Mayor Bruns! seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom 
Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING- Amend SLU Codes -Churches in PO zone 
ORDINANCE - Amending Appendix "A" of the Orem City code by changing Standard 
Land Use code 6911 - Churches, Synagogues & Temples from "not permitted" to 
"permitted" in the Professional Office (PO) zone 
Mr. Bench reviewed the applicant's request that.the City amend Appendix "A'; of the Orem City 
code by changing Standard Land Use code 6911 - Churches, Synagogues & Temples from "not 
permitted" to "permitted" in the Professional Office (PO) zone. 
The City was recently approached by a church that wanted to move to a -location at 
I
approximately 1145 East 800 North. This location was in the PO zone which did not currently 
allow churches as a permitted use. After consideration of the request, staff felt that allowing 
churches in the PO zone would be reasonable as there were already other churches on 800 North 
and churches appeared to be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the PO zone. The ·po 
zone consisted of approximately twenty (20) acres located along 800 North east of 400 East. 
Churches (SLU 6911) were currently allowed in the R6, R6.5, R7.5, R8, R12, CZ and HS zones. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Appendix "A" of the Orem 
City code changing Standard Land Use code 6911 - Churches, Synagogues & Temples from 
"not permitted" to "permitted" in the PO zone. City staff supported the Planning Commission 
recommendation. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if churches or synagogues were required to be built to the same standards as 
other buildings in the PO zone. 
Mr. Bench said they would need to meet the same building standards as far as height, building 
materials, etc. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. There were no public comments so Mayor Bruns! 
closed the public hearing. 
Mr. Spencer asked if there was a specific definition for "church" to be allowed in the PO zone. 
Mr. Bench said they needed a specific affiliation with a religious group. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.25) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Appendix "A" of the Orem City code by changing 
Standard Land Use codǣ 6911 - Churches, Synagogues & Temples from "not permitted" to 
"permitted" in the Professional Office (PO) zone. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those 
voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. 
Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-Amend SLU Codes - Family and Behavioral Counseling 
ORDINANCE- Amending Appendix A of the Orem City Code as it pertains to permitted 
uses in the CM zone 
• 
Mr. Bench reviewed Lisa Breitenstein' s request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend 
Appendix A of the Orem City Code to permit SLU 6597, Family and Behavioral Counseling, as 
a permitted use in the CM zone.' 
Orem City Code Section 22-9-4 stated "The CM zone is established to provide areas where 
planned manufacturing parks may be developed. The zone is designed to provide for such uses 
on well-landscaped sites such that they can be located in proximity to residential uses." Uses 
beyond manufacturing were permitted in the CM zone. The closest permitted use to that of the 
applicant was SLU 6513, Medical Clinics - Outpatient. The nature of counseling and outpatient 
services may be viewed as similar. For this reason, the applicant requested the Code be .amended 
to allow counseling services as a permitted use in the CM zone. 
The CM zone was located in two areas in the City - 221 acres in the southwest area west of 
Geneva Road (Orem Center Business Park} and 68 acres at the mouth of Provo Canyon. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Appendix A to 
permit SLU 6597, Family and Behavioral Counseling, as a permitted use in the CM zone. Staff 
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments so Mayor Brunst 
closed the public hearing. 
Mrs. Black moved, by ordinance, to amend Appendix A of the Orem City Code as it pertains to 
permitted uses in the CM zone. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: 'Hans 
Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David 
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-PD-19 Amendment-1766 S 750 E from RS to R7.5 
ORDINANCE -Amending Section 22-11-31. PD-19 zone, Appendix "M" and Section 22-
. 5-3{A) and the zoning map of.the Orem City Code by changing the zone on 0.57 acres 
located at 1766 South 750 East from the RS zone and the R7.5 zone to the PD-19 zone 
Mayor Brunst indicated for the record that Mr. Sumner recused himself from the discussion and 
vote. 
Mr. Bench presented Kim O'Neill's request that the City amend Section 22-11-31, PD-19 zone, 
Appendix "M" and Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoningmap of the Orem City Code by changing 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.26) 



the zone on 0.57 acres located at 1766 South 750 East from the R5 zone and the R7.5 zone to the 
PD-19 zone. 
The applicant owned two lots at approximately 1766 South 750 East. One of the lots was vacant 
and the other had an existing home. The Jot with the home was zoned R 7.5 and the V1!,Cant par"el 
is zoned R5. 
The applicant would like to rezone his two lots to the PD-19 zone. The PD-19 zone, also known 
as South Rim, was located just across the street from the applicant's property. The PD-19 zone 
allowed for townhouses at an overall density not to· exceed nine. units per acre. The PD-19 zone 
currently had 24 townhouse units on approximately three acres. 
If the applicant's request was approved, the applicant proposed to construct six townhouse units 
on the combined two lots as shown in the amended ,concept plan. The units would have a height 
of 28 feet and exterior finish materials consisting of stone, hardiplank siding, and stucco. The 
applicant's concept plan showed 15 parking stalls which met the requirement of 2.5 stalls per 
unit. 
To enable the applicant to construct the type of development he desired, the applicant also 
requested that the City Council make certain amendments to the PD-19 zone .. The PD-19 zone 
currently incorporated all of the standards of the PRD zone except for density and the only 
difference between the two zones was that the PD-19 zone allowed a density of nine units per . 
acre versus the seven units per acre allowed in the PRO zone. 
The applicant was requesting that the PD-19 zone be amendeci to eliminate any restriction as to 
second story square footage or basements because the PRD zone limited the second story of a 
unit to 60% of the main floor square footage. The applicant also proposed to allow a building 
height of 30 feet in the PD-19 zone versus the 27 foot height limit in the PRD zone. The 
applicant also proposed to modify the PD-19 zone to require setbacks to conform to those shown 
in the concept plan rather than the specified distances required in the PRD ordinance. 
The existing density of the South Rim development was 8.05 units per acre and with the addition 
of the six proposed units of the applicant, the overall density would increase to 8.47 units per 
acre. The density of just the applicant's proposed development would be I 0.5 units per acre. 
If the applicant's request was approved, the 750 East cul-de-sac would be widened with the 
proposed project. The current City standard was a cul-de-sac with a minimum diameter of 96 
feet to meet fire code requirements. The current dimension of the 750 East cul0de-sac was 65 
feet. Should property be redeveloped in the cul-de-sac, the diameter will be increased on each 
respective property. The transportation engineer did not require a transportation study because of 
the unit count and the lack of any other potential access point to the property. 
With regard to traffic, the national average of trip generation for townhome developments was 
5.86 trips per day. Single family detached dwellings averaged 9.57 trips per day. If the property 
were developed as two single family homes, 19 trips per day would be the expected traffic 
impact. Six townhome units would be expected to generate approximately 35 trips per day. 
Spread out over the course of a day with most trips between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, an 
additional 16 trips per day was insignificant. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.27) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
The subject property was adjacent to existing multi-family, single-family, and commercial uses. 
Five four-plexes were located to the immediate north while three single-family units remained in 
the cul-de-sac. A commercial vehicle salvage yard was adjacent to the west and an office parking 
lot was located along a portion of the south property line. The distance from the nearest proposed 
unit to the front door of the nearest detached single family home was approximately 120 feet. 
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 5, 2015, with ten residents in attendance. 
Concerns from those in attendance included an increase in overall traffic and parking to the area. 
A concern of student hoµsing was also mentioned. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-
31, PD-19 zone, Appendix "M" and Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City 
Code by changing the zone on 0.57 acres at 1766 South 750 East from the RS zone and the R7.5 
zone to the PD-19 zone. The Planning staff supported the recommendation of the Planning 
Commission. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if under the current zoning they could feasibly put up to nine units per acre 
with the required setbacks. He asked for clarification about what was allowed under existing 
zoning. 
Mr. Bench said the overall zone itself had nine units per acre, but this particular portion of 
approximately 0.57 acres would have up to six units to meet parking requirements. The RS zone 
allowed for two family homes with no accessory apartments allowed. The R7.5 zone could have 
two homes with the option for accessory apartments. 
Mr. O'Neill said the proposed changes would allow for the beautification of the area, as well as 
enlarging the cul-de-sac to allow better fire truck access to the area. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Ms. Porter, resident, said she worried that traffic would increase and it would be more difficult to 
back out of her drive way than it already was. She was also concerned about the addition of so 
many new and expensive apartments in Orem. Her experience in having managed apartments in 
the area made her feel that many people would not be able to afford to live in these expensive 
units since some could barely make rent in lower-cost apartments. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 
Mr. O'Neill clarified that the project was for townhomes, not apartments, and they would be for 
sale. 
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-31, PD-19 zone, Appendix "M" 
and Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by changing the zone on 0.57 
acres located at 1766 South 750 East from the RS zone and the R7.5 zone to the PD-19 zone. 
Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, 
Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer. The motion passed 
unanimously, 6c0. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.28) 



6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-PD-21 Amendment- 1200 South Geneva Road 
ORDINANCE- Amending Section 22-11-33 and Appendix "O" pertaining to development 
standards in the PD-21 zone located at 1200 South Geneva Road 
Mr. Bench presented Keith Hansen's request that the City amend Section 22-11-33 and 
Appendix "O" of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards in the PD-21 zone 
located at 1200 South Geneva Road. 
The PD-21 zone was enacted in 2000 to create a mixed-use student-oriented development. The 
original concept plan of 6,000 students and 1,789 apartments with multiple supporting 
commercial business has evolved into a less dense development consisting of apartments and 
limited commercial development. 
Instead of one owner as first envisioned, the PD-21 zone now encompasses seven property 
owners. The current PD-21 zone was also split into two areas known as Area I and Area 2. The 
applicant requested that Area 2 be further divided to create Area 3. Area I was the existing 
Wolverine Crossing with 266 apartments and Area 2 was the former Burton property, now 
Parkway Lofts, LLC, with 332 apartment units which received site plan approval in. March 2015 
with construction now underway. 
The proposed Area 3 was the subject of this request and the owner of this property was 
I 
proposing to amend the PD-21 zone and associated concept plan to allow a development known 
I
as University Downs which will consist of 316 residential units, a large parking garage and a 
hotel. 
The applicant's proposed development would be primarily oriented toward attracting both single 
and'married students. 
The primary changes requested to the PD-21 zone were as follows: 
1. The applicant proposed a maximum building height of 120 feet in Area 3 which was reduced
from the original request of 150 feet. Area I and Area 2 had maximum building heights of 86
feet or seven (7) stories, whichever was less, depending on the location. The Planning
Commission recommended the maximum height of each building be limited to the height shown.
on the concept plan.
2. The proposed amendment would reduce the required setback from outside property lines for
any building over 20 feet high from 20 feet to 15 feet. This was to accommodate the proposed
location of the parking structure/married units building.
The first two amendments described above would allow a parking structure with a height of 91 
feet to be located 15 feet away from the north property line of Area 3 as shown on the revised 
concept plan. This structure would also house units on the top level wrapped around to the north 
side. The nearest Parkway Lofts building was approximately 75 feet from the property line of 
University Downs and 90 feet from .the proposed parking structure. The existing Code permitted 
a 72-foot high parking structure to be constructed 20 feet from the property line. The proposed 
parking structure would have a significant visual impact on the Parkway Lofts development to 
City Cowicil Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.29) 
I 



I 
I 
I 
the north. However, development near train stations was typically high density which was 
implemented by tall buildings. A cross section had been included showing the potential location 
of the parking structure in relation to the current Parkway Lofts building. 
3. The applicant proposed a parking standard of 0.65 parking stalls per occupancy unit which
was the same standard applicable in Area I and slightly greater than the 0.62 per occupancy unit
standard that applied in Area 2.
4. The applicant requested that zinc metal panels be added to the list of approved architectural
materials with the limitation that such panels would not exceed 15% of each respective elevation.
5. Two monument signs were proposed to be allowed in Area 3 along 1250 West.
A water model study was performed for the proposed project and determined that water service 
would be adequate for the proposed development in Area 3 with the possibility that some water 
lines may need to be upsized which would be determined with the final engineering for the 
project. 
The developer also provided a traffic analysis of the proposed project to determine if this site 
could handle the increased traffic that would be expected from the proposed amendment. The 
traffic study determined that the development will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe 
conditions on the local roadway network and will not adversely impact the public investment in 
roadway infrastructure in the adjacent area. The City Engineer reviewed and concurred with the 
findings of the study. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-
33 and Appendix "O" of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards in the PD-21 
zone located at 1200 South Geneva Road with a recommendation that the maximum height of 
each building be limited to the height shown on the concept plan. The Planning Staff supported 
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 
Mayor Brunst asked how many stories the 120 foot proposed building was, and Mr. Bench said it· 
was .the proposed hotel with twelve stories. 
Mr. Bench said the applicant was asking for the setbacks to be set at fifteen feet instead of 
twenty. They had received a letter from the property owner to the north of Building 2 which 
expressed the owner's concern about the change in setbacks, which Mr. Bench distributed to the 
Council. Mr. Bench said the applicant was also asking for the possibility of having some units in 
proposed Building 3 that would house up to eight occupants. 
Mayor Brunst asked about the change of the setback from twenty feet to fifteen. He asked if it 
would be possible to move their project forward keeping a twenty-foot setback. 
Keith Hansen, with AE Urbia Architects and Engineers, said the design was to allow for a 
courtyard with amenities on the outside so the nnits would look out onto a garden-type space. 
The extra five feet of landscaping would add to the aesthetics of the design. Mr. Hansen said 
keeping a twenty-foot setback would also affect the underground parking, but he thought they 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.30) 



could revisit their designs if they had to. He felt the change to fifteen-foot setbacks was not 
unreasonable. 
Mayor Brunst asked if they would build student housing first, and which hotel they anticipated 
having as part of the project area He also asked about the amenities package for the project. 
Mr. Hansen said the first phase of construction would start with Building 3 for housing with 
Building 2 for parking built simultaneously. He said the final phase would be for the hotel, and 
they did not know at this point which hotel brand/chain would be built there. He invited Piitrick 
Nelson with Nelson Brothers Construction to describe the amenities package. 
Mr. Nelson said Nelson Brothers managed twenty-two student housing properties across fifteen 
different schools, with two in Orem. He said the extra five feet on the setbacks was also to 
encourage students to spend time in the interior courtyard instead of loitering on the surrounding 
property. He said the Building 4 amenities package was to make college living at University 
Downs the most attractive option. They anticipated having study areas with superfast Wi-Fi 
available, bowling alley, full-court collegiate gym, volleyball court, two pools, washer and dryer 
in every unit, etc. Outside they would put in a sand volleyball pit and a mini soccer field, and 
they hoped to use that area as an ice rink in the winter months. They wanted this property to put 
UVU on the map. 
I 
Mr. Seastrand asked how many apartments they anticipated to have in Building 3. He was 
concerned about the request to have eight students per apartment and asked if that was all units 
I 
in the building, or a specified number of units. 
Mr. Nelson said they planned for about 700 apartments in Building 3, but only twelve of those 
units would house eight occupants. Those twelve units were designed like townhouses, with two 
stories. Mr. Hansen added that the total units were 316 with 1,040 beds available in those units. 
There was a mix of units with two bedrooms, three bedrooms, some private rooms and some 
shared. 
Mr. Seastrand said he would prefer to .limit the number of eight-person units to the identified 
twelve units. He asked for clarification on the proposed parking with the student housing and the 
hotel. Parking was one of the biggest complaints he heard with housing units. 
Mr. Bench said they planned for 1,051 stalls, which was beyond one stall per bed. Mr. Hansen 
added that the parking configuration accommodated for the hotel. 
Mr. Earl said student housing was not based on per unit, but on per occupancy unit basis. The 
standard for hotel parking was one stall per room/unit, so they had planned for adequate parking. 
Mr. Nelson said they had designed the property to be flexible in accommodating for single and 
married student housing. Some of the parking design was to accommodate for young families. 
Mr. Macdonald asked for some clarification on the building's configuration of units, and which 
building would have the gym and other amenities. 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 20 I 5 (p.31) I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Nelson said there would be a mix of room numbers and beds in those rooms. They would be 
flexible on how the rooms were filled. He said the taller "tower'' of Building 3 was anticipated to 
be specific for freshmen housing, but they would be flexible on that. He said there would be 
walkways over the overpass to allow students quicker and safer access to campus. He said the 
amenities would be in Building 4. 
Mr. Macdonald asked if it was common to have a hotel so near this kind of student housing 
project. Mr. Nelson said often there were hotels nearby, but it would be a unique opportunity to 
have a hotel so close for visitors to the university. He added that while they did not yet know 
which hotel would be built, Hilton was excited about the possibility. 
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Bench about the total people count they were anticipating when the 
initial PD-21 zone was created. 
Mr. Bench said initially up to 6,000 students. He said once Area 3 was developed they would 
have reached about half of that projection, with approximately 3,000 students. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. 
Ben Lowe, with Compass Developing Group, said he was not in opposition to the project and 
thought this would be a great addition. Their concern was principally with the parking garage, 
which was being increased by 26 percent beyond what the current zoning allowed, that would 
back up against their property. They understood the need for the parking with the proposed 
density, but worried about height increase for the parking garage only seventy-five feet from 
their property. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if the parking garage was wrapped all the way around. Mr. Hansen said it 
would be wrapped around the back with attractive materials. 
Mr. Lowe said regardless of the materials used to wrap the structure, it would still be a parking 
garage. He hoped for further conversation with the owners and developers about this issue. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.· 
Mrs. Black said she thought they had made an effort to avoid the structure looking like a run-of­
the-mill or unattractive parking garage. She said the concept plans were encouraging, though the 
real building could look different. 
Mr. Sumner asked who the target audience was for this deveiopment. 
Mr. Nelson said UVU students specifically. Around 6,000 freshmen started at UVU each year, 
many of whom lived nearby in their parent's home. Studies showed that if a student started as a 
freshman living on campus, their retention rate was higher, their grades tended to be higher and 
they were more likely to graduate and complete their educational degree. When students lived 
away from their parents they learned valuable life skills and forged closer bonds with their peers, 
which was the "college experience" many parents wanted for their children. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.32) 



Kordel Braley, with RSG Consultants, said a traffic study was done to look at congestion and 
queuing. He summarized the findings, saying they had determined the traffic flow was I 
acceptable with appropriate accesses. 
Mayor Brunst asked about the ingress and egress onto University Parkway. 
Mr. Goodrich said the University Parkway access would be the closest, but there were also split 
accesses onto Geneva Road and onto I 000 South. In the other direction there was access to I 000 
South, which connected to the intennodal center ... There could potentially be a pedestrian 
overpass over I-15 connecting from the south end of the train station to campus. He thought this 
was a good location for high density student housing. 
Mr. Braley added that student housing did not typically generate the same traffic as family or 
young professionals-type housing. 
Mr. Seastrand asked where a pedestrian overpass or sky bridge might be built. Mr. Goodrich was 
not certain, but indicated it would be positioned to benefit those using public transit as well. 
UVU and the City would look to potentially get federal funding for this kind of overpass. 
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-33 and Appendix "O" of the Orem 
City Code pertaining to development standards in the PD-21 zone located at 1200 South Geneva 
Road, with building heights tied to the concept plan and limiting the number of eight-occupant 
units to twelve units. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, 
I
Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent 
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
**Mayor Bruns/ called for a break at 9:31 p.m. 
**The meeting resumed at 9:46 p.m. 
6:00 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING Southwest (SW) Annexation 
ORDINANCE-Adoption of the Lakeview Addition to Orem City Annexation Petition 
Mr. Bench reviewed Ryan McDougal's request that the City approve the Lakeview Addition to 
Orem City Annexation Petition to annex 227 .59 acres into the City of Orem. 
On June 6, 2014, Ryan McDougal filed an application to annex 227.59 acres into Orem. The 
petition met the minimum requirements outlined in the Utah State Code which required that the 
owners of at least 51 % of the private land area and the owners of at least 33% of the total land 
value of all private property in the annexation area must be in favor of annexation. The owners of 
77% of the land area and the owners of 48% of the land value of all of the property in the 
annexation area had signed the annexation petition. The area proposed for annexation was 
outlined in the Lakeview Addition to Orem City Petition Signors map. 
The area included in the Lakeview annexation petition was included in the City's current 
annexation policy plan which was a part of the City's General Plan. The City's annexation policy 
plan included the area north of2000 South and west ofl-15 to Utah Lake as area that the City 
City Cow,cil Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.33) I 



I 
I 
I 
anticipated annexing into the City at some point in the future. The proposed Lakeview 
annexation was in hannony with the City's annexation policy plan. 
The Council accepted the petition for consideration on June 17, 2014. The petition was Certified 
by the City Recorder, City Attorney, County Clerk and Surveyor on July 11, 2014. This began 
the 30 day protest period for public protest against the annexation which closed on August 11, 
2014. The City of Provo filed a protest to the annexation which was based on their concern about 
control of2000 South (Orem)/2000 North (Provo). 
An agreement was signed by both Orem and Provo in July 2015 that resolved Provo's concerns. 
Under the agreement Orem will have control of 2000 South east of the railroad tracks and Provo 
will have control of2000 South (Provo's 2000 North) west of the tracks to the future intersection 
with the future Lakeview Parkway. The agreement allowed Orem to create new accesses to 2000 
South as development occurred on the Orem side of the street. The agreement also outlined a 
street cross section showing a three lane right-of-way configuration. 
Since Provo's protest had now been resolved, the City Council may either approve or deny the 
proposed annexation. If the annexation was accepted, the City will work with the Utah County 
Surveyor's Office to verify the annexation records and record the annexation with the Lieutenant 
Governor's office. 
If the City Council approved the annexation, the City Council will need to approve a General 
Plan land use designation for the annexation area and will also need to apply a zoning 
designation for the property in the annexation area. The City Council may also want to consider 
adopting impact fees that will apply to all new development in the annexation area. Subsequent 
agenda items will address all of these issues. 
Development Services staff recommended the City Council consider the annexation petition for 
the Lakeview Addition to Orem City. Although the Planning Commission did not make a 
recommendation for the annexation,-.they· did express the opinion that the area, if accepted, 
should be developed with the low density model or agricultural uses similar to what currently 
existed in the area. 
Mr. Bench reviewed the sequence of the annexation items on the agenda and how they led one to 
another. He showed a map of the petitioners and said they were well above the requirements for 
annexation with 77 percent of property acreage and 48 percent of property value included in the 
petition. He clarified the areas of conservation and agriculture easements that would not be 
included in the annexation. 
Mr. Andersen asked the size of the area, and how they had determined which areas to annex. Mr. 
Bench said it was 40o+ acres, and clarified that the staff did not determine the annexation area 
but the petitioners had determined the area. He said for an agricultural easement area to be 
annexed they would need I 00 percent approval, which they did not have, so that area was not 
included. The conservation easement within the petition area could be annel_(ed but would not be 
developed. The petition outlined an area of approximately 227 acres for annexation, and the 
petition met all requirements to bring the item before the City Council. 
City Council Minutes - August 25, 2015 (p.34) 



Mayor Brunst asked what the conservation easements were for. Mr. Bench said he believed it I 
was an active farm. 
Mr. Seastrand asked if the owners in an agricultural easement area could eventually be annexed 
into Orem. Mr. Bench said they could, if they went through a petition process and had 100 
percent ofland owners' approval for annexation. 
Mr. Macdonald said he had received many emails about this item. He asked for clarification on 
where development could take place versus areas that were kept as farms. He asked if the City 
would force them to develop. 
Mr. Bench said they could continue to farm, and if they wished the sell their land to developers 
they were welcome to do that also. He said conservation easements had no development rights so 
they would continue as farm land. The agricultural easement area was approximately 100 acres 
and the conservation easement areas were approximately forty acres. 
Mr. Seastrand asked about the tax rate differences between county and city, and ifthere would be 
a change in valuation as the area became part of the city. Mr. Bench said the current taxable rate 
in the county was 0.0122840 in 2014, and after annexation the rate would be 0.0114190. In some 
instances, the county tax was higher than the city tax, but most would be lower. He said the 
valuation of the property would not go up simply because land was annexed into the city; it 
would go up if the property was developed and improved. 
Mayor Brunst said City's Master Plan had always been to annex this area, and Provo had not 
moved toward annexation at all. Mr. Bench said if Provo annexed land in this area they would 
face the d,ifficult task of servicing the area with utilities like sewer that they did not have the 
capacity for, and therefore had not shown serious interest in annexation. 
Mr. Andersen asked how many existing homes were in the annexation area, and how many 
would be forced to connect with city utility services and its cost. Mr. Bench said the only 
requirement was if the sewer line went within 300 feet of their homes. 
Mr. Stocksdale said there were about a dozen homes in the area, and they would review on an 
individual basis whether the homes were within 300 feet of the sewer line and were required to 
connect. 
Mr. Seastrand clarified that this discussion was only on the annexation issues itself, not on 
density, projects, fees, or otherwise. 
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing. 
Byron Taylor, resident, said he had heard repeatedly that his family had sold off their 
development rights and he wanted to clarify that they had donated those rights. He felt ad hoc 
development driven by developers without longsterm interests in the community generally did 
not make for nice areas where people wanted to live. He heard over and over that farming would 
still be an option, but he felt farms surrounded by high density development would have 
increased costs, liabilities, and risks. He was concerned about moving his farming equipment 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.35) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
across Geneva Road with increased traffic. He said they were told they could negotiate a 
protection overlay, but felt they had no leverage for negotiation and staff had made that clear. 
Without an agricultural protection overlay, they would be subject to all kinds of harassment and 
even nuisance lawsuits. 
Dustin Palmer, resident, had questions about the increased cost to the City to annex the area. He 
knew there were associated costs for services and such, and hoped for some clarification. 
Mayor Bruns! said as the area developed, those residing in area would pay the taxes for more 
services. The City was requiring the developer to front the costs for installing the infrastructure 
and impact fees would pay the developer back. 
Richard Wilkerson, resident, said he was opposed to the annexation petition because it was based 
on the requirement of high density developments in the area. He said without the high densities 
the developers could not pay for their projects or the infrastructure, so the issues of annexation 
and the proposed developments were intertwined. 
Kyle Bateman, resident, said his view was that under the status quo agricultural operations could 
continue but those who wanted to develop their land could not. Under the annexation, the 
agricultural operations could continue and those who wanted to develop would have the option. 
He said his parcel was not suited to agricultural operations. He felt it was important that the area 
become part of Orem at some point, and in this scenario they could do so without cost to city for 
infrastructure installation. He felt it was the right time, it was the right plan, and would offer the 
greatest amount of freedom for the individual land owners. 
Barry Brown, resident, said an advantage listed for the annexation was that there were no 
existing homes near the proposed development projects, but his home was located within forty 
feet of those projects. He also wanted to correct an address in the Planning Commission minutes. 
He had sent emails to the Mayor and Council and asked that they read it. He objected to the high 
density housing, the traffic problems, and other issues that would be caused by of annexation. 
The east boundary of his property would be the west boundary of the townhome project, and 
they would be highly affected. He thought traffic would be a disaster causing bottleneck issues to 
the southern entrance of the city. 
LaDawn Robbins Christensen,- resident of Provo, said she owned land in the proposed 
annexation area, and she worked with the Provo City Sustainability and Natural Resources 
Committee. Provo had no concrete ideas in their 2030 plan to preserve agricultural land, and she 
doubted Orem did either. She was working with the Utah County Commissioners to preserve 
agricultural land in the area. She had concerns about the connector road that would cut through 
ecologically sensitive wetland. She advocated preserving natural green space and food producing 
land, and thought one strategy would be to purchase more conservation easements in the area. 
Dave Jeddo, resident, said he was asking that the Wilkerson Farm be left out of the annexation. 
He represented the Franklin 2nd ward, a Native American Indian ward, which used the southeast 
comer of the Wilkerson Farm property as a garden. The garden was a laboratory where children 
learned the value of agriculture and learn the skills to grow seedlings to maturity. The produce 
from the garden fed 375 ward members. He invited his son to share things he had learned about 
plants for his science fair project. His son said he discovered that plants could see and 
City Connell Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.36) 



communicate with one another. They were able to react to the slightest touch and estimate time 
within extraordinary precision. 
Shawn Bunderson, resident, said he had been working with both. the County and Orem City for 
the last three years trying to build some homes on his family-owned land. He said as a landowner 
it was frustrating that he could not develop his· own land. He spoke with Sam Kelly about the 
processes of working toward development, and Mr. Kelly advised him to promote the idea of 
annexation. If Orem annexed the land, he would be able to develop. He said he learned that 
working with developers would help him, so he had been working with Mr. McDougal and Mr. 
Mansell. He said he understood the tough decision that was before the Council, but he hoped 
they could find a solution that would allow him to develop his land. 
Margaret Dayton, resident, said she wanted to thank the Council for staying to listen and for their 
service. She was hoping they would preserve open space and agricultural land in the area. She 
said she did not want to interfere with private property rights, but if the area was annexed she 
urged them to not zone it for high-density housing. She said the area had some unique soil that 
was ideal for fruits and vegetables and was a great treasure for Orem to maintain. She felt there 
was interest in farmer's markets and buying local produce. She said any land lost to urban 
development could never be replaced, and she hoped farmland would remain. 
Skip Dunn, resident, said he understood the emotion tied to the area. He said this had been long 
in development, and this area was the last stronghold. He felt farmers should be able to do what 
I 
they do, and that landowners should be able to do what they would like to do. He said it was a 
I
tough deal to get utility connections in that area, and he thought people took water and sewer 
connections for granted. He saw the potential for good growth in the area, and he could see the 
good in the proposed projects from the developers. He said the densities they were proposing 
were to make their projects work and alleviate some of the City's responsibility in the area. 
Mark Bowden, resident, said he was concerned about how the water, sewer, and other utilities 
would be brought to the area. He also wondered if the utilities could benefit the industrial park 
that was near but not part of the annexation area. He said people wanted to get the most out of 
their land, but as he looked into the future he saw the potential for the high-density housing to 
become low-income housing and for buildings to become run down. He also wanted to discuss a 
sign issue in the area and asked for someone from the City to follow up with him about it. 
Rachel Wilkerson, resident, said many community members had come to the meeting or sent 
emails to show support for local agriculture. She said these farms had been in operation for over 
a hundred years, and the area was special. She felt it would be difficult to operate a farm with 
apartments down the road. There were nuisance issues that came up in association with farming, 
but farming was not a nuisance. It was an industry that gave back to the community. She said 
everyone needed to be able to eat, and to produce food there needed to be farmland available. 
Alan Hamberlin, resident, said he and some of the landowners around him were hoping to be a 
part of this annexation petition, but would follow up with the City about that process in the I
future. He said he hoped to connect with City infrastructure once it was in place, because the 
County would not allow any development without water. He said he was tired of fighting with 
the County and paying taxes for "industrial uses" that he was not even able to do. 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.37) 



I 
I 
I 
Richard Wilkerson, resident, said he thought this would be the last time a group of farmers 
would be coming before the City Council, because they were the last ones left. Once farmable 
land was gone the farmers would be gone too. He hoped they valued what they did and what the 
land could do, and he hoped to be part of the effort to care for the community by providing food. 
Land was expensive, and it was very difficult for new farms to get started. He asked that they 
develop an agricultural plan and consider the needs for irrigation, wells, and other infrastructure. 
He felt it was important during tough times for an area to be able to produce its own food. 
Chris Foster, resident, said he came to oppose the development. He said he represented many 
who lived in the area that treasured the farms and the opportunity to have farm land, as well as 
the conservation and agricultural easements. 
Linda Brown, resident, quoted a country song, saying, "We don't need the farmer anymore when 
we can just go and buy it at the store". 
Don Barr, Provo resident, said it was inaccurate to say the proposals were not near existing 
homes, especially when the proposed projects would be near existing homes if they were 
approved. He said there were twelve homes close to the proposed development on the east side 
and would likely need to connect to City service lines, but even more that would be affected. He 
had been in the area a long time and he liked Orem, though his home had been annexed by 
Provo. He said this was a difficult decision that would take "the wisdom of Solomon to sort out". 
Pat Johnson, resident, said she owned property in the annexation area for eighteen years. She had 
been trying to put in a .nice storage unit business, but could not get around the County. She was 
in favor of the annexation for the purpose of being able to develop or sell her land. 
Gene Morris, resident, said he came to the meeting to ask the Council to do what the Planning 
Commission recommended and not annex the land but leave it for farming. 
Sandy Morgan, resident, said annexing the area was opening the door for developers and telling 
the farmers they could not farm. She said it was difficult to get fanning equipment down or 
across Geneva Road, which was already a busy road and she knew of no plans to expand it. She 
said she had to plan when she could leave her home because of the traffic in the area. She said 
this would be turning what was left of Orem' s green space and farmland into concrete like the 
rest of Orem. She asked if there could be at least one remaining open space for agricultural 
operations. She was concerned about the loss of her lane for the Lakeview Corridor. 
Jessica Street, resident, said this was an emotional and difficult decision. She felt the farmland 
was needed, but also recognized that the city was still growing. She thought it would be wise to 
keep the farmland and felt Orem needed to stay a tree city, not an apartment city. She wondered 
if it would be possible to consider lower density projects, both from a safety and aesthetic 
standpoint. 
Wanda Barr, Provo resident, said she moved forty-three years ago from a Provo suburb into the 
unincorporated community of Lakeview, which was the root of the Provo and Orem areas. She 
had hoped the community could stay together and be annexed into either Provo or Orem 
together, but that had not happened. She had seen development occur to the south and east of her 
home, most of which was high-density housing that was basically vacant. She wondered why 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.38) 



there needed to be more housing developments if those were still vacant. She said the comer she I
lived on was dangerous and she often heard brakes squealing and worried about increased traffic 
in the area if they were annexed. 
Jenny Pine Yancy, resident, said her family owned an orchard in the area and felt that farmers 
were losing their rights every day. She said they could not drive their tractors on the road 
because they were not "road permitted" and the traffic was dangerous. They had been subject to 
tests on their manure because of the smell. She said they dealt with developers every day because 
their land was much more valuable for development than farming. She asked that they not take 
farmland away from these families. 
Jeff Mansell, petitioner, said he had been to every meeting about the annexation. He understood 
and sympathized with the emotions involved in this decision. He said people had a right to 
choose what they did with their property, be it for agricultural operations or land development. 
He said they were not insisting annexed land be taken away from farmers and developed 
immediately. He said the County would not let development move forward and so to allow all 
parties the right to use and develop their land he supported the annexation. 
Elaine Schofield, resident, thanked them for their time in studying the issue. She said she wanted 
the annexation denied for the following reasons: She felt there was an opportunity to leave a 
legacy for the City with a few acres dedicated for open space and agriculture. She said many 
runners and cyclists went through the area and enjoyed the beautiful open spaces and seeing the 
farm animals and wildlife. She felt these things benefitted the city. 
Stan Roberts, resident, owned land in the proposed annexation area. He said the maps showed 
the ):mlk of lanilowners in favor, but he thought those individuals outside of the annexation area 
should have a say as well. 
Kathryn Stone, resident, said she wanted to talk about the Wilkerson Farm. To her, the open 
space was priceless and it was being lost very quickly. She felt these gems of Orem should be 
preserved. She said the Wilkerson Farm was interactive, allowing children and adults alike the 
opportunity to spend time on the farm in the fields, pick their pumpkins, they even offered 
classes for children to learn about agriculture and plan life cycles and more. She thought progress 
should be knowing when to move forward and also when to pull back. She felt the progress in 
this case should be land preservation. 
Alan Sable, resident, said the concept of keeping an island of agricultural land was enticing. He 
felt the majority of landowners in the area would love the opportunity to keep their land for 
agricultural uses and see the same financial benefits as land development. 
Mike Faragher, resident, said he was not a farmer but grew up with his father doing real estate. 
He saw both sides when it came to property rights. He lived in an apartment building that was 
built in the 1970s. While he enjoyed some of the amenities that came with apartment living, he 
I 
also dealt with some of the frustrations. He felt many were aging and in need of improvement, I
and not all apartment-dwellers made good neighbors. He thought that was something to consider 
when building more high-density housing developments. He said his wife loved going to 
farmer's markets and thought they should keep the quality oflife here in Orem. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.39) 



I 
Kent Olsen, partner with petitioner Ryan McDougal, said he agreed that the area was a gem and 
this was a tough decision as there were competing uses for the land. He said he had lived in 
South Jordan for twenty-six years and felt he had seen quite the variety of development there, 
from temples to townhomes, golf courses to commercial developments. He said there were side­
by-side developments with farms and housing developments in the area. He said it was not 
perfect, but he felt it could work in this area too. 
Linda Wilkerson, resident, said development happened quickly and seemed spectacular, but as 
time would pass people would grow nostalgic for the things that used to be. She felt farm life 
was beautiful, especially being surrounded by natural wonders like Mt. Timpanogos. She said the 
Wilkerson Farm attracted visitors from around the state, and they did not want to lose the 
opportunities to cultivate the land and teach about agriculture. She said she was not opposed to 
development or to building housing but she felt there were plenty of those housing developments 
already. She thought there should be balance and preserved green space. 
Trevor Sniatynsky, resident, asked for an estimate of the number of apartments being built in 
Orem. He said projects were being built to accommodate UVU' s growing student population and 
he felt in a saturated market developers would need to do something to stay competitive, and so 
rooms were built cheaper and sold/rented for cheaper and building owners would not be able to 
afford the upkeep of the complexes. He felt this would attract lower-income residents, and 
worried that upkeep and neighborhood improvement would not be a priority to those residents. 
He reiterated the point that farmland, once lost, could never be regained and said it would be 
beneficial to spend time fixing existing structures instead of building new ones. 
I
Mayor Bruns! answered that there were about 2,200 units. 
I 
Ryan McDougal, applicant and petitioner, said the majority of property owners within the area 
were supportive of the annexation. He said they wanted to be able to develop their land how they 
wished. He said those seeking development were not looking to dictate how people would use 
their land, and the annexation would allow those who wanted to continue farming to do so but 
also allow for development. He said when he was told the developers would provide the utilities 
he went back to the drawing board for a new plan that would work. He said they had taken all the 
proper steps and had done everything the City had asked them to do. He asked if annexation took 
place that developers be allowed to do what was necessary to make their projects feasible, 
because there needed to be a means to install the infrastructure. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 
Mr .. Andersen said picking and choosing the annexation area would affect those that were not 
included as well. He felt everyone would be affected regardless of if they were in the specified 
annexation area or not. He thought some of the proposed utility rate increases were to support the 
annexation and he thought that would be a mistake. 
Mr. Macdonald said he was appreciative of the respectful way disagreements had been handled, 
and thanked those who had spoken. He said there was a majority that wanted to annex, and he 
felt that annexation allowed for landowners to farm or develop their properties. He appreciated 
the passionate public statements, but thought it was difficult not think about property rights on 
both sides. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.40) 
.. 



Mr. Seastrand echoed Mr. Macdonald's thanks to the audience. He said it was easy to have I
several perspectives on this issue, and he acknowledged that this was .a big decision. He was 
trying to find win/win solutions. He said the annexation had been part of the City's Master Plan 
for a long time, and was often perceived as already part of Orem. He wondered if the Wilkerson 
Farm could be moved into a designated agricultural or conservation easement area. He said a 
major concern he had heard was the density and format of the proposed projects, and not 
necessarily the annexation itself. He wished he could step back and examine all the various 
aspects 'and discuss the issue further. 
Mrs. Black wanted to clarify that the Planning Commission had not made a recommendation 
regarding annexation because they had not considered it; this Was a City Council responsibility. 
She said the bulk of the landowners were in favor of annexation and it provided choice for those 
landowners. She also wanted to clarify that the UVU population was significantly higher than 
had been previously mentioned, 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to approve the Lakeview Addition to Orem City 
Annexation Petition to annex 227 .59 acres into the City of Orem. Mr. Spencer seconded the 
motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, David Spencer, 
Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen, Mark E. Seastrand. The motion passed, 5-2. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SW Annexation General Plan Amendment and Zone 
Implementation 
ORDINANCE - Amending the land use map of the Orem General Plan to apply a land use 
designation to approximately 227 acres of property described in the Lakeview Addition to 
Orem City Annexation Plat located generally at 1600 South Geneva Road 
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A). of the Orem City Code and the zoning map 
of the City of Orem by zoning approximately 176 acres of property described in the 
Lakeview Addition to Orem City Annexation Plat located generally at 1600 South Geneva 
Road to the OS5 zone 
Mr. Bench explained that this request had two parts and was only now applicable because the 
City Council had approved the "Lakeview Addition to Orem City Annexation Petition" in the 
previous item. Because the City Council had approved the annexation, it would now need to (1) 
apply a General Plan land use designation to the property in the annexation area and then (2) 
apply a zoning designation to property in the annexation area. 
1. General Plan Designation.
The City Council expressed its intent in meetings in November 2014 and January 2015 not to
expend any City funds to pay for installation of utility infrastructure in the southwest annexation
area. In accordance with this direction, Staff had worked with potential developers to come up
with a plan that would make it feasible for developers to install necessary utility infrastructure at
their own cost.
Because of the cost of installing water, sewer and storm drain facilities in the annexation area, 
the developers and staff initially determined that a mix of General Plan land use designations 
consisting primarily of high density residential, medium density residential and community 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p.41) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
commercial would most effectively allow the development of land in the annexation area and 
would support the cost of constructing necessary infrastructure. 
Two potential developers, Ryan McDougal and Jeff Mansell, had indicated that they would be 
willing to front the ·cost of installing water, sewer and storm drain facilities sufficient to bring 
these utility services to their respective properties if the original proposal was incorporated into 
the General Plan and if their proposed PD zones were approved by the City Council. However, 
their ability to install this backbone infrastructure was dependent upon obtaining the density they 
had requested in their respective PD zones. 
Option A called for light industrial uses adjacent to 1-15 and west of the future Lakeview 
Parkway, commercial development at key intersections, and medium to high density residential 
development east of Lakeview Parkway and west of the railroad tracks. This plan would generate 
an average overall density of approximately seven units/acre throughout the southwest 
annexation area. This plan would also accommodate the development proposals submitted by 
Ryan McDougal and Jeff Mansell. 
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Option A on August 5, 2015 and ultimately 
recommended denial of this proposal. The Planning Commission recommended that the City 
Council consider a lower density plan. 
Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, Staff had proposed the following two 
alternatives for the City Council to consider for the General Plan land use designations: (I) 
Option B-Industrial Land Use and (2) Option C-Low Density. 
Option B proposed primarily light industrial General Plan land use designations and was based 
on recommendations outlined in the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan which called 
for an expansion of the Orem Business Park. This plan would accommodate the existing 
conservation easement on the Cherry Hill Farm and adjacent Clear Horizons Academy and 
would support commercial development at the future intersection of 2000 South and the 
Lakeview Parkway. 
Option C proposed primarily low density residential and light industrial General Plan land use 
designations. This plan was developed based on the recommendation of the Planning 
Commission to explore land uses more compatible with the existing rural/agricultural nature of 
the Lakeside area. A plan was adopted by the City Council in 2001 which stated that, "the City 
will require excellence in development layout to preserve views, create pedestrian-friendly and 
attractive streets, .and maintain the distinct rural character of the Lakeview Area. Development 
may be clustered in an effort to preserve open space and natural resources." Option C was a 
hybrid between a low density residential plan and a light industrial plan option. A low density 
residential designation would apply between Geneva Road and the railroad right-of•way and 
light industrial and community commercial would be located west of Geneva Road. 
2. Zoning Designation.
After the City Council adopted a General Plan land use designation for property in the
annexation area, it would next need to consider and adopt an appropriate zoning designation for
property in the annexation area. The two potential developers referenced above had contracts to
purchase property totaling 51 acres in the annexation area and had requested that the City
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.42) 



Council adopt and apply two separate planned development (PD) zones to their respective 
properties. The area included within the requests for these two PD zones was shown in the map I
below and these two requests would be considered in subsequent agenda items. However, the 
two developers did not have any specific request as to the zoning designation for the remaining 
176 acres in the annexation area that were not a part of their requests and Staff requested that the 
City Council amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem to apply the OSS 
zone to these 176 .acres as shown in the map below. Staff also recommended that the City 
Council continue the decision as to what zone to apply to the area of the proposed PD-42 zone 
and proposed PD-43 zone until those specific requests were considered.in upcoming items. 
Mr. Bench said the City Council would decide a General Plan designation first, and then decide 
the zoning of the specified area, with the exception .of the PD-42 and PD-43 zones which would 
be considered separately. The recommendation was to zone the area as OS5. He showed map 
representations of the three proposed density options for land use plans. 
Mr. Spencer asked to see the Option B map again for clarification. 
Mrs. Black and Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Bench to give added clarification on the land use 
density options, particularly the light industrial overlay. 
Mr. Bench said light industrial would typically accommodate controlled manufacturing type uses 
with smaller office type components, not unlike the business park currently on University 
Parkway. He said Option A was medium density, containing about 1,508 units or about eight 
units per acre. ·High density was sixteen units per acre, and low density was about four units per 
acre. 
Mr. Macdonald asked if Option A was what the Planning Commission recommended the City 
Council not approve. Mr. Bench said that was correct, that they recommended a low-density 
option. Options B and C were created by staff based on recommendations from the Planning 
Commission. 
Mr. Spencer asked if Option B would allow the building of single-family homes. 
Mr. Bench said the light industrial did not support single-family homes, and those looking to 
build single-family homes would request a change in the land use designation. He said Option C 
wouid allow for low density residential in the areas identified. He further clarified that PD zones 
did not necessarily need to conform to the general plan so if the Council moved forward with 
Option B and someone wanted to build single-family homes they could apply for a PD zone in 
the light industrial area. 
Mr. Spencer asked what land use designation would likely be put in place if the area between the 
railroad tracks was annexed. Mr. Bench said they would recommend light industrial for that area. 
Mr. Andersen asked if the low-density options would mean nothing would happen because 
developers would not be able to make their plans feasible. 
Mr. Bench said-the impact fees were adjusted for a low-density option, so infrastructure would 
be developer driven. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.43) 
I 
I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Earl added if all property in the annexation area developed under low-density residential or 
light industrial, the impact fees would pay for all infrastructure. The same would hold true if 
development was all medium or high density. The general plan designation was a broad view 
plan for the wanted outcome, and as much as possible the zoning classifications should fit within 
general plan designations. He said the general plan designations were advisory, and the Council 
had discretion to modify the presented options as they saw fit. 
Mayor Bruns! said he felt· the low-density options made the most sense to allow for property to 
be used how landowners wished. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Shawn Bunderson, resident, said he was concerned about the light industrial option and thought 
that might have higher fees in requesting a rezone. He thought the low-density recommendation 
from the Planning Commission was the best option. He said during his time working through his 
land issues with the County, Orem, and Provo he was able to connect to Provo City's water 
services. He had been told that after annexation he would no longer be able to connect to Provo, 
which concerned him. He said moving forward with Option C provided more options for 
landowners. 
Elaine Schofield, resident, said in 1999 the City Council put together a committee to work on a 
master plan for this area. She said the plan was adopted in 2002 by the Council and believed it 
was still in effect. She thought that plan needed to be considered in these discussions. 
Karen Eyring, resident, said she lived near the end of Sandhill Road and when that road was 
improved there was a dramatic uptick in the amount of traffic around her neighborhood. She was 
concerned about higher density projects that would increase traffic similarly. She was also 
concerned that there were no plans that she was aware of to improve 2000 South or Sandhill 
Road to accommodate the significant traffic increases. She knew the neighborhoods did not want 
the traffic that would be coming from the high-density residential developments in the area. 
Richard Wilkerson, resident, said maintaining farmland was his war cry. He lived close to the 
area and was also concerned about the traffic produced by high-density projects. He said the 
neighbors did not want high density in the area and felt it would ruin the neighborhood. 
Mayor Bruns! closed the public hearing. 
Mr. Spencer asked if it was true that the light industrial Option B would have higher fees. Mr. 
Bench said it was the same fee to rezone the property regardless, which was about $2,000. 
Mrs. Black said she generally liked Option C the best. She thought there could also be a fourth 
option allowing for low-density residential throughout the area. 
Mayor Bruns! said the idea in having the light industrial designation was to accommodate the 
planned Lakeview Parkway and the development that may come with that. It could also be 
changed as needed. 
City Co)IDcil Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.44) 



Mr. Bybee asked Mr. Stocksdale to speak to the 2001 plan mentioned earlier. Mr. Stocksdale 
said the Lakeview Area Plan was created by an ad hoc committee and some of the I
recommendations in the plan were for open space preservation, wetland preservation, historic 
preservation of the farm homes, etc. He said in that plan the predominant zones would be open 
space, residential that could be clustered to preserve open space, and agricultural uses. 
Mrs. Black said Option C alluded to that plan, saying that the City would "require excellence in 
development layout" and she felt that option was intended to address the points in the original 
Lakeview Area Plan. 
Mr. Macdonald asked if the low density designation would still allow developers to install 
infrastructure. Mr. Earl said the expectation was that whatever the general land use designation, 
the cost to install infrastructure was still on the developers and would be paid back by impact 
fees. 
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend the land use map of the Orem General Plan to 
apply a land use designation to approximately 227 acres of property described in the Lakeview 
Addition to Orem City Annexation Plat located generally at 1600 South Geneva Road, Option C 
- low density. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F.
Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay:
Hans Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1.
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the 
1·
zoning map of the City of Orem by zoning approximately 176 acres of property described in the 
Lakeview Addition to Orem City Annexation Plat located generally at 1600 South Geneva Road 
to the OS5 zone. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. those voting aye: Margaret Black, 
Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those 
voting nay: Hans Andersen. The m9tion passed, 6-L 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- SW Annexation- PD-42 
ORDINANCE - Enacting Section 22-11-55 and Appendix KK, PD-42 zone, amending 
Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by zoning 
property located generally at 700 West 2000 South to the PD-42 zone 
Mr. Bench presented Ryan McDougal's request that the City enact Section 22-11-55 and 
Appendix KK, PD-42 zone, amend Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A)and the zoning map of the 
City of Orem by zoning the property located generally at 700 West 2000 South to the PD-42 
zone. 
The applicant had a contract to purchase approximately 14.19 acres of property located at· 
approximately 700 West 2000 South. The subject property was located in the annexation area 
that was considered in a previous item. 
Tue applicant requested that the City Council adopt and apply the-PD-42 zone to the subject ·.I
property. The PD-42 zone would allow the applicantto develop side by side townhonie units at a 
density of 13.7 units per acre with a total of 192 units. If approved, the concept plan and 
proposed building elevations would become part of the City C_ode as Appendix "KK." 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p.45) 



I 
I 
I 
The following were the major elements of the proposed PD-42 zone: 
The permitted density as proposed was up to 15 units per acre, which was similar to other PD 
zones developed or approved for higher density residential development in other areas of the 
City. The applicant's concept plan showed 13.7 units per acre. 
The maximum residential structure height was proposed to be 30 feet. 
All buildings were required to be set back at least 20 feet from the west and north property lines 
and all public street(s). The setback to the east adjacent to the railroad track was not specified but 
will be regulated by the building code. 
The exterior finishing materials of the residential structures shall consist of brick, stone, stucco, 
concrete fiber-board siding or combination of these materials. 
At least 2.25 parking stalls per unit shall be provided, two of which must be covered. The extra 
.25 parking stall was reserved for guest parking. 
Along the west, north, and east property lines, a Rhino Rock® or equivalent material fence shall 
be installed. The minimum fence height shall be six feet and was not required along 2000 South. 
The proposed PD-42 text did not specify_ any amenities, but the 'concept plan did show some 
open space areas. The developer would be held to those open space areas and amenities that were 
shown on the concept plan. 
Two access points on 2000 South were provided. A stub access to adjacent property to the west 
would also be constructed to allow interior movement of vehicles .and pedestrians should that 
property develop. Traffic as the result of this development was a concern of the Planning 
Commission. In the opinion of the Planning Commission, the design of 2000 South and Geneva 
Road was not currently wide enough to handle the increase of traffic. The opinion of the City 
traffic engineer was that the existing road could handle the increase of traffic. The developer 
would improve 2000 South along the development frontage and when additional properties 
developed, they would improve their share of 2000 South. The developer could not be asked to 
widen and improve all of2000 South. 
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to deny the request for high density residential. 
They understood the property will develop in the future, but felt high density was not appropriate 
at that location and the impacts generated by the development including traffic was too much for 
the road design of Geneva Road and 2000 South. The Planning Commission felt that the area 
should be considered for a much lower density when developed. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the request to enact Section 22-
11-55 and Appendix KK, PD-42 zone, amend Section 22-5-land amend Section 22-5-3(A) and
the zoning map of the City of Orem by zoning the property generally at 2296 West 2000 South to
the PD-42 zone.
Mr. McDougal thanked the Council for their consideration on this matter. As was presented, his 
proposed plan involved a townhome development. He said when they started the process, they 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.46) 



knew they would be up against the issue of getting utilities to the property. When he met with 
Council he was told to develop with a plan that would pay for the installation of utilities I
infrastructure, which he had done because the idea was not to burden other taxpayers for the 
installation. He said his project was medium density, not high density, and this medium density 
plan had been developed after many neighborhood meetings as a means to keep the impact fees 
as low as possible but still be able to install the infrastructure. There were a number of challenges 
with the property finding a product that would be maintainable as well as marketable. HǢ felt the 
project would be an asset to the city and would serve as a buffer between the many different uses 
in the area including I-15, Sandhill Road, the railroads,.and other.uses. He read from the General 
Plan regarding' PD zones and the proper placement of high or medium density housing 
developments. He felt this project was an appropriate use in this area. 
Mayor Brunst asked who Mr. McDougal's contract was with to purchase the land. 
Mr. McDougal said the contract was with Stone Creek Properties. He said the land was used for 
the Wilkerson Farm currently, but it would be developed whether by this project or another. It 
could not remain farmland, and he felt this was a suitable project for the .land. He shared some 
points from the Envision Utah survey, saying that 78 percent of Utalms preferred a residential 
scenario that included a variety of housing options and was designed for convenient walking, 
transit, and short drives. He said the variety of housing options would allow more people the 
chance to afford to live in nice neighborhoods. By grouping high-density housing developments, 
it allowed for better land usage and helped to avoid urban sprawl. He said the population growth 
in Utah was set to double by the year 2050 and he felt that this housing development was 
I
appropriate for this area to maintain a high standard for the community and meet the wants and 
needs of residents that were indicated in the Envision Utah survey. 
Mr. Macdonald asked Mr. Bench if the proje<;t was high or medium density. Mr. Bench said it 
was somewhat in between but by what was defined earlier this was closer to .high density than to 
medium. 
Mrs. Black said she wanted to hear from the property owner. 
Richard McClouskey came forward. He said when he purchased the property in 2007 the intent 
was to build a school. That plan did not work out but during that time there were many 
discussions about the issue of bringing utilities to the property. The utilities issue made certain 
agreement possibilities unfeasible, and at one point they had discussed the option of annexation 
into Provo because Orem had no intent to bring utilities to the area at that .time: He said some 
development needed to be done to try and recoup some losses when the school development fell 
through. He knew the Wilkersons would love to keep it long term as farmland but that was not 
an option for him because a lender was owed. He supported some kind of development and he 
did not know how the City could move forward with annexing without providing utilities in 
some way. 
Mayor Brunst asked what the Wilkersons paid to lease the land for farming. He asked about the 
property tax on the land. He also asked Mr. McClouskey what he believed the land was worth. 
Mr. McClouskey said they paid $2,000 for the fourteen.acres the past year. For several years 
they were not charged anything but there were some associated costs that needed to be covere<i. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.47) I 



I 
I 
I 
He said the property tax was low because it stayed in green belt while it was used for fanning. 
He said the worth of the land had contributing variables, including zoning. He paid $1.4 million 
for the land with a 12 percent interest rate, and the lender had been incredibly patient with him as 
far as payments on the land and had not required many large or even small payments for a 
number of years. He said he was looking for a solution that would work for all parties, and had 
had the land under contract four separate times. The utility issue had been the problem for the 
previous developments, and they had tried for years to work something out with either Provo or 
Orem. He said there was no way he could allow this to stay farmland because the lender needed 
to be repaid. The lender could seize the prop_erty at some point, which would also take away the 
possibility of keeping the land for fanning. 
Mayor Brunst asked if the units would be for rent or for sale. He asked what the square footage 
was for the units. 
Mr. McDougal said they had not removed any option from the table as far as rental or sale of the 
townhomes. They could have a portion for sale depending on the market. He said they would be 
approximately 1,500 square feet, with units including two bedrooms, two bathrooms; and a two­
car garage and more than adequate parking. He said these were not typical townhomes, as they 
were designed to face the green open spaces with nice frontage. He thought this type of product 
was a category above some of the other apartment/condo type developments he had seen. He said 
they were open to feedback to ensure that the final product was an asset to the City. 
Mr. Andersen said he had been going through the proposed five-year budget and one thing listed 
was a storm water pipe going down 2000 South for about $2.25 million. He asked Mr. 
McDougal what his responsibility was for that storm water pipe and how the difference would be 
made up. 
Mr. McDougal said his understanding was the developers would be responsible to install the 
initial backbone infrastructure and receive credits for that installation, and then be reimbursed by 
the appropriate impact fees. He was not sure what the developer's responsibility was toward the 
storm water pipe he was asking about, but understood they would pay their proportionate share 
for whatever burden was placed on that system. 
Mr. Bench said for 192 units the storm water would be $1,944 per ERU. 
Mr. Earl said there was to be a pioneering agreement where the first developers in the area were 
going to install water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure. The agreement called for 
installation of storm water infrastructure on 2000 South. The City was asking the developers to 
install a storm water pipe that would be adequate to service all. of the development in the 
Southwest Annexation area. In that area, all the installation costs for storm water would be 
covered by the developers. Because the area was at a low elevation for the city geographically, 
other city storm water flowed down through that area through existing city facilities. The new 
storm water drain infrastructure being talked about here was designed to replace a part of the 
Taylor drain. In the pioneering agreement it stipulated that the City had the right to require the 
developers to upsize the storm drain lines beyond what would be needed to handle the Southwest 
Annexation area's storm water and the City would pay for the existing cost over and above the 
base infrastructure. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.48) 



Sam Kelly, City Engineer, said they met with a consultant to discuss the storm drain master plan 
because it called for a forty-eight inch pipe to come through, but that was based on the fact that I
the city would not put any more storm water into the Lake Bottom Canal. There needed to be 
further discussion on the issue. As far as the project in the capital facilities plan, it was still a bit 
• up in the air. They wanted to find the best solution that would work toward meeting the needs of
other projects in the city as well. He said the storm water fee was different because it was based
on acreage. The trunk lines that would be installed by the first developers would service the
Southwest Annexation area at the same level that the City had. So if the City needed to upsize,
they would need to find a way to participate.
Mr. Andersen said his concern was who was going to pay for it.
Mr. Earl said the storm water pipe being installed to handle the Southwest Annexation
infrastructure would be paid for by the developers, which would be a significant cost to them. As
part of the pioneering agreement they would need to have water, sewer, and storm water
infrastructure.
Mr. Kelly said if the City decided to run their storm drain through the McDougal property, then
at that time the City would participate with his project and pay for the upsize of the pipe. The
City's capital facilities plan included taking care of the opportunity costs to install the forty-eight
inch pipe as a joint venture with the developer.
Mr, Earl said the real burden was building the storm water infrastructure, and the developers I
would then get a credit against the storm water impact fees levied against their property. They
would be paying much more for storm water improvements than the impact fees would be for
storm water against their property. The first developers' hope would be that as other property in
the area was developed and paid impact fees that they might get reimbursed for all or part of the
cost that they would incur upfront.
Mr. Andersen asked when the $2.25 million would be spent.
Mr. Earl said he was not certain how to answer that question, but said the developers would put
storm water facilities adequate to handle the storm water needs generated by the annexation area.
Mr. McDougal said his understanding of the agreement had the developers putting up the costs
up front to install the infrastructure, and as others hooked in the developers would be reimbursed
with impact fees.
Mayor Bruns! opened the public hearing.
Jeff Mansell, petitioner, said it was important to understand that he and Mr. McDougal did not
want the area to become like the area in Vineyard that was seeing such extreme growth. The
annexation area, because of the agricultural protection overlay, only allowed for approximately
100 acres that could be developed as residential. The low density designation has further limited I
the units that could be built. He said by allowing a large nmpber of units in the two proposed PD
zones it would reduce the number of units available in the remaining acreage. He also pointed
out that the first developers in the area had made serious commitments to bring the utilities to the
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.49) 



I 
I 
I 
area, which would beneficial to both the City and the area long term. He would prefer both 
projects to move forward to allow for better financing of the infrastructure installation. 
Rachel Wilkerson, resident, said she wished she could buy the land to keep it as a farm, because 
it was a business that continued to grow. She felt this project did not fit into the low-density land 
use plan that the Council had determined. She said having a large housing development right 
next to FrontRunner would be dangerous for children. She said the train stopped multiple times 
in the area and she did not believe it would be a place that young families would want to live. 
Dan Pulver, resident, said he wanted the Council to keep to low density. He said near his home 
along Sandhill Road there was a medium density project being built and he had already seen an 
increase in traffic. He was worried about even more traffic if high density projects were 
approved and hoped the Council would deny these projects. 
Dustin Palmer, resident, said he owned and operated businesses on Sandhill Road. He was 
concerned about the impact of the traffic on 2000 South specifically and the south end . of 
Sandhill Road near the roundabout. He felt that most people in the developments would need to 
use 2000 South and Sandhill, neither of which was designed to handle that level of traffic. He 
felt that any development would add costs to the residents in both Orem and Provo to improve 
those roads. 
Linda Brown, resident, said the Council had decided for low density and this was not a low 
density project. She was also concerned about the traffic this project could generate. She felt the 
information from the Envision Utah survey was to have people out of their cars but this would 
put hundreds of more cars on the roads that were unprepared for that volume of traffic. She did 
not think the City Council was in the business of protecting developers' money, but in doing 
what was best for the people of the area. 
Ken Olsen, developer, said this project would not change the overall density in the area because 
they would cluster the units, and he felt that would also help with the traffic issues. He said this 
project would have the same feel as grouped single-family homes because these were 
townhomes that were no higher than two stories and had twenty-five foot setbacks. He felt if 
there was any place in the annexation area that could handle this kind of townhome development, 
this was it. It was a good transition and buffer from railroad and industrial to residential areas. 
He said the amenity package and the walkability would make this project an asset for the City. 
Richard Wilkerson, resident, said he did not believe a townhome project would be a good buffer 
for the railrnad. He said people still lived in townhomes and would be affected by the railroad 
and industrial uses in the area. He said the best .buffer would be farmland. He suggested the City 
purchase the land .and designate the area as an agricultural easement, which would recoup about 
80 percent of the money the City would spend on the land. That way the neighborhood would be 
satisfied and the farmland could stay. 
Karen Eyring, resident, said she lived near the freeway and the rattle of the trains bounced her 
house, so they would definitely bounce the townhouses. She said the traffic would be an issue 
because there were 192 units proposed and each unit had a two-car garage. She felt the roads 
were not sufficient in the area to accommodate that increase in traffic. She said if a development 
like this was going to go in, then the roads needed to be improved first. People would speed in 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.50) 
.... ,,,. 



the area, especially around the curve at 2000 South and "Snake Hill Road", and there were 
already many accidents. 
Jessica Street, resident, asked if this development would have an HOA. She said she had lived 
near train tracks and said there was always noise from the railroad. She felt having families live 
right next to the railroad lines was a bad idea. She said she was part of an organization that 
helped low-income families with housing needs, which was a challenge as resources for low­
income families became scarcer. She said eliminating farmland was taking away a resource, and 
she hoped there was a way to make the land a benefit to the whole community. 
Mr. McDougal said the development would be maintained by a private organization, not by 
individual residents. 
Wanda Barr, resident, she was concerned about the spirit of the neighborhood and she wanted to 
preserve the pioneer country spirit. She felt increased density in the Lakeview neighborhood 
would take away from the pioneer spirit the area had. She was concerned about the units with all 
the cars at the development in Provo, which would be on top of these developments. She said 
most of those units were still vacant and there was not a need for more housing. Her concern for 
years was the traffic problem and she did not feel that the roads could not handle the added 
traffic. 
Sam Lentz, resident, asked Mr. McDougal about the decision to proceed having the developer 
I 
pay for the installation of the utility infrastructure in the annexation area. He was interested in 
I
the timing of the decision because of a flier Councilmember Andersen was distributing that said 
he had saved the City over $5 million. 
Mr. McDougal said because of the late hour he could not say for certain when that decision was 
made, but it would have been at least six months prior to this meeting. Initially they asked about 
the possibility of a bond with the City, which they would have preferred, but they were advised 
that the City would not do a bond. It was decided that the developers would be obliged to come 
up with a plan to install the initial utility infrastructure. There would be an agreement that if the 
developers exceeded what the typical impact fees would be in the area they would eventually be 
reimbursed as development took place afterward. He said the developers would have preferred 
not to be responsible for installing the utility infrastructure for the whole area but he understood 
why the City would not want that burden. 
Barry Brown, resident, said after the Wilkersons, he would be the most affected by the 
development. It would be his property's east boundary and would landlock his pasture. He said 
the traffic problems would be inescapable. He agreed with Richard Wilkerson's suggestion for 
the City to buy the property and keep it as agricultural land. 
Jim Fawcett, resident, said his concern was regarding storage for culinary water. The culinary 
water study said, "Orem analyzed the water storage system and determined that there is no 
excess capacity which can be utilized by the annexation area." He said the City already had a I
culinary water storage deficit of 10 million gallons, and his concern was if a well was not put in 
immediately the City would have to pay for the development. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.51) 



I 
I 
I 
Shawn Bunderson, resident, said this was a complex issue that would affect his neighbors and 
the developers and the City, and he had mixed emotions. He wanted neighbors and utilities, and 
these developments would help with that. He said the developers were required to widen the 
roads, which would benefit the area. He felt this would be a good buffer for the area. He had 
some concerns with the developments, but he knew the land would be developed whether it was 
this project or another. He worried about future proposals if these did not go through, as the area 
was near a growing university. He hoped whatever decision was made would benefit everyone. 
Chris Foster, resident, said 2000 South was already busy. The area lost a cherry orchard to the 
east for developments and he felt like this would make the area so much busier with traffic. He 
said the Planning Commission may not have weighed in on the annexation, but they 
recommended that if the area was annexed it should be for low-density uses and agriculture. He 
wanted to defend the Wilkerson Farm against development, but he understood the difficulty. He 
was not sure Richard Wilkerson's proposal was possible, but he would support a proposal like 
that. 
Mayor Bruns! closed the public hearing. 
Mayor Brunst said he appreciated the good effort Mr. McDougal has put into this proposal. He 
had some concerns with the density, the location, and the rental aspects of the project and was 
not personally in favor. 
Mr. Seastrand said now the area was annexed the challenge was determining how to develop. 
The City had moved away from the option to bond for the utility infrastructure. These proposed 
developments relieved the City of having to install the trunk line utility infrastructure, but the 
density was a concern with the land use designation. Conversely, the developers needed a density 
that would make their installation costs worthwhile and the cluster aspect would leave the rest of 
the area for lower density development, but .that was also a concern. Another option could be for 
the City to allow the utility infrastructure to be installed gradually as development occurred. 
There were many variables to consider, and it was difficult to know how things would 
development if only one or none of the proposed developments was approved. He asked some 
clarification on the density issue. 
Mr. Bybee said the zoning established a maximum density for the entire annexation area. If 
much of the density went into the proposed PD zones it limited the density allowed in the rest of 
the area. If not, the density would be spread through the area as development occurred. He said 
the estimate for the area was a maximum of approximately 852 total units or equivalent 
residential units. 
Mr. Bench if the proposed PD zones had higher density concentration the rest of the area would 
only allow for the net difference density in the rest of the area. 
Mr. McDougal asked that if the request was denied, that it be denied without prejudice. He felt a 
denial would cause undue hardship, and he would prefer feedback rather than a flat denial. 
Mr. Earl said City ordinance said if a request was denied the applicant would need to wait one 
year before bringing the request back to before the Council. There were two options for an 
applicant to be allowed to bring a requl)st forward again before one year had passed. The first 
City Cowtcil Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p.52) 



was if three Councilmembers who voted against the project requested that it be reheard within I
thirty days of the denial, or the applicant could come back with another request that was 
substantially different and would go through the application process again. 
Mrs. Black said this decision was a bigger struggle than she thought it would be. She wanted Mr. 
McDougal to know that she appreciated his efforts and his presentation this evening. 
Mayor Bruns! moved to deny the request to enact Section 22-11-55 and Appendix KK, PD-42 
zone, amending Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by 
zoning property located generally at 700 West 2000 South to the PD-42 zone. Mr. Seastrand 
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, 
Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Tom Macdonald. The 
motion passed, 6-1. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning 
map of the City of Orem by zoning property located generally at 700 West 2000 South to the 
OS5 zone. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Hans Andersen, Margaret 
Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. 
The motion passed unanimously. 
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- SW Annexation- PD-43 
ORDINANCE - Enacting Section 22-11-56 and Appendix LL, PD-43 zone, amending 
Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by zoning 
property located generally at.2000 South Geneva Road to the PD-43 zone 
Mr.Bench presented JeffMansell's request that the City enact Section 22-11 °56 and Appendix 
LL, PD-43 zone, amend Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of 
Orem by zoning the property located generally at 2000 South Geneva Road to the PD-43 zone. 
The applicant had a contract to purchase approximately 3 7 acres located at approximately 2000 
South Geneva Road. The subject property was part of the southwest annexation area that was 
considered in a previous item. 
The applicant requested that the City Council adopt and apply the PD-43 zone to the subject 
property to enable the applicant to construct a medium density residential development 
consisting of townhouse type units with three distinct architectural styles. The applicant 
proposed to construct a total of 271 units with an overall density of 8.2 units per acre. If 
approved, the concept plan as well as the building elevations would become part of the Code as 
Appendix "LL." 
The following were the major elements of the proposed PD-43 zone: 
I 
Two areas of development were proposed; the larger of the two, containing 35.4 acres, would be 
for residential development and was referred to as Area "A". Area "B" would have I
approximately 1.5 acres to be used for commercial development or an assisted living facility. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.53) 



I 
I 
I 
The applicant proposed a density ofup to 12 units per acre which was similar to other PD zones 
developed or approved for higher density residential development in other areas of the City. 
However, the concept plan showed a density of 8.2 units per acre. 
The maximum height of a residential structure in Area "A" was 35 feet while the maximum 
height in Area "B" was 45 feet. 
Area "A" shall have a setback of at least 20 feet from all exterior boundaries, private streets, and 
Area "B." Any structure in Area "B" shall be set back from public streets and shared boundaries 
with Area "A" at least 20 feet or the height ofthe structure, whichever was greater. 
Exterior finishing materials shall consist of brick, stone, stucco, concrete fiber-board siding or a 
combination of these materials. 
At least 2.5 parking stalls were required per unit, two of which must be covered. Some units in 
Area "A" would also have a driveway which may be used for parking. Each unit would provide 
0.5 parking stalls for guest parking, not including any parking stalls located on a driveway. 
Amenities were shown on the concept plan and included a clubhouse, open space, and play areas. 
The concept plan showed two access points along Geneva Road and a third to be located along 
2000 South if and when that road was constructed. If 2000 South was constructed, the south 
access along Geneva Road would be modified to only allow access to the comer parcel and no 
access to the housing units. 
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The Planning Commission 
understood that the property would likely develop in the future, but felt that high density 
residential development was not appropriate at this location and that the traffic impact that would 
be generated by the development would be too much for the current configuration of Geneva 
Road .and 2000 South. The Planning Commission felt that the area should be considered for a 
much lower density. 
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the request to enact Section 22-
11-55 and Appendix LL, PD-43 zone, amend Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning
map of the City of Orem to zone the property generally at 2000 South Geneva Road to the PD-43
zone.
Mr. Bench said Mr. Mansell was proposing three different unit types and a ,small commercial 
component. He was also proposing improvements to Geneva Road. 
Mr. Mansell said the comer identified for the active adult 55 and older units may not be 
developed until long into the future. He also said it may be a neighborhood office or an assisted 
living center, so the overall number of units may be lower than the current proposal. He said he 
felt they had come up with a project that would be successful and would be a wonderful place to 
Jive. They had developed a similar project in Lindon that had been successful, particularly for 
those who may be looking to downsize to a smaller and more manageable residence and stay in 
the area. They would be partnering with Edge Homes for the garden-style townhomes. Each area 
would back open space with large setbacks, and there would be three designated play areas and a 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.54) 



clubhouse. They were planning quality amenities and allowing for lots of open space. He said all 
the units would have two-car garages and met the standards for parking. 
Mayor Brunst asked for clarification about the wetlands and the Area "B". 
Mr. Mansell said Area "B" would be a C2 designation that would be developed well into the 
future. They delineated some area for wetland and a storm water detention area, but that would 
dry out as the storm water in the area was retained. Once dry most of the area would be green 
space that was designated as wetlands and still maintain a storm water retention area. 
Mr. Spencer asked how big the area was. Mr. Mansell said it was over an acre, possibly closer to 
two. Mr. Mansell invited Joe Perrin, traffic engineer consultant with A-Trans Engineering, to 
come forward and talk about his study of Geneva Road in conjunction with UDOT. 
Mr. Perrin said he worked with staff to evaluate the overall impact of added traffic to the area. 
He said units drove the traffic, and the clustering aspect would not change that. He said traffic 
was a relatively sensitive thing and if an area was not used to having any traffic then any 
additional traffic would make it seem much worse. His findings were that all the roads in 
question were under capacity according to national and local thresholds. He said 2000 South had 
been much talked about, but it was a road that had the capacity to carry about 15,000 cars a day 
but typically carried 2,000 cars a day. He said his job was to identify the capacity of the road for 
actual impact, not the relative feeling of those impacts. UDOT was requiring that the half-width 
I 
improvements along Geneva Road be improved so there would be some widening and other 
I
upgrades the developers would be responsible for. The two access points on Geneva Road would 
satisfactorily accommodate the traffic there. He said it would add some traffic, but would 
certainly stay below capacity. 
Mr. Earl said the City had been working with Mr. Mansell on a development agreement in which 
he would agree to construct his half of the improvements for Geneva Road to meet the UDOT 
cross-section along the length of the property frontage on Geneva Road. 
Mr. Goodrich said Mr. Mansell would be providing the three lane section at his cost. He said 
going from a two lane road to a three Jane road with a shoulder on a road like Geneva would 
increase, capacity by 20-30 percent and would make the road safer. He said they were also 
preserving a corridor for the future Lakeview Parkway, which would be a major arterial going 
north/south. 
Mr. Macdonald asked about the "snake hill road" that had been referred to earlier. Mr. Goodrich 
said that section of "snake hill road" was classified as a collector street. Years ago the City 
Council downgraded that designation in anticipation of an intersection Provo was looking to 
build, and because of that downgrade the road was ineligible to receive federal funding. Because 
Provo was not actively looking to build that intersection, staff would be asking that the road 
classification be upgraded as part of the updated Transportation Master Plan. 
Mayor Bruns! asked if they planned to build a fence between the property and Skip Dunn's 
property. 
City Council Minutes -August 25, 2015 (p,55) I 



I 
I 
I 
Mr. Mansell said there was a fencing requirement in the development agreement for a fence that 
was a mixture of concrete solid surface fencing and other products. The fence would be the 
standard seven feet. He said the Provo airport would be critical component to the growth of 
Orem and Provo, and the Lakeview corridor would be important with that growth. 
Mr. Seastrand asked how the light industrial areas on the side of Geneva Road mixed with the 
current proposal. He asked from a development standpoint if the light industrial areas would 
have a similar value. 
Mr. Mansell said it would fall into a general mixed use area. He had seen other local examples of 
active adult developments within a larger commercial center, and the development they had done 
in Lindon had light industrial directly east of the property which had not been a problem. He said 
the value oflight industrial was into the future once the expanded roads and infrastructure was in 
place. In the intermediate term of the next ten years it would be a struggle for businesses in the 
light industrial to take root without utilities, though he said he was no expert. 
Mr. Andersen asked about the installation of the water and sewer and well, in light of the earlier 
considered McDougal project being denied. He asked if they would still be able to install the 
infrastructure and asked what he anticipated having to put up for that installation. 
Mr. Mansell said they would install what they had been asked to install, and thought some of the 
specific items Mr. Andersen was concerned with were part of the City's budget and plan and had 
nothing to do with his project. He said·with the McDougal proposal being denied, it put a much 
greater risk and greater financial responsibility on him. In order to move forward with the 
responsibilities to install the initial infrastructure they would need to keep the density the project 
was requesting. He said the overall improvement plan under the impact fee study was bonded, all 
the improvement would be done at once. This situation was for an individual developer to install 
the water line, the sewer line and the pump station for it, and a storm water system that would 
allow this section of the annexation area to deal with its storm drain. As development continued, 
they would be paid back and additional impact fees would be coming into the City for other 
developments that would continue to make additional improvements to the overall infrastructure. 
He said they were anticipating somewhere in the $3 million range, and the impact fee allotment 
·was $2 million so they would be making up that difference until they were paid back from
additional impact fees. That $3 million did not include the well and other things Mr. Andersen
had alluded to because those were not necessary until the entire annexation area was developed;
future impact fees would pay for future upgrades in the area.
Mayor Bruns! asked if the development was planning to connect with the future Lakeview 
Parkway. Mr. Mansell said they were anticipating that and they would stub to allow for that 
connection. They would also go into 2000 South when Provo decided to extend that. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Ken Olsen, developer, said he did not think the Council had listened to the proposal from Mr. 
McDougal but had their minds made up before they came in. He said Mr. McDougal brought the 
annexation to the City. Then the City asked that he and Mr. Mansell provide the initial 
infrastructure but would not support a density that would allow them to do so. He was not happy 
with what happened with the McDougal proposal, and especially unhappy that Mr. Goodrich had 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.56) 



not given any comment on the traffic studies done for the McDougal project. He felt the 
Council's mindset about development and land use in the area was inconsistent to say the least. 
Jim Fawcett, resident, wanted to return to the issue of"no excess capacity" that could be utilized 
in the annexation area. He wondered how anyone in the area could connect if there was no well 
in place. He said the impact fee study said they needed a well in the area and then people could 
building and connect. He thought they were ignoring the storage need in the impact fee study and 
analysis. He did not understand how they could allow development to begin without first having 
a well in place. 
Shawn Bunderson, resident, said he felt this project would benefit him personally and the 
community as well. He hoped Mr. McDougal's proposal could come.back at some point in the 
future, but he urged the Council to approve Mr. Mansell's project at this baseline to allow 
improvements to begin. He felt homes were better neighbors than industrial businesses. 
Don Barr, resident, said he had his own well and was not dependent on connecting to Orem's 
water infrastructure but he had already been affected by wells dug by Orem. His property was 
right up against this proposed project, and he did not have a lot of dread about this project. He 
was not planning to move into the development or anything, but he thought this could be a 
decent development for the area. He wanted there to be access other than on Geneva Road. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 
I 
Mr. Mansell said under the original culinary water impact fee study based on over 1,900 units 
·1
being built, there would be "no excess capacity" based on the complete buildout of the entire 
area. 
Mr. Spencer asked for a clarification on the number of units in the proposal. Mr. Bench said 271 
ERUs for the development at full buildout. 
Mayor Brunst said he understood Mr. McDougal' s disappointment. He said each council 
member had the opportunity to review materials and ask questions throughout the process before 
determining what they felt was right. He liked the road upgrade aspect of the project, and felt 
that it would be a buffer for the area. He said the project would help pay for needed utility 
infrastructure, which would greatly benefit the City, without having to meet a high density. He 
said developments for active adults 55+ were needed, and he liked that the units would be for 
sale. 
Mrs. Black asked if the development agreement and pioneering agreement were part of enacting 
the PD-43 zone. Mr. Earl said a development agreement had been signed that indicated the 
developers would make the improvements to Geneva Road and on 2000 South. He said Mr. 
Mansell and the owner of Ridgeline Capital had signed a pioneering agreement indicating they 
would put in the necessary infrastructure. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to enact Section 22-11-56 and Appendix LL, PD-43 zone, I
amending Section 22-5-1, Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by zoning 
property located generally at 2000 South Geneva Road to the PD-43 zone. Mr. Macdonald 
seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.57) 



I 
I 
I 
David Spencer. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen,. Mark E. Seastrand, Brent Sumner. The 
motion passed, 4-3. 
RESOLUTION - Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a development 
agreement between the City and Jeff Mansell pertaining to the installation of utility 
infrastructure in the Southwest Annexation Area and providing for impact fee credits and 
reimbursement to developers through collection of future impact fees 
Mr. Bench presented Jeff Mansell's request that the City Council approve a "pioneering" 
development agreement between the City, Jeff Mansell and Ryan McDougal pertaining to the 
installation of utility infrastructure 'in the Southwest Annexation Area and providing for impact 
fee credits and reimbursement to developers through collection of future impact fees. 
In a previous agenda item, the City Council considered the Lakeview Addition to Orem City 
Annexation Petition to annex 227.59 acres into the City of Orem. The City Council also 
considered the enactment of impact fees on new development activity in the Southwest 
Annexation Area in an upcoming item. 
Ryan McDougal and Jeff Mansell (hereinafter the "developers") had contracts to purchase 
property in the annexation area and wanted to develop the properties that were the subject of the 
proposed PD-42 and PD-43 zones respectively. The developers were willing to install, at their 
own expense, the necessary infrastructure to connect to and provide City water, sewer and storm 
water services to their respective properties. 
It was anticipated that the cost of installing this initial infrastructure would exceed the amount of 
impact fees that would be owed to the City by the developers for development of their respective 
projects. City staff had prepared a pioneering agreement that described the infrastructure to be 
installed by the developers and provided a procedure under which the developers could receive a 
credit for the cost of installing the infrastructure against the impact fees that would be incurred 
on their own developments. In the event that the cost of installing the infrastructure exceeded the 
amount of impact fees incurred by the developers, the pioneering agreement also provided that 
the developers could be reimbursed for this excess expense from impact fees that were collected 
from future developers if and when additional development occurred. 
The principal terms contained in the pioneering agreement were: 
1. Developers would be required to install, at their own cost, "backbone" infrastructure for
water, sewer and storm water to connect to and provide City water, sewer and storm
water services to their respective properties and to loop a water line.
2.
The infrastructure improvements would have to be constructed in conformance with City
construction standards and specifications· and 'wotlld be dedicated to the City upon
completion and acceptance by the City.
3.
After completion of the infrastructure improvements, developers would be entitled to a
credit that could be used to offset impact fees that were imposed by the City on the
developers' property. A credit could only be given for the same kind of impact fee as the
type of infrastructure constructed. For example, a credit for water impact fees could only
be given to offset the cost of constructing water facilities.
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.58) 
L~ • I 



4.
If the cost of the infrastructure improvements exceeded the amount of impact fees
imposed against development on the developers' properties, developers could be I· 
reimbursed for the amount of the excess cost from additional impact fees that were
collected by the City from other development in the Southwest Annexation Area. For
example, if developers spent one million dollars on sewer facilities, they would be
entitled to a credit for one million dollars of sewer impact fees. If the total of sewer
impact fees oh developers' projects were only $500,000, they could be reimbursed that
amount over time if and when additional development occurred in the annexation area
and additional sewer impact fees were collected by the City.
Development Services staff recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his 
designee, to execute a pioneering development agreement between the City, Ryan McDougal and 
Jeff Mansell regarding the installation of infrastructure improvements in the Southwest 
Annexation Area and providing for impact fee credits and reimbursement to developers through 
collection of future impact fees. 
Mr. Earl said that the original plan was to have both developers sign the agreement and share the 
cost. However, based on what happened at the Planning Commission meeting, where they 
recommended the denial of the PD-42 and denial of the PD-43 • but made some positive 
comments about Mr. Mansell's proposed development, City staff had prepared a contingent 
agreement between the City !\fld only Mr. Mansell' s property owners. Mr. Mansell had signed 
the agreement. That agreement provided that Mr. Mansell would put in the necessary water, 
sewer and storm drain improvements necessary to serve his property and loop the water line up 
I
to 2000 South and the west side of 1-15. In exchange, Mr. Mansell would get a credit for the 
impact fees that would be imposed against his property. 
Mr. Earl said that each category of impact fee would be treated separately. Those credits would 
not be transferrable between utilities. The agreement also provided that if Mr. Mansell had an 
excess credit he could get reimbursed from future development when they paid impact fees. Mr. 
Mansell would assume the risk that he might never be fully reimbursed. He would only be 
reimbursed for what he had spent. Impact fees after paying him back would go to the City, to be 
used for other infrastructure in the area. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by resolution to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a 
development agreement between the City and Jeff Mansell pertaining to the installation of utility 
infrastructure in the Southwest Annexation Area and providing for impact fee credits and 
reimbursement to developers through collection of future impact fees. Mr. Seastrand seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Brunst, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. 
Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen. The motion passed,
6-1.
6:00 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - SW Annexation Impact Fees Plan and Analysis 
ORDINANCE - Adoption of Impact Fee Facilities Plans and Impact Fee Analyses. 
establishment of service areas and enacting impact fees for culinary water, sewer, storm 
water, parks. and fire facilities on development activity in the Southwest Annexation Area 
The Development Services Department requested the City Council adopt Impact Fee Facilities 
Plans and Impact Fee Analyses, establish service areas and enact impact fees for culinary water, 
City Council Minutes - August 25, 20 I 5 (p.59) I 



I 
I 
I 
sewer, storm water, parks, and fire facilities on development activity m the Southwest 
Annexation Area. 
In a previous agenda item, the City Council considered the Lakeview Addition to Orem City 
Annexation Petition to annex 227 .59 acres into the City of Orem. The Southwest Annexation 
Area was largely undeveloped and there was.very little utility infrastructure in the area. The City 
Council had previously indicated that it did not intend to expend City funds to install utility 
infrastructure in the area and that owners or developers of property in the area would be required 
to install and pay for any utility infrastructure that would be needed for development. 
In order to provide a means to reimburse developers who installed more than their proportionate 
share of necessary infrastructure and to ensure that the cost of installing infrastructure was spread 
fairly among all development activity, City Staff recommended that the City Council enact 
impact fees for water, sewer, storm water, parks and fire facilities on all new development 
activity in the Southwest Annexation Area. 
The City Engineer had determined a service area for water, sewer, stonn water, parks and fire 
services in the Southwest Annexation Area and the City had engaged the finn of Lewis Young to 
prepare an Impact Fee Facilities plan and an Impact Fee Analysis for water, sewer, storm water, 
parks and fire services. The amount of the impact fees depended on the level of density of 
development that was anticipated to occur in the Southwest Annexation Area. Generally, the 
higher the density, the lower the impact fees would be as there would be more development to 
share the costs. 
Lewis Young performed an Impact Fee Analysis based on both a medium density scenario and a 
low density scenario. The medium density scenario assumed an average overall density of 6.6 
equivalent residential units (ERUs) per acre and the low density scenario assumed an overall 
average density of 4.3 ER Us per acre. 
Because the Planning Commission recommended a low density general plan designation for the 
Southwest Annexation Area, Staff recommended that the City Council consider enacting impact 
fees based on the low density scenario. Impact fees based on the low density scenario would be 
consistent with either General Plan Option B (light industrial) or General Plan Option C (low 
density residential) that were presented to the City Council in a previous item. 
Impact fees calculated under the low density scenario assumed that the entire Southwest 
Annexation Area, when fully developed, could contain development equal to 1,250 ERUs. An 
ERU was basically a measure of development that had the same impact as one residential unit. 
For example, development under a light industrial classification would be anticipated to have a 
development impact equal to 4.3 residential units or 4.3 ERUs. 
The service area covered approximately 289 acres. Some impact fees ( culinary water, sewer, fire, 
and parks) were based on a per ERU basis while others were calculated on a per acre basis. 
If the proposed impact fees were adopted, hew developments would be required to pay the new 
impact fees as well as water right impact fees, but would not pay current City connection fees. 
The impact fees would typically be collected prior to the recording of a final plat or the issuance 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.60) 



of a building permit for new development. State law provided that no impact fees could be 
collected until 90 days after enactment of an impact fee ordinance. 
In order to impose impact fees, state law required that the City Council (I) adopt an Impact Fee 
Facilities Plan, (2) adopt an Impact Fee Analysis, (3) establish a service area, and (4) approve an 
impact fee enactment that established the amount of the impact fees. 
The Development Services Department recommended the City Council adopt the Impact Fee 
Facilities Plans and Impact Fee Analyses, establish service areas and enact impact fees for 
culinary water, sewer, storm water, parks, and fire facilities on development activity in the 
Southwest Annexation Area. The Development Services Department recommended that the City 
Council adopt impact fees based on the low density scenario and in the following amounts: 
I. Culinary water: $2,369 per ERU.
2. Sewer: $3,643 per ERU.
3. Storm water: $8,412 per acre (equates to $1,944 per ERU).
4. Parks: $1,595 per residential unit (no parks impact fee would be imposed for non­
residential development).
5. Fire: $219 per residential unit and $5,251 per acre of nonresidential development.
Fred Philpot with Lewis Young said that theyhad completed the Impact Fee Facilities-Plan and 
I 
Impact Fee Analysis. He said those documents were combined into a single document for each 
I
of the following utilities: culinary water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, parks and recreation, and 
fire/public safety. He described the process used to prepare those documents, including looking 
at the service area and demand; level of service; existing facilities and excess capacity; future 
capital facility needs; and financing. He said that once new impact fees were adopted there 
would be a 90-day wait period before the fees would become effective. 
Mr. Philpot said the total maximum fee recommended was $9,770 on a typical ERU. He 
provided some comparisons with other cities, including Eagle Mountain at $8,156; Provo at 
$6,347; and St. George at $5,165. He said the recommended fee reflected the level of service and 
needs for an annexation area. He said it was typically more expensive to build on the periphery
of a community. 
Mr. Macdonald clarified that the comparisons were from pity-wide fees and the current proposal 
was just for the annexation area, so it was really not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mr. Philpot 
said that Mr. Macdonald was correct, but that there was some comparison when considering fee 
per unit. Impact fees were proportionate to a specific demand unit. He also explained that fees 
were based on original costs, so some fees were based on dollar amounts from decades ago and 
the proposed fees were based on future costs. 
Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Mansell to explain the timeline for the project. Mr. Mansell said they first 
needed to get site plan approval and they would work with staff on engineering for the 
infrastructure and the site plan probably next year. 
Mr. Philpot recommended that the Council not think of the fees as "set in stone". 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.61) I 



I 
I 
I 
Mayor Brunst said that the fees were being set as they were viewed now, but things could 
change. He asked the process of changing the fees in the future, as he was concerned about 
inconsistency if fees were changed frequently. 
Mr. Earl said an updated impact fee study would be needed to justify a change in fees. 
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. 
Jim Fawcett, resident, said he had rllviewed information about the Utility Master Plan on the 
Orem website. He was concerned about a noted existing water storage deficiency of 10 million 
gallons, and was not sure where the storage would be. borrowed from. He said state storage 
requirements could be met for the annexation area by constructing a well. He did not see how 
any connection could happen without first building a well. 
Mayor Bruns! suggested Mr. Fawcett contact the City's Public Works staff to address some of 
his concerns. 
Mr. Philpot said from an impact fee standpoint, the construction of assets did not exactly mirror 
the development pattern that would occur. In some cases infrastructure was built in advance of 
development and in other cases it was built as development came on to the system. He said 
where excess capacity was not available there could be a reduction in the level of service for a 
short time. Level of service went through ebbs and flows, peaks and troughs, with the intent to 
maintain a level of service over time. He said at any given day it would ebb and flow where 
development was, but they tried to proportion the impact fees to account for that level of service. 
The building of a well, for example, may happen down the road, but the impact fees covered the 
cost regardless of when it was built. 
Shawn Bunderson, resident, asked for clarification on the impact fees for parks and public safety. 
He thought those would be paid for through city taxes, which they would now pay as Orem 
residents. He was not clear on why the annexation area would be paying impact fees for a fire 
station that had been platllled for long before the annexation. There was no other part of the City 
that would be paying an impact fee for that fire station, or fot parks, but they paid through taxes. 
He was concerned about those expenses being covered by a small strip of land by impact fees 
instead ofby citywide taxes. 
Jessica Street, resident, said she was concerned about basement flooding issues for the Mansell 
project units because of the proximity to Utah Lake. She wondered if that issue had been planned 
for. 
Mayor Brunst said those units did not have basements so basement flooding was not an issue. 
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing. 
Mrs. Black asked for clarification about the parks and fire impact fee. She believed those were 
typical impact fees when impact fees were assessed. 
Mr. Bybee said they were typical impact fees, and they were assessed for the same reasons that 
utilities were assessed for impact fees. Ongoing utility fees would not pay for new capital 
City Council Minutes- August 25, 2015 (p.62) 
f 



infrastructure, and property taxes would not be paying for the new demand in the annexation 
area. 
Mayor Brunst said Orem was well known for having parks and the parks impact fee was for the 
area to support itself when a park was built in the future. 
Mr. Earl said the parks calculation was based on the amount of square footage of current city 
park space per resident. The park impact fee number was calculated in a similar way, based on 
anticipated park square footage per anticipated resident; this would provide the same parks level 
of service as the rest of the city. The idea was that existing residents who had already paid for 
existing parks would not have to pay for new parks that would serve the new residents. 
Mayor Bruns! moved, by ordinance, to adopt Impact Fee Facilities Plans and Impact Fee 
Analyses, establishment of service areas and enacting impact fees for culinary water, sewer, 
storm water, parks, and fire facilities on development activity in the Southwest Annexation Area 
in the amounts as listed in the Impact Fee Analyses. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those 
voting aye: Margaret Black, Richard F. Bruns!, Tom Macdonald, Mark E. Seastrand, David 
Spencer, Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Hans Andersen. The motion passed, 6-1. 
COMMUNICATION ITEMS 
MONTHLY FINANCIAL SUMMARY - June 2015 
The Monthly Financial Summary was inclqded .in the packets distributed to the City Council. 
MONTHLY FINANCIAL SUMMARY-July2015 
The Monthly Financial Summary was included in the packets distributed to the City Council. 
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 
There were no city manager information items. 
ADJOURNMENT 
Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Andersen seconded the motion. Those 
voting aye: Hans 
Andersen, Margaret Black, Richard Bruns!, 
Tom Macdonald, 
Mark E. Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
The meeting adjourned at 2:23 a.m. 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.63) 
I 
I 
I 



I 
 IZ 
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder 
Approved: October 27, 2015 
I 
I 
City Council Minutes-August 25, 2015 (p.64)