City Council · 2016-04-12

CITY OF OREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
April 12, 2016
2:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, and Brent Sumner
APPOINTED STAFF
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst,
Recreation  Department  Manager;  Richard  Manning,
Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell, Development
Services Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director;
Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Ned Jackson,
Police Department Captain; Charlene Crozier, Library
Director; Sam Kelly, City Engineer; Jason Bench, Planning
Division Manager; Neal Winterton, Water Division
Manager; Reed Price, Maintenance Division Manager;
Ryan Clark, Economic Development Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
EXCUSED David Spencer
DISCUSSION - Draft Utility Master Plan
Mr. Winterton gave a presentation on the Draft Utility Master Plan. He said the Master Plan and
User Rate Study would come before the Council for consideration at the April 26, 2016, City
Council meeting. He shared a graphic that illustrated the water utility in a city, and said utilities
like water were taken for granted. He said the key points to a water utility system were water
sources/rights, conveyance, storage, and distribution. Orem's water sources were wells, springs,
and surface water. The surface water was stored in the Jordanelle Reservoir through the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). He said there were approximately 354 miles of
pipe to convey the water throughout the city, as well as to the treatment plant, and every street
had a distribution line in it.
Mr. Lentz asked about the process of providing water to Vineyard. Mr. Winterton said that Orem
provided water to Vineyard wholesale, so any increases to Orem's water fees would see an
increase to Vineyard as well. He said that if Vineyard needed a system upgrade Vineyard would
pay for their upgrades entirely.
Mr. Sumner asked if Vineyard had a per door connection fee for sewer like Orem did. Mr.
Winterton said they did charge per door for sewer in Vineyard, but water was charged
differently.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.1)


Mr. Winterton said the issue of water infrastructure and meeting the needs of the city had been
ongoing for many decades. He shared rate increases through the years and the equivalent
amounts in today's dollars. He said people expected water to be clean, reliable, abundant, and
responsibly managed. Orem had never had a water violation, and staff worked hard to ensure
these expectations were met. He said one hot topic in water circles was conservation and
sustainability. Utah's Governor Gary Herbert had set goals for water conservation efforts, and
some legislation would change the way the water utility would be regulated throughout the state.
The Master Plan identified 5 main areas of focus in the first 5 years:
·10 million gallon water tank
● 2" and 4" undersized lines replacement
·Water reuse
·2 new wells
·AMI -new meters/new meter transmitters
Mr. Seastrand asked about developers needing to buy water shares when developing land. Mr.
Mr. Stephens clarified that there was a constitutional prohibition on the transferring of water
rights. Orem had a Metropolitan Water District to allow for better flexibility which helped with
community planning. Mr. Davidson said many cities used a similar system for the same reasons.
diameters, seasonal demand for indoor and outdoor water use, and projected annual production
requirements with and without conservation. He shared several maps showing existing pressure
conditions in water lines during static and peak hours, future pipe projects, fire flow projects,
build out with no projects and build out with projects. He said leaving conditions as they were
would lead to several areas of low pressure. He said Orem was lucky in that gravity created a fair
amount of the water pressure throughout the city. Mr. Winterton said some of the projects would
address fire flow issues, mostly areas with 2" and 4" pipes that had insufficient capacity. He said
they had planned carefully to address needs through the coming years.
Mr. Winterton said the issue of building a 10 million gallon storage tank was pressing, as they
would soon be in violation of drinking water system requirements. He said in years past
operators would watch the tanks 24/7 to ensure they never emptied to dangerous levels, and so
they had periodically made upgrades. Currently Orem borrowed storage capacity from CUWCD
but that option was not going to be available much longer. The additional storage capacity was
important not only to serve day-to-day needs but in case of a fire. He said the consequences of
not building the tank were serious.
Mr. Winterton said water reuse could be used for the entire city, and not only for the sports park
and golf course near the treatment plant. They hoped to either construct an additional pipe or
enlarge the existing distribution line for that purpose. He said Automated Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) had been a hot button issue recently, but said the benefits of using AMI to read water
usage were great. It helped the city get more accurate readings of usage and pressure, which
could identify leaks and other issues, but also helped consumers be more aware of their usage.
            n  s 
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.2)


conservation. AMI was a tool for data collection to have more accurate readings in specific areas
to help refine planning of projects. If AMI were approved in future, it would be an incremental
rollout over a reasonable time period. The whole AMI system would cost approximately $8
million over the rollout period, but would garner much more in savings over the lifetime of the
infrastructure.
Mayor Brunst asked about legislation passed in the 2016 legislative session regarding water rate
structures. Mr. Winterton said Senate Bill 28 (SB28) was passed requiring retail water providers
to establish an increasing rate structure for culinary water and provide certain information to
customers.
Mr. Davidson said the effective date given at the legislature was May 10, 2016. He anticipated
d s   a nh n d d e  s s g is   m s
whether they wanted that or not. He said tiered structure billing was a complicated system, and
often confusing for customers. Mr. Winterton added that AMI alerts could help consumers
control their usage and understand the tier structure better.
Mr. Macdonald asked about summer rates versus winter rates. Mr. Winterton said Orem did not
currently charge a summer rate and winter rate, but were moving toward that per changing state
requirements. The current rate for indoor water use was $0.58/1,000 gallons and meters were
read from April to October.
Mr. Lentz said water usage was higher in summer months than in winter months, so it made
sense to have summer and winter rates. He said the current system incentivized conservation in
winter months when conservation was more needed in summer months.
Mr. Seastrand said years ago the Council had discussed a 20 million gallon tank to meet storage
needs and that it would serve the system for a long time. He asked if additional water usage was
feeding the need for the 10 million gallon storage tank. He said he was concerned about the cost
of the 10 million gallon tank and wondered if conservation efforts might curb the need for it.
Mr. Davidson said it was not necessarily additional water being used, but the storage of the
d  o s sn     s    o  
health and safety issue. He said in order to save you first needed to spend, so putting up capital
costs now for conservation, storage, distribution, reuse, etc. would see savings down the road.
    s  s         
given time, but that option was going away and they needed additional storage to meet
requirements from the State. He said conservation strategies could only go so far, and the
n q o d  nn p aso noo u ao o  po o
storage tank would also help address issues of distribution throughout the city. He said the
Master Plan would outline capital projects in the next five years that would optimize the next
fifteen years.
Mr. Seastrand asked if the Geneva Road area was a location they were considering for reuse
programs. Mr. Davidson said that was most feasible, as the area had not been built out yet.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.3)


Mr. Winterton reviewed the 5-, 7-, 10-year and bonding rate scenarios. He said they were
looking at an increase of about $2.80 average over ten years. He showed comparisons of water
rates in surrounding and similarly sized municipalities in Utah, where Orem was the lowest. He
said even with the proposed increases Orem would stay in the lower half - lower than Lindon
and Spanish Fork. He said following the plan was critical in moving forward to meet the needs of
residents, comply with State regulations and requirements, and maintain a clean and reliable
water system. He said they hoped to bring the plan forward for adoption at the April 26, 2016
City Council meeting.
UPDATE - Envision Utah -"Your Utah, Your Future” Survey Results
Robert Grow, CEO of Envision Utah, presented results from the "Your Utah, Your Future"
survey that was given statewide. He said conversations about water and other utilities,
infrastructure and growth were taking place in every city in Utah. He said Utah's current
population was 3 million and by 2050 the population would grow to 5.4 million. The challenges
with that kind of growth would be keeping life along the Wasatch Front convenient, affordable,
and enjoyable for families. Utahns wanted to keep their children and grandchildren close, and
build strong communities. He said Utah Valley was an important area with two universities and
lots of growth opportunities for businesses. Mr. Grow said the survey asked respondents about
eleven issues that would affect the future of Utah. 40o Utah experts were brought together to
develop choices for 2050 and 52,845 Utahns responded to the survey to help get a better
understanding of what Utahns want for the future.
Mr. Grow said the four cornerstone growth scenarios were: A network of quality communities;
homes, buildings, landscaping, and vehicles of the future; a thriving rural Utah; and future
preparation through education. He said Utahns were never going to lose their love of single-
family homes, but affordability would force some to look at townhomes, condos and apartments.
The organization of centers was also a factor in how many trips a household made in a day for
daily services which would play into costs for infrastructure. He said four out of five respondents
said they wanted more walkable communities designed for walking, biking, transit systems and
shorter/fewer car trips. Walkable communities would have lower taxes, more convenience and
healthier residents. He said the simplest way to make housing more affordable was to give up a
vehicle and walk or use transit options instead.
Mr. Grow said people wanted organized and planned urban space with amenities because it was
more convenient to get around without a car, it limited congestion, and it limited the space that
would be dedicated for homes and business. He said there had been a seismic shift in people's
attitudes toward having smaller lots for homes and more land for agriculture and farming. There
was a tremendous resurgence in those interests, and a more compact urban form helped with that.
He said Orem had the most dynamic urban center in the valley with the four freeway
interchanges. He said the reason Orem had four freeway interchanges was because of the Geneva
Steel Mill, and that infrastructure put Orem in a unique position to be a dominant urban center.
There were many simple things that could be done to keep trips down and make an area more
walkable. He saw many cities revitalizing historic downtown centers for this reason, and said
there was great opportunity along Orem's State Street. He commented that Orem was ahead of
the curve with the recent State Street Master Plan in considering the future growth of the city.
Mr. Grow said many of Orem's opportunities for growth and revitalization would be in older
commercial areas. With internet sales ever rising, brick and mortar stores were trending smaller
City Council Minutes -April 12, 2016 (p.4)


and smaller, which was something to consider from a tax revenue standpoint. Light rail was
something to consider into the future as well, allowing growth to accommodate future transit
   pm o   n  sq    p ss  s
Plumtree retail center, which would be redone to accommodate the line.
Mr. Grow said high-density housing and transit systems had been topics of much discussion. He
said people worried about things they perceived as threats to the value of their homes which was
their great investment. He had discussions with people complaining about “riff raff' living in
high-density housing, and he pointed out that most of the “riff raff' living in those complexes
were their children or their neighbor's children, or they might be retirees looking for smaller,
more affordable housing to live out their lives. Apartment dwellers were not drastically different
from single-family home dwellers, just ten or so years younger. People in all walks of life needed
somewhere decent to live. He commented that the LDS church hoped neighborhoods would be
multi-age to sustain the church buildings long-term.
Mr. Seastrand asked about working with UVU to accommodate both the growth of the university
and the city. Mr. Grow said he had recently worked with Rexburg on this issue, and he suggested
having city and UVU administrators meet regularly and coordinate joint planning. He said Orem
would continue to see growth because of its location and amenities, but market forces would play
their part as well.
**The Council took a break at 3:50 p.m.
**The meeting resumed at 3:57 p.m.
BUDGET DISCUSSION/PREVIEW -Enterprise Funds
Mr. Manning turmed the time over to Mr. Tschirki and Mr. Bybee to present information about
city enterprise funds. He introduced six enterprise funds and their corresponding fund numbers:
B&C Road Fund (20)
·
· Water Fund (51)
WaterReclamationFund (52)
Storm Water Fund (55)
Street Light Fund (58)
SolidWasteFund (57)
Mr. Tschirki said these funds were different from other funds in the city because they supported
100 percent of operations. He spoke to the B&C Road Fund and showed annual revenues from
2003 to present. He said some road fund projects would be crack and slurry sealing which was
done on an 8-year rotation with a year offset. Micro-surfacing would be done in key areas, as
well as street overlay. He said they did not want to get to a point where a road showed significant
failure. He said every year main city roads were restriped with smaller, local roads being
restriped every other year.
Mr. Davidson said one source of frustration for the city was when significant roads were not
recognized as regionally significant and therefore did not qualify for MAG funding. 1200 West
was one such road, and they hoped long-term to convince MAG that 1200 West was deserving of
funding for reconstruction projects.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.5)


Mr. Lentz asked about funding to expand 1200 West into a three-lane street. Mr. Davidson said
the money currently allocated for projects on 1200 West was for maintenance, and expanding the
road was something they hoped to do with MAG funding. Mr. Tschirki added that there was
Mr. Tschirki reviewed Water Fund revenues, and water, distribution, and supply expenses. He
said water treatment expenses were not directly tied to the Jordanelle payment, and this was the
last year they were recommending an increase to cover that payment. That said, they fully
expected treatment expenses to increase for costs of chemicals, improvements to the facility,
human resource costs, power costs, etc. He said they were careful about replacement of
equipment because of the expense, so they made sure equipment and vehicles were properly
serviced and had met their useful lives. Mr. Tschirki said there were miscellaneous water fund
projects including 2" and 4” water main replacements for undersized and aging pipes. He said
they had saved around $4 million over the course of recent years to address water reclamation
needs.
Mr. Tschirki reviewed Water Reclamation collection and treatment expenses, and proposed
allocations for unplanned projects and repairs. There was a 4" lateral project for the cemetery to
be completed within the year, as well as a project for the Carterville forcemain. The Carterville
forcemain was to pump back up from a low spot to a higher spot and on to the treatment plan. He
said hydrogen sulfide gas was a concern with pipes, and they would do a condition assessment
this year; they also planned to conduct an odor-control study. Mr. Tschirki reviewed the Storm
Water Fund projects including pipe installation upgrading from 12" to an 18" line near UVU to
increase capacity.
**Mr. Spencer arrived at 4:23 p.m.
Mr. Tschirki reviewed the Street Light Fund revenues and expenses. He said $600,000 came into
this fund from franchise tax revenues. He said the bond from 2001 would be paid off in
December 2018. He said Rocky Mountain Power had a proposal for the City to consider
purchasing 405 lights in the community that were currently owned by Rocky Mountain Power.
 o                
City would save those costs for maintenance and would only have to pay for the power.
Mr. Lentz asked if the lights were LED lights, and if they were not he asked if they could be
replaced to garner even more savings. Mr. Tschirki said they were not LED but could be
replaced if the City were to buy and save up for that. He said if the City purchased the 405 lights
then Orem would own every street light on public land.
Mrs. Lauret asked if there was a plan for reinvestment. Mr. Tschirki said that would be a
discussion in the future.
Mr. Sumner asked about the current Questar gas line project that was affecting Orem roads, and
how that played into the schedule for road maintenance. Mr. Kelly said Questar would be
responsible for repairing roads to their original state using trench patches and the like. Mr.
Seastrand asked about outside projects tearing up new or recently redone roads. Mr. Tschirki said
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.6)


Mr. Bybee reviewed the Solid Waste Fund, which was with the North Pointe Special Service
District. He said when the Waste Management contract was renewed CPI and tipping increases
were considered. For the upcoming budget year they anticipated the fund holding steady and
seeing an increase of $0.10-$0.15 next year to cover costs at the transfer station. He said they had
doubled the number of recycling cans throughout the city since 2011, and savings from the
recycling program generally increased from year to year.
Mr. Macdonald asked about the percentage of homes that used the recycling program. Mr.
Davidson said about 60 to 65 percent of single-family homes did, and multi-family units were
contracted separately though he believed many had recycling requirements for garbage and green
waste.
Mr. Bybee said the supply of green waste was increasing faster than the demand for the fertilizer
it made. Excess green waste was compressed to a fraction of the size and then taken to the
landfill.
               
green waste can than a second garbage can.
UPDATE - Provo/Orem TRIP Interlocal Agreement & Landscaping
Mr. Goodrich introduced the Provo/Orem TRIP (Transportation Improvement Project) Interlocal
Agreement and Lease Agreement with UTA. He said they had considered some of the concerns
that arose when they initially presented the landscaping plan along University Parkway, like
saving parking spaces in critical areas, and made some changes to the scroll plot.
Mr. Davidson said this had been a long-time effort with regular meetings on the subject. He said
City Council had passed a resolution (R-2008-0021) with certain requirements for a bus rapid
transit (BRT) system. They had been meeting with UTA for months to work through those
qualifications and felt they were at a point where concerns had been resolved or identified for
completion within construction of the project. He said they felt they had protected the interests of
the city and wanted to bring the agreements to the Council for consideration on April 26, 2016.
Mr. Goodrich said the project was shovel-ready and they hoped the plans presented to the
Council met their requirements. He said the project was much more than adding a BRT
component but also included improvements for roads and intersections. He said they were
planning along major corridors to make sure they were not taking away transit opportunities in
the future. There would need to be some improvements at the roundabout near UVU to allow for
growth, as UVU was projected to grow by approximately 15,000 students in the coming years.
He said they had submitted a federal funding request through MAG, and would use some
funding to complete an environmental analysis.
Mayor Brunst asked if getting the MAG funding would be a problem. Mr. Goodrich said his
understanding was that the Provo/Orem TRIP was ranked high on MAG's prioritization
schedule.
Mr. Goodrich discussed some of the proposed changes to regain some of the parking spaces lost
in previous versions of the plan. One change was to eliminate certain left turn opportunities
along University Parkway to reconfigure parking lots and reclaim some of the lost parking
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.7)


spaces. They would also make some changes for safety reasons, and to improve flow through the
intersections. They would work with property and business owners in the area to make sure the
configuration worked for all parties. He said if they were able to find savings through
engineeringordesigntheywoulddoso.
Mr. Earl said there were certain items that were not practical to list in the lease agreement, but
they would plan for 15 percent contingency. The interlocal agreement was to put in place a
mechanism for resolving issues that could not be dealt with in the lease agreement. It would
establish an executive committee with UDOT, Orem, Provo, MAG, UTA, and Utah County to
allow stakeholders to have a greater voice in making decisions. This committee would primarily
deal with big issues like how contingency money would be spent. He said an executive
committee had been functioning informally for months, and functioning well, but it was time to
create a more formal committee.
Mr. Davidson said this was a way for Orem to have significant input in how this project would
proceed and be involved in key decisions to ensure that the project was successful. One of those
key decisions was which type of bus to use along the proposed route: clean diesel or hybrid (half
electric/half diesel). He said the hybrid had advantages over the clean diesel, but those had
higher costs. A hybrid bus would cost approximately $760,000-$1 million each, but were faster
and had more power to climb some of the steeper hills and required less fuel. He said Provo's
Council had generally been leaning toward the hybrid bus option, and asked for the Council's
opinion.
Mr. Sumner asked if other cities were using hybrid buses. Grey Turner with UTA said hybrid
busses were used on some local routes. He said this was not a new technology.
Mayor Brunst thought there would be a benefit in using hybrid buses, as they had greater speed
and power. There was also the public perception of using clean fuel technology.
Mr. Lentz asked about operational cost difference between clean diesel and hybrid buses. Mr.
Turner said it benefitted the entire project to have buses that could accelerate out of the stations
faster. He said the functionality of day to day operations and fuel costs would be lower with a
hybrid bus.
The general consensus of the Council was a preference for the hybrid bus option, though Mr.
Macdonald said he would like to know the cost of the hybrid over the lifetime of the bus.
Mr. Turner said he would get that information to the Council. He said they would not suggest
investing in buses that would be too costly over their lifetime. He said if the hybrid option was
the decision of the stakeholders they needed to order the buses as soon as possible. Some
agencies were waiting up to 9 months for vehicles after ordering, so they needed to think
strategically about the timeline.
The question was asked about contractors for the project. Mr. Turner said the contractors were
Kiewit and W. W. Clyde. Mr. Turner asked Public Involvement Manager Chris McBride to
address the Council.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.8)


Mr. McBride said he wanted to address five things: key milestones, public feedback,
commitment to the public, the project schedule and timeline, and the public relations plan. For
key milestones, Mr. McBride said the design phase was 90 percent complete, with construction
set to begin Summer 2018. Testing and start up would be Winter 2018, and the goal was for the
system to be operational by Spring 2019. He said he had spoken with about 250 businesses and
residents along the alignment for the project, and while he heard concerns about how
construction would proceed and how it would affect people's homes he also heard lots of
positive feedback about the project. The majority of respondents to a telephone survey believed
that the project would provide transportation for students and people without cars, it would
increase transportation choices for local residents, provide reliable transit to support a younger
and growing population, and that it would take cars off the roads and help reduce traffic
congestion. Mr. McBride said the commitment to the public was to follow the “rules of the
road", which were to:
Maintain existing traffic lanes
Ensure safe and efficient access
Minimize impacts
Develop mutually-beneficial solutions
Mr. McBride shared a map graphic of the planned construction phasing. He said the construction
phasing was subject to change and dates were subject to change, but they intended to minimize
impacts on the public and keep traffic flowing by maintaining the same number of lanes in
operation. He said the communications plan identified four audiences: local elected officials and
staff, businesses, Orem and Provo residents, and the media. He said they wanted to be proactive
with the media and with residents to give them the tools to manage during construction and help
them have a clear vision of the project and its progress.
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION-PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Ned
Jackson, Police Department Captain; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason
Bench, Planning Division Manager; Sam Kelly, City
Engineer; Neal Winterton, Water Division Manager; Reed
Price, Maintenance Division Manager; Ryan Clark,
Economic Development Division Manager; Steven Downs,
Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
City Council Minutes -- April 12, 2016 (p.9)


Preview Upcoming Agenda Items
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council New Business
There was no City Council new business.
The Council adjourned 5:52 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Greg Stephens, 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; Ned
Jackson, Police Department Captain; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager;
Ernesto Lazalde, IT Division Manager; Josh Story, City
Arborist; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager;
Pete Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT Ernesto Lazalde
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Greg Stephens
APPROVALOFMINUTES
There were no minutes ready for approval.
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERREDBY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.10)


Mayor Brunst moved to appoint Carole P. Miller to the Arts Council. Mrs. Lauret seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
PROCLAMATION-ArborDay 2016
Mayor Brunst read the proclamation naming April 29, 2016, Arbor Day in the City of Orem. He
said this was the 23" consecutive year that Orem was recognized as a Tree City USA.
Mr. Seastrand moved to accept the proclamation. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion.
Josh Story, Orem City Arborist, said it was an honor to be recognized for the 23'd consecutive
year. He said the designation of Tree City USA was not necessarily prestigious, but required an
impressive amount of work to maintain and he was proud to have Orem be recognized.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Story about Orem's trees. Mr. Story said Orem had approximately
6,400 trees that were cared for by him and two seasonal employees. Mr. Davidson showcased the
flag Orem received from the Arbor Day Foundation.
Mayor Brunst called for a vote. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
CITY MANAGER'SAPPOINTMENTS
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
There were no appointments to boards and commissions.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
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.
There were no Personal Appearances.
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
6:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - R5 LDR to MDR - 1750 South 50 East
RESOLUTION - Amending the General Plan land use map on property at 1750 South 50
EastintheR5zonefromLowDensityResidentialtoMediumDensityResidential
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.11)


Mr. Bench presented Philroy Brown's request that the City Council amend the General Plan land
use map on property at 1750 South 50 East in the R5 zone from Low Density Residential to
MediumDensityResidential.
The applicant owned a home in the R5 zone and desired to have an accessory apartment.
However, the R5 zone did not allow accessory apartments. He therefore proposed to amend the
General Plan land use map for his property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential (MDR). This would open the door for the applicant to request a rezone of his
property from the R5 zone to the R6 zone where accessory apartments were allowed.
The General Plan land use designation on the property was currently Low Density Residential
(LDR). The LDR classification generally supported the R8, R12, and R20 zones. The MDR
R6.5 and R7.5 zones. The nearest MDR land use designation was approximately two blocks (825
feet) to the north of the subject property.
The General Plan was a guide for future growth and development. Although the General Plan
        s n     
consistent with the General Plan.
The applicant rezoned his property several years ago to the R5 zone in order to have the reduced
        s          ss
setbacks adding up to at least 15 feet. In contrast, the R6 zone, to which the applicant would like
to rezone his property, required a minimum side setback of six feet with both side setbacks
adding up to 16 feet.
The building permit for the applicant's home showed a side setback of five feet on the north side
and so if the applicant was successful in getting the General Plan change and a future rezone to
R6, he would need to work with his neighbor to acquire extra property to meet the R6 setback
requirements. In anticipation of this, the applicant had prepared a new subdivision plat that
showed how his lot would meet all the requirements of the R6 zone.
Staff held a neighborhood meeting regarding this application on August 13, 2015. There were no
objections to the applicant's proposal.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the General Plan land use
Density Residential. Staff supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bench said the Council zoned this land as R5 in 2000 to accommodate an existing structure
Some years later two lots were zoned back to R8, and two remained R5. The concern was that
the R5 zone, at 5,000 square feet, was not big enough to allow for an accessory apartment. Mr.
Brown was trying to bring his accessory apartment into compliance and so requested a rezone of
the property to an R6 zone. There was a setback standard that needed to be met in the R6 zone,
P -  s -  d u s    p   
accommodatethesetbackstandard.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.12)


Mayor Brunst asked about the accessory apartment on the property. Mr. Brown said it was
originally a mother-in-law style accessory apartment that housed his aging parents. His parents
Mr. Seastrand asked if the area had adequate parking to support the accessory apartment. Mr.
Bench said the parking was adequate and requirements were met. He clarified that the apartment
had not been out of compliance in its original use for his parents but needed to be adjusted for
rental to a non-family member.
   s   s      o   
notices but had not heard much from any neighbors. He said one neighbor expressed concern
   ps   nnq q ne as- e  sn a p  nog
was simply fixing his mother-in-law apartment. Mr. Brown clarified for the Council that he was
unaware that he was not meeting certain requirements and was doing what was necessary to be
compliant with this property.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the size of the lot. He asked if a zone change created a problem for
that area. Mr. Bench showed the area map and said it was approximately 6,000 square feet. He
said it was not a problem, and had met previous requirements.
Mayor Brunst asked about the property that would be acquired to meet setback standards. Mr.
Bench said the other property owner was Mr. Brown's daughter and he was confident they could
work to solve the issue.
Mr. Lentz asked what the next steps were for Mr. Brown. Mr. Bench said there were other fees
involved in the next steps, and so Mr. Brown first wanted to make sure the zone change was
approved by the Council. He said the plans would be brought back to the City Council soon for
consideration, though he was not yet sure of the timeline.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Spencer moved, by resolution, to amend the General Plan land use map on property at 1750
South 50 East in the R5 zone from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Mr.
Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
6:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD-22 - Fairfield Inn Sign Requirements
ORDINANCE -  Amending  Section _ 22-11-35(L)(16)(b)(7)  of the   Orem   City   code
pertaining to signage requirements in the PD-22 zone at 800 North 1200 West
Mr. Bench presented the applicant's request that the City, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-
35(L)(16)(b)(7) of the Orem City code pertaining to signage requirements in the PD-22 zone at
800 North 1200 West.
City Council Minutes -April 12,2016 (p.13)


In May 2011, the City Council amended the PD-22 zone to allow a total of three (3) pole signs
west of 1200 West. One of the three pole signs was allowed to be eighty (80) feet tall with a sign
area of 300 square feet and oriented towards Interstate 15. The applicant installed the eighty
(80) foot sign with the allowed 300 square feet advertising the TownePlace Suites.
The applicant recently completed the new Fairfield Inn and would like to place an additional sign
panel on the eighty (80) foot pole sign for the Fairfield Inn. The applicant therefore requested
that the PD-22 zone be amended to allow an additional sign of equal size (300 square feet) to be
located on the 80 foot sign below the already existing sign. The proposed amendment would
allow two separate signs on the 80 foot pole but would not allow either sign to be larger than
300 square feet.
Although the TownePlace Suites and the Fairfield Inn were located on separate parcels and the
Fairfield Inn was located in the HS zone while the TownePlace Suites was in the PD-22 zone, the
two hotels and the existing Maverik convenience store were part of a commercial complex which
allowed thetwohotels toshare a sign.
If the applicant were to construct a sign on their own property and not share the eighty (80) foot
tall sign, they would be subject to the requirements of Sign Zone “E." Sign Zone “E" allowed a
five (25) feet above the deck of the freeway, whichever was greater. Allowing the larger sign to
be shared could eliminate the need for an additional pole sign along Interstate 15.
The  Planning  Commission  recommended that the  City  Council  amend Section  22-11-
35(L)(16)(b)(7) of the Orem City code pertaining to signage in the PD-22 zone at 800 North
1200 West. City staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Brunst asked if the Fairfield Inn sign would be made of the same materials and to the
same quality as the sign for the TownePlace Suites. Mr. Bench said it would be the same
materials.
Mrs. Lauret asked for clarification on the option for a second sign pole. She asked if the current
proposal was to include the sign on the existing pole. Mr. Bench said they did have the option of
a separate sign pole of their own, but the maximum height for that pole would be 35 feet. Sharing
the pole for the sign would allow for additional height.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. There were no public comments, so Mayor Brunst
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Spencer moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-35(L)(16)(b)(7) of the Orem City
code pertaining to signage requirements in the PD-22 zone at 800 North 1200 West. Mayor
Brunst seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz,
Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS
Therewere no Communication Items.
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.14)


CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
There were no City Manager Information Items.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lentz moved to adjourn to the meeting. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting
aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David
Spencer, Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved: May 10, 2016
City Council Minutes - April 12, 2016 (p.15)