City Council · 2016-07-12

CITYOF OREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
July 12, 2016
3:00 P.M. WORK SESSION - FIELD TRIP
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer and Brent Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager, Greg Stephens, City
Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Manager
Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division
Manager;  Neal  Winterton,  Water  Division  Manager;
Lawrence Burton, Water Reclamation Manager; Steven
Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert,
Deputy City Recorder
EXCUSED Debby Lauret
UPDATE- TOUR -Dog Park Site-Mt. Timpanogos Park
shared a map of the proposed park and explained some of the specifications they hoped to
include in the parks, including: double fences, water fountains for both people and dogs, benches
and shade areas with mature trees, etc. There was discussion about the local wildlife and things
that could be done to mitigate those issues, zoning overlays and easements, and the potential
closure of the proposed dog park during the annual Timpanogos Storytelling Festival. Those in
attendance were: elected officials Mayor Brunst and Councilmembers Mr. Lentz, Mr.
Macdonald, Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Sumner; Orem staff Jamie Davidson, Greg
Stephens, Karl Hirst, Chris Tschirki, Chief Scott Gurney, Jason Bench, Neal Winterton,
Lawrence Burton, Steven Downs, and Jackie Lambert. Also in attendance were Wayne Windsor
and Ammon Allen with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS),
Orem residents David and Shanna Hollan, and Genelle Pugmire, reporter with The Daily Herald.
Mayor Brunst commented that he thought the site would work very well for a dog park. The
majority were in agreement.
TOUR - Water Conveyance Facilities in Northeast Orem
Mr. Tschirki, along with Wayne Windsor and Ammon Allen with the MWDSLS, conducted a
tour of various water conveyance facilities in Northeast Orem. Mr. Windsor shared information
about the 69" diameter aqueduct pipeline that ran 42 miles from Salt Lake to Orem. He said the
pipe was a major project that began construction in 1937 and was completed by 1951. The
MWDSLS was in the process of reviewing the pipeline easement areas, which affected
approximately fifty Orem residences. Those in attendance were: elected officials Mayor Brunst
and Councilmembers Mr. Lentz, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Sumner;
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.1)


Orem staff Jamie Davidson, Greg Stephens, Karl Hirst, Chris Tschirki, Chief Scott Gurney,
Jason Bench, Neal Winterton, Lawrence Burton, Steven Downs, and Jackie Lambert. Also in
attendance were Wayne Windsor and Ammon Allen with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS), Orem residents David and Shanna Hollan, and Jeffrey Hamilton.
4:45P.M.WORKSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer and Brent Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Greg Stephens, City
Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Manager
Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Neal Winterton,
Water Division Manager; Paul Goodrich, Transportation
Engineer; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Steven
Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert,
Deputy City Recorder
EXCUSED Debby Lauret
DISCUSSION - Water Conveyance Facilities in Northeast Orem
Wayne Windsor, Engineering and Maintenance Manager with the Metropolitan Water District of
Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS), said he was asked to provide the City Council with
background on the Salt Lake Aqueduct and shared maps of where the aqueduct ran through the
State and the City of Orem.
MWDSLS Facilities 2016 Update
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
 Organized in 1935 by Utah State Legislature
Administered by Seven Trustees
。
OFacilities:
Salt Lake Aqueduct
■ Point of the Mountain Aqueduct
■ Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant
Pointof theMountainWaterTreatmentPlant
■
 Jordan Narrows Pump Station
oOther Interest:
·Jordan Aqueduct system
ProvoRiverWaterUsersAssociation
SaltLakeAqueduct
0Built between 1937 and 1951 by BOR as part of the Provo River Project
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.2)


Conveys water from Deer Creek Reservoir to a Terminal Reservoir near Parley's
Canyon (approximately 42 miles)
Primarily 69-in. 1.D. RCP
Title transferred to MWDSLS on October 2, 2006
Right of Way consists of:
O
Fee title
■ Easement
1890s Easement (Canal Right of Way Act)
■
Width varies (typically between 50-ft and 250-ft)
■
Current Activities
Survey
Licensing Program
Inspection and Assessments
Maintenance
SLA Survey
01.5 miles of SLA through Orem
Survey includes:
Chain of Title
■ Survey Caps
Above-ground markers
Residential areas north of UVWTP were surveyed in 2010 and 2013
Survey through Mt. Timpanogos Park scheduled for 2019
Licensing Program
0Program Goals
Maintain necessary, proper and timely access to aqueduct corridor, pipes
and structures
Provide for reasonable constructability for future repair and replacement
projects
Avoid litigation
Minimize exposer to liability claims
Provide adequate security
Enter into written agreements to outline the obligations of the District and
the Licensee
 Fulfill fiduciary responsibilities by protecting assets
Postcard sent April 2016
Annual newsletter anticipated in October 2016
The District is noticed about potential impacts:
Application process
BlueStakes ofUtah
■
Utility Surveys
Development notice from city/county
■
■ Inspection
0About 50 affected residences in Orem
Inspection and Assessments
0 Daily above-ground inspection
 Investigate for leaks, unauthorized use
0 Pipe interior inspected in Orem in Fall 2013
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.3)


Drained 2.5 million gallons through Orem Blow-offs and UVWTP
Pipe in very good condition
Minor repairs and cleaning performed in Orem
Maintenance
0Corridor Clean-up
·Remove unauthorized uses
 Remove wild trees and overgrowth
Maintain Access
 Install gates
Improve access roads
■ Prevent unauthorized access
Prevent dumping
■
ImprovementProjects
Extend blow-offs
Recent and Upcoming Interactions
0  Property Exchange (MWDSLS-Orem-CUWCD)
o Subdivision Discrepancies:
Mountain Oaks
Cherapple Farms/Canyon
Skyline Meadows
Hamilton
Property Exchange
April 2013 between Orem, CUWCD, MWDSLS
Exchanged property interests around the Utah Valley Water Treatment Plant
Mountain Oaks Subdivision
Plat D (amended), F, H, N
SLA Corridor inaccurately shown
CherappleSubdivisions
o  Farms Plat J, L, O and Canyon Plats A, B
1995 contract to exchange easements
·Exchange not shown on Cherapple Canyon A
District fee-title interest not shown on Plat J
Skyline Meadows Subdivision
o Plat B, D
。  Blow-off extended through city streets into storm drain
Hamilton
Mountain Oaks Plat H, Lot 4
Easement acquired through 1890s Act, notice of use recorded in 1962
Easement deed and plat description in conflict
Deed is 100-ft west, 50-ft east of centerline
Play is 80-ft west, 70-ft east
 No documentation, agreements, or exchange deeds have been found
Subdivision recorded in1987
Hamilton purchased the lot in August 2014
Mr. Windsor said the pipelines had a 100-year life expectancy. The Salt Lake Aqueduct was
typically a 69" diameter reinforced concrete pipe, and the Jordan Aqueduct was a 72" steel pipe.
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.4)


He said the Salt Lake Aqueduct pipe, at its youngest age, was 64 years old along the 42 miles of
 s         ss   sm a a   
survey was conducted in 2010 and another in 2013. Mr. Windsor said that since the title transfers
in 2006 the MWDSLS had tried to reach out through a public relations campaign. They had sent
postcards in April 2016 to all of the affected property owners and also sent information to public
works departments of those affected cities. He said they were the "hidden neighbor” that people
may not know about because the pipes were buried and unseen.
Mr. Windsor said they conducted inspections from inside the pipe and this coming February they
will have completed their inspection of all 42 miles of the pipe. He said they did not take the
pipeline down for long, but they inspected every joint, cleaned out debris and did minor repairs.
He said the joints were the main issues for wear and tear, not the main trunk line. The pipe was
aging gracefully but would eventually need to be replaced. He shared maps of the lands that were
swapped between theMWDSLS and Orem City.
Mayor Brunst asked about the process of cleaning up easement areas on property not owned by
the MWDSLS. He asked if the Hamilton property was a test case for them. Mr. Windsor said as
of yet this was not a legal battle, and the Hamilton property was not a test case. He said as they
found the issued they tried to engage with property owners. Mr. Windsor said in these cases they
would go to the Board and figure out fair value options. It was not reasonable to ask people to
tear down half of their house, and it was not their intention to displace people out of their homes.
They simply hoped they could find ways to access the aqueduct pipeline as needed. He said they
would handle things case by case, and this was not unique to Orem but there were close to 1,000
residents along the corridor they would work with. Mr. Windsor said the more difficult situations
they were finding were all in Salt Lake County; none of the affected Orem issues were in their
"'top ten".
Mayor Brunst said he recalled a time when the Provo River Users Water Association imposed
their pipeline, which was a 120" steel pipeline, and had successfully worked with residents to lay
the pipe. He had not heard of enforcement of these easements until that project. Mr. Windsor
said he could not speak to what other groups had done or were doing. He said they were trying to
be good stewards of a public infrastructure and thus far had not made many friends. Mr. Windsor
use all available technologies to ensure that the pipe was lasting.
Mr. Lentz asked if this presentation was purely informational or if an action item regarding the
Salt Lake Aqueduct would eventually come before the City Council. Mr. Tschirki said this was
purely informational as it had impact for some Orem residents.
There was discussion on how properties were developed on the easement areas without knowing
they were easement areas. It was suggested that a documentation issue was at the heart of the
matter. In some cases easement lines were incorrect in their alignment and in others easement
lines were not shown at all. There was concern that groups like the Blue Stakes hotline and Utah
County did not have the correct documentation of the easement lines. Mr. Windsor said they
were doing what they could to correct the issue. He said they were trying to get proper recording
done at Utah County and had attempted to do so at least a half dozen times but each time they
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.5)


Ammon Allen, Project Engineer with MWDSLS, added that all of the deeds were recorded with
Utah County in October of 2006. Mayor Brunst said most of the homes had been built well
before that timeframe. He then asked how expansions were approved after the year 2006. Mr.
Bench said it was likely that the original plat maps would have been used and those did not have
the easement lines or had incorrect easement lines on them.
Jeffrey Hamilton, owner of aforementioned Hamilton property, said that he had purchased the
home in 2014. Being aware of the possibility of easements in the area he had done a substantial
search and the easements were invisible. He said property owners were finding the easement
issues as they tried to expand on their properties.
David Hollan, resident, said he purchased his property through a title company that had done
their due diligence and no easement lines were found at that time. He said everything was done
properly, and he asked who would be held financially responsible if the lines were redrawn and
old easements were enforced. Mayor Brunst said that would be determined by Mr. Hollan's
attorney.
UPDATE - Provo/Orem TRIP Landscaping
Mr. Goodrich introduced and turned the time over to Lori Labrum, Project Manager, and Greg
Graham, Lead Landscape Architect, with AECOM for an update on the proposed landscaping
along University Parkway for the Provo/Orem TRIP project. Ms. Labrum said they had worked
closely with Orem staff to refine the details of which species of trees and other plantings would
work best along the corridor. She said they were hoping for feedback and direction from the
Council.
Mr. Graham said he had been working closely with the City's Urban Forester Josh Story in
making decisions about which species of plantings would be the best fit for the corridor. He
             e s    s  
for a specific location. Some factors would be the tree's root systems, tolerance to salt, drought
tolerance, seasonal coloring, bark patterns, etc. and how well they would fit in a certain space
with a certain soil.
Proposed Tree Species:
·Tree for Tree Grates
OAlleeLacebarkElm
·Tree for Park Strips less than 10'
0 Common Hackberry Tree
·Tree for Park Strips 10' wide or wider
oLondon Plane Tree
·Center Island Shade Tree
OGreen Vase Japanese Zelkova
· Tree Adjacent to University Mall
OShademaster Honey Locust
· Tree for Narrow Park Strips
0 Goldenrain Tree
·Small Flowering Tree
0 Japanese Tree Lilac
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.6)


Mr. Graham said certain areas needed trees whose roots went deeper rather than spread near the
surface to avoid lifting the sidewalks. They also looked at the canopy affect for shade and how
the tree would color and look year-round. He said they wanted to select trees that would have the
greatest amount of life in them for this kind of urban setting. Mr. Graham said the Allee Elm
trees were used in Disneyland and were attractive trees for moderate to low maintenance areas.
Mayor Brunst asked if there were areas in Orem where these tree species were already planted.
He also asked the general lifespan of these tree species. Mr. Graham suggested that Mr. Story
would be a good resource for the tree location information. He said the lifespan would be
dependent on the tree species and where it was located; generally speaking an urban tree lifespan
would be 15 to 30 years or so.
Mr. Lentz asked about the irrigation of the plantings, and the possibility of xeriscaping. Mr.
Graham said while the plant species they were focusing on were drought tolerant, they would
likely all would need additional water during the summer months in such a dry climate. They
were trying to avoid large grass areas that would require more water and maintenance like
mowing.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the durability of the trees during wind storms or snow storms. Mr.
Graham said Mr. Story had been a valuable resource in that area because he knew the history of
certain trees in the city. The species they selected were strong-limbed trees with deep root
systems that did not usually have problems in the wind or snow.
Mr. Graham shared information about the proposed shrubs and ground covers they would plant
along the corridor.
Shrubs and Ground Covers -- Orem:
●Shrubs
0Winter Gem Boxwood
Blue Mist Spirea
。
Miss Kim Lilac
Little Devil Ninebark
Miniature Snowflake Mock Orange
。
oRoses
·Flowering Perrenials
0Stephanie Returns Daylily
Orange Daylily
Firecracker Penstemon
。
。 English Lavender
Ground Covers
oPawnee Buttes Sand Cherry
0Autumn Amber Prostrate Sumac
0Desert Four O'clock
·Ornamental Grasses
O Karl Forester Reed Grass
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.7)


. o Seep Muhly
Mr. Graham said they chose species that would stay under four feet to maintain visual access but
could still provide some screening. Scheme 1 was presented with the shrubs and ground covers
planted in a mass planting pattern. He said having the plants grouped provided a nicer visual and
seemed smoother in transition when driving down University Parkway than random or scatter
planting patterns of the same species. It also allowed the plantings to grow into each other for a
fuller look. He said the landscaping along Orem's roads for the Provo/Orem TRIP would be
" garden-esque" and in his opinion more attractive than what Provo was allowing.
There was discussion about the maintenance plan for the landscaping and the input from the
landowners along the corridor. Mr. Goodrich said there were areas that would be maintained by
the City and by UDOT, but behind the curb it would be the property owner's responsibility to
maintain. He said they had spoken to some of the property owners but not all for their input. He
said they were specifically choosing plantings that required moderate to low maintenance, and
would still allow for the most parking. Mr. Earl added that a city ordinance was in place to
enforce themaintenance.
Mr. Lentz asked about smart systems that would help conserve water by not watering during
rain. Mr. Graham said that was possible, but they were at the mercy of what technologies were
currently around.
Mr. Graham said they were proposing to use bark mulch which was horticulturally better for the
plants, but did need to be replaced often. Rock gravel was also considered. Mr. Davidson asked
about hardscape options. He said he was concerned about the maintenance into the future to keep
the corridor looking as nice as when the landscaping first goes in. Ms. Labrum said it would be
determined by the commitment of the City to keep the landscaping maintained. Mr. Graham said
he had worked closely with staff to select plant species that were durable and would last if
irrigated properly.
Mr. Davidson said there were pros and cons to using either bark mulch or rock gravel that
needed to be discussed. He suggested that there needed to be internal and other conversations to
ensure that those designing the landscaping and those that would maintain the landscaping were
on the same page.
5:30P.M.STUDYSESSION-PUBLICSAFETY TRAININGROOM
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Greg Stephens, City
APPOINTEDSTAFF
Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation Department Manager
Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Neal Winterton,
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.8)


Water Division Manager; Paul Goodrich, Transportation
Engineer; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Steven
Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert,
Deputy City Recorder
EXCUSED Debby Lauret
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 new City Council business.
The Council adjourned 5:54 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 (*participated electronically)
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Greg Stephens, City
Attormey; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki,
Public Works Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department
Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; Steve Earl, Deputy City
Attorney; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager;
Pete Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Greg Gibson
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Travis Gibson and Alex Hooper
APPROVALOFMINUTES
S    ai    i i      z s
M1. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam
Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBY COUNCIL
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.9)


UpcomingEvents
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
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 as no one signed up to speak.
CONSENTITEMS
Mayor Brunst moved to cancel the July 26, 2016 City Council Meeting. Mr. Seastrand seconded
the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald,
Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
RESOLUTION-  Approving an  Interlocal  Cooperation   Agreement   for   the HOME
InvestmentPartnershipProgram Consortium
Mr. Downs, Assistant to the City Manager, presented a recommendation that the City Council,
by resolution, approve the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the HOME Investment
Partnership Program Consortium and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
Funding for low-income housing activities is available through the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnership Program. Orem has been participating
in a consortium made up of Provo, Lehi, and Utah County to access these federal funds.
Representation from these entities will review requests and make recommendation for the use of
HOME funds within the consortium boundaries. To continue participating in the consortium, a
new interlocal agreement must be approved. Legal staff from each entity has reviewed the
proposed agreement, and it is ready for approval.
Mr. Downs said Orem City has been part of this consortium for home funding for many years.
The program was similar to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and
typically benefitted low-income families for housing needs. He said the program helped put
people in homes who could not otherwise afford a home. Historically, Orem had received 20
percent of the approximately $1.5 million in funding which had gone toward projects like the
Washburn Reams homes near UVU. It also went to down payment assistance for low-income
families that met qualifications. He said instead of the funding coming directly to Orem they had
a voice on the HOME Consortium Board that was chaired by Dan Gonzalez with Provo City.
The other parties involved in the consortium were Orem City, Provo City, Lehi City, and Utah
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.10)


County. Mr. Downs said that every three years the agreement needed to be renewed, which was
why the item was before the City Council this evening.
         n    n
HUD, to which Mr. Downs answered affirmatively.
Mr. Seastrand asked about upcoming projects planned for the program. Mr. Downs said they had
ongoing projects like the “loan to own" and down payment assistance programs, but there were
HOME funding program where people helped build each other's homes. He was not aware of
any upcoming projects in Orem, likely because of the higher cost of land in Orem.
Mr. Lentz asked if it was typical for Orem to receive around 20 percent of the $1.5 million total
of funding, to which Mr. Downs answered affirmatively. Mr. Downs said historically Orem
received 20 percent that had gone toward smaller projects like the Washburn Reams project.
Mr. Gonzalez said that the funds pooled to the consortium and were apportioned as needed. Not
all of the projects were in Orem, but throughout the county. In addition to the project in Payson,
there was a senior housing project of 31 units in Springville and another in Provo with about 100
units. He said Self-Help Homes was the organization that organized the build in Payson, and
they also received some federal funding for rural housing so the building had been concentrated
there.
Mayor Brunst asked about the costs of rent for the senior living units in Provo. Mr. Gonzalez
said the HOME projects had specific rents based on the number of those in the household.
Income was also a factor. He believed a maximum rent for a one-bedroom senior living unit was
$580. He said determining the designation of low income was 80 percent of the median area
income, so generally speaking a family of four in Utah County with around $54,500 was
consideredlowincome.
Mr. Downs said Mr. Gonzalez' staff did a great job keeping the information together, and being
a part of the consortium allowed the funding to go toward projects instead of administrative
costs. Mr. Gonzalez added that the benefit of forming the consortium for the county was that,
receive a direct entitlement but in handling the program as a consortium allowed the funds to be
maintained at the county level and benefit throughout the county.
Mr. Lentz said in a recent joint meeting with Provo's City Council concerns had been expressed
about the economic impact of “spikes" in low income housing. He asked Mr. Gonzalez if the
Provo Council viewed the HOME program as exacerbating the problem, or did they see it as a
tool to help address needs. Mr. Gonzalez said the program was a tool to help address those
concerns. One of the goals of the Provo City Council was to help affordable housing be
distributed evenly throughout the county, not concentrated in Provo or Orem.
Mr. Seastrand said they seemed to get more value out of the program by having it as a
consortium. He asked if there were other issues like transportation or employment for low
income families that were addressed, particularly those in more rural areas where transportation
to the county seat was difficult. Mr. Gonzalez said the HOME program was specifically for
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.11)


housing, but they tried to work with other jurisdictions. Utah County received CDBG funding
that was managed by the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), and they tried to
keep close contact with that organization. He said they were working on coordinating a more
concerted effort as a region to address those needs, but someone in Payson could receive the
same amount of help as someone in Orem or Provo.
Mrs. Lauret commented that this was a good program for the community.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by resolution, to approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the
HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION - Accept Annexation Petition for Further Consideration-25.53 acres at
approximately 650 West 2000 South
Mr. Bench presented Paul Washburn's request that the City Council accept for further
consideration, a petition for annexation of 25.53 acres at approximately 650 West 2000 South.
On July 5, 2016, Paul Washburn filed an application for the annexation of 25.53 acres into the
City. The property was located between the Frontrunner tracks on the west and the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks on the east. It also abutted the recent southwest annexation area on the west and
the north.
If the Council accepted the petition, the City Recorder would have 30 days to determine, with the
assistance of the City Attorney, whether the petition met the requirements of Utah Code
subsections 10-2-403(2), (3), and (4). If it did, the Recorder would certify the petition and send
notice of the certification to the City Council. The City would then publish notice stating that the
petition had been filed and that the City could annex the area described in the petition unless a
written protest were filed with the county boundary commission no later than 30 days after the
Council's receipt of the notice of certification.
If a protest were received during the 30-day period, the City Council could deny the annexation
petition or take no action until it had received the boundary commission's decision on the
protest.
If no protest were received, the public hearing would tentatively be scheduled for the September
13, 2016 City Council meeting. The City Council would decide at that time whether or not to
Staff recommended the City Council accept the proposed petition for annexation for further
consideration.
一
Mr. Bench said the acceptance of the annexation petition was the first step in the annexation
process. He said the proposed annexation was approximately 25 acres near the recent southwest
annexation area, but specified that this did not include the “Gold Key" area. He reviewed
information on the 30 day protest period in which time the City and the County would verify that
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.12)


the annexation area met State law requirements. He showed an aerial map of the proposed
annexation area. He reminded the Council about the area on 2ooo South that had been in conflict
answer questions.
Mr. Washburn said he was representing the group of landowners requesting the annexation. Mr.
Bench said they were requesting the area to be zoned M1 and they then had 60 days to develop
the area as light industrial.
Mayor Brunst asked if there were concerns from the City's standpoint about getting proper safety
equipment and fire engine access to the area. Mr. Bench said the fire engine access was mostly a
concern in the “Gold Key" area and there were no issues of direct fire engine access in the
proposed annexation area.
Mayor Brunst asked what was currently on the property. Mr. Washburn said it was a mess, with
lots of concrete and overgrowth. He was representing the group of landowners. He stated that the
 i q           a so 
unincorporated county land that could not be developed. Until recently it was not established
which city would likely be responsible to provide utility services to the area. He said until there
was some regulatory authority over the property it would probably stay a mess, but once it was
annexed and they had development rights the land could have good value. Mr. Washburn felt the
annexation was the right thing to save the land before it was too far gone.
Mr. Macdonald asked how the utility services could reach the property. Mr. Bench said it was
part of the annexation overlay area, so water and sewer would be looped there. Mr. Macdonald
asked about roads in the area. Mr. Washburn said there was a county road up through the middle
of the area. He said the road came out with a 90 degree intersection to 200o South, and he had
been working with Paul Goodrich to determine what would be best in the area. Mr. Washburn
said they hoped to have a series of large turn-arounds as the property developed to the north, and
these turn-arounds would be large enough to accommodate semi-trucks and fire engines. That
would be important for a light industrial development area. In response to a question from Mr.
Macdonald, Mr. Bench said the road width was 650 feet, which gave plenty of room for a road
down the middle and light industrial on both sides.
Mr. Seastrand asked for clarification on the utilities reaching the proposed annexation area. He
also asked what the current zoning was on the land to the north. Mr. Bench said Mr. Jeff
Mansell, a developer in the southwest area, was working with the property owners to get an
easement. The water line would be looped on 2ooo South and come down the backside of the
property. Mr. Bench said the property was zoned for open space/agriculture.
a  s d  d   sss s p   n 
something but then were unwilling to work together for one reason or another. Mr. Washburn
said that everyone was on the same page, and that they wanted to have the land taken care of. He
said he had been approached to coordinate the effort but said Pat Johnson deserved much of the
credit. Ms. Johnson was formerly part of the Orem Planning Commission and had worked with
all the property owners to understand the fees and the process of annexation. Mr. Washburn said
everyone had been cooperative thus far.
City Council Minutes -July 12,2016(p.13)


Mayor Brunst asked about the zoning and the kinds of light industrial business it might attract.
Mr. Washburn said many businesses fell into that category, and ideally it would be businesses
that worked well in an area near railroad tracks that had intermittent traffic. He said storage units
might be a good use for the area. Mayor Brunst asked who would remove the concrete, and if
any hazardous materials existed on the property. Mr. Washburn said he was not sure who would
ultimately move the concrete but that it would be removed, and he was not aware of any
hazardous conditions.
Mr. Macdonald asked about the land narrowing to the north, and the road that would go over the
tracks. Mr. Washburn said it was a public road to allow the access around the railroad tracks. He
also said the landowners of that section of land would like the zoning to remain agricultural. Mr.
Bench said they owned an adjacent portion of land as well.
Mr. Lentz said his understanding of the recent southwest annexation was that the initial
developer would pay to build out water and sewer infrastructure and secondary developers would
pay impact fees. He asked if the impact fees in the proposed annexation area would be identical.
Mr. Bench said they would be similar, but not identical. They would be subject to impact fees,
though different.
Mr. Washburn said it would not necessarily be an impact fee but a reimbursement agreement
between all parties. They would bring the utilities to the frontages of the property and then
reimburse as they connected on to the trunk lines. It would be managed by an agreement between
the property owners.
Mr. Lentz said his understanding of impact fees was that a portion would go toward public safety
and parks. Mr. Bench said that was correct, and Mr. Washburn said the impact fees they would
pay would cover those. Mr. Bench said the impact fees would be determined during the 60 day
time period before the annexation was brought before the Council again. Mr. Lentz asked if the
infrastructure could support the additions, to which Mr. Bench answered affirmatively.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to accept the Annexation Petition for Further Consideration
- 25.53 acres at approximately 650 West 2000 South. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION - Fence Modification - Exceleration Tumbling Gym at 1608 South
Sandhill Road in the HS zone
Mr. Bench presented Whitney Stiggins’ request that the City approve a fence modification at
1608South Sandhill Road in the HS zone.
The City Code required a commercial development to have a masonry or polyethylene panel
fence along any common property line with a residential zone. Section 22-14-19(F) permited the
City Council to approve a fence modification to allow a different type of fence and/or a different
fence height if it found:
a.  The proposed fence provided an adequate buffer for the adjoining residential zone.
b. The appearance of the fence would not detract from uses in the residential zone.
City Council Minutes - July 12,2016 (p.14)


c. The proposed fence would shield the residential use from noise, storage, traffic, or any
other characteristic of commercial or professional office uses that were incompatible with
residential uses.
The applicant owned a lot at 1608 South Sandhill Road on which it operated the Exceleration
  as e      s    
along the southern boundary of its lot.
The adjacent property to the south was undeveloped, but was zoned PRD which allowed up to
  o    ss       e  n  s s
located within ten feet of the gym property. The owners of the PRD property to the south had
also applied to create a PD zone on the property that would increase the allowable density,
building height, and setbacks. The applicant felt that based on what the PRD zone permited, a
masonry or polyethylene fence would not provide any greater buffer than a traditional solid vinyl
fence.
Staff recommended the City Council approve a fence modification to allow a six-foot vinyl fence
along the south property line of the applicant's property at 1608 South Sandhill Road in the HS
zone.
Mr. Bench said the Exceleration Tumbling gym was on the same property as the Center Point
Church, and as a commercial use it required a 7-foot masonry fence under current zoning. He
said the applicant was requesting the fencing requirement be modified to allow for a 6-foot vinyl
fence. He said the 1-foot difference in height requirement would not make much difference in
terms of visibility. Mr. Bench invited Ms. Stiggins forward to answer questions.
Ms. Stiggins said she was a co-owner of Exceleration Tumbling, and they were requesting the
fence modification for cost reasons. She said it was four times as expensive to install a masonry
fence as it would be to install a vinyl fence. Mayor Brunst said there were concerns about
installing vinyl over masonry fence in terms of maintenance of the fence. Ms. Stiggins assured
that they would maintain the fence, as they did not want the fence falling apart or looking run
down.
Mrs. Lauret asked if there was a specific vinyl look they were going for. Ms. Stiggins said it
would likely be the traditional white vinyl, but they would decide what looked most attractive in
the area.
Mr. Macdonald said one reason masonry fences were required in this zoning was that a
commercial area would get more activity. He asked if making this exception would open the
ordinance to changes from everyone. Mr. Bench said this would not change the ordinance, and
that fencing could be modified on a case by case basis. He said it was not the first time
modifications had been made. Mr. Macdonald asked if the property was going to abut the
 e  a           a
project. He said the PRD to the south allowed for a 6-foot vinyl fence because it was in Highway
Services zone, so they would be subject to different requirements.
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.15)


Mayor Brunst asked if the new development would also put in a fence, or if they would
coordinate for one fence to meet both requirements. Mr. Bench said he understood that they
would coordinate those efforts.
Mr. Lentz asked about the opinion of the property owner to the south. Mr. Bench said he had
spoken to that property owner, a Mr. Andy Davis, at previous meetings, and the owner had
commented that he did not much like the look of vinyl fencing. Mr. Bench also said the property
was under contract for sale. He said he did not see Mr. Davis present, but understood he was not
necessarily in favor of the change. Mr. Bench said a condominium project to the south had
recently received a modification for a vinyl fence.
Mr. Lentz said he understood the fencing requirement was a significant cost. He asked Ms.
Stiggins to clarify the comments about the price difference in fencing materials. Ms. Stiggins
said a Simtek or masonry fence would cost approximately four times what a vinyl fence would
cost.
Cory Bird, developer for Exceleration Tumbling, said as they initially went through the process
with the City they were not made aware of the fencing requirement until the third revision of the
site plan. The fence was only required because the property to the south was zoned residential,
and would be the only commercial property in the area with a fence. He said they had not
anticipated the cost of a fence, which was why the cost was an issue, but the fence on that
particular spot seemed almost unnecessary.
Mr. Bench clarified that fencing was only required here on a commercial property because it
would abut residential.
Mr. Seastrand asked for clarification on the requirements for the Center Point Church and why
they were not required to install a fence. Mr. Bench said once the property to the south was
developed, a fencing requirement would be in place. They were phasing their development on
the same parcel with separate pieces, and as those phases came online they would be subject to
codeincludingfencerequirements.
Mr. Lentz asked if it would be beneficial to continue the item to allow the owners of
Exceleration Tumbling to meet with the property owner to the south and find a compromise. He
said the other property owner had a reasonable expectation that the fence would meet code
standards, and he was hesitant to make an exception for one property owner at the expense of
another.
Mr. Bird said they had not spoken to that property owner. Ms. Stiggins said if the other property
owner would have broken ground first, they would be the ones required to install the fence. Her
understanding was that their fence could have been vinyl or chain link. In this instance, the other
property owner would essentially be getting a fence for no cost to him. In response to Mr.
Sumner's question, Ms. Stiggins said a vinyl fence would cost around $7,000 versus the $28,000
cost for a Simtek fence.
Mr. Bench clarified that the tumbling gym would still have the fencing requirement even if the
other property owner had broken ground first, and they would be subject to the 7-foot masonry
City Council Minutes - July 12, 2016 (p.16)


fence unless they requested a modification. Mr. Lentz said he wondered if that could be the
starting point of conversation between the property owners to find a compromise.
Mr. Seastrand said that his understanding of the original intent of the code for masonry fence
was to create a barrier to protect neighborhoods from commercial developments. He also
wondered if there was a long-term preservation issue with people climbing a vinyl fence and
damaging it, and the planned high-density development would certainly be a factor in that. He
Mr. Bird said there were many options of vinyl fences to choose from and most if not all of the
options had lifetime warranties and were made of super durable materials. He added that the
elevation grade was already a natural barrier, along with the ditch and creek that came between.
Mr. Bench said he was not sure if that would be piped away in the future, and said it was likely
leftover irrigation runoff from the Taylor farm.
Mr. Earl said he had checked the code, and the requirement came into play if there was a
commercial, manufacturing, or professional office development adjacent to a residential zone. So
it was not that it was zoned commercial, necessarily. He said if the whole property was going to
stay in use by the Center Point Church only, there would not be the masonry fencing requirement
S     s        
development then the fencing requirement came into play.
There was some discussion on whether the PRD required the fence for the residential
development and for the commercial development. Mr. Bench said the residential development
would have a fencing requirement, but it was not specified as a 7-foot masonry fence but a 6-foot
fenceofsomekind.
Mr. Spencer asked if the fence on the property to the south would run all the way down to the
said it would run up to the line of the church property, and would be about 850 feet.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question, Mr. Earl said the fencing requirement in the code had
   s  s     s i    d  
but materials for fencing had changed and improved. Quality and cost were major factors in
fencing requirements, and wondered if it would be possible to have a chart of some kind
comparing those factors for different fencing materials.
Mr. Lentz agreed that having comparisons of cost, quality, and performance would be helpful. If
a fence was to be used as a sound barrier between commercial and residential, then the materials
should be up to the task. He said it might be beneficial to revisit the ordinance in light of the
changes in fencing material quality. As it currently stood, however, he restated his hesitance to
Mr. Seastrand said a main concern was the issue of durability and maintenance for the fence, but
if the fence was well maintained there would not be an issue. He did not believe the sound
barrier was the real issue. He was concerned about the height of the fence, but as he heard more
about the property and the grading of the property, the height of the fence was less of a concern.
If the property was abutting a single-family home neighborhood he would be less inclined to
City Council Minutes - July 12,2016 (p.17)


make an exception,buthefelt okaywith avinylfence exception due to theimprovednature of
fencingmaterials.
Mr.Macdonald asked about theCity'senforcementmechanismforthefencemaintenance.Mr.
Bench said it was a site plan approval, and if it was in disrepair they could enforcement the
maintenance.
Mr.Seastrandmoved,byresolution,toapprove thefence modification to allow a 6-footvinyl
fence along the south property line at 1608 South Sandhill Road in the HS zone. Mr. Sumner
seconded the motion.Those voting aye: Richard F.Brunst, DebbyLauret,Tom Macdonald,
Mark Seastrand,David Spencer, and Brent Sumner.Those voting nay: Sam Lentz.The motion
passed, 6/1.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCommunicationItems.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
TherewerenoCityManagerInformationItems.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Macdonald moved toadjourn themeeting.Mr.Seastrand seconded the motion.Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand,
David Spencer,andBrentSumner.The motionpassed unanimously.
Themeetingadjournedat7:00p.m.
CORPORATE
SEAL
Maner
mma R. (
Donna R.Weaver, CityRecorder
Approved:August9,2016
CityCouncilMinutes-July12,2016（p.18)