City Council · 2016-09-20

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
September 20, 2016
4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS 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; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Debbie Boone, Recreation
Department; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Officer Brown, Police
Department; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Steve
Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning
Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City
Manager; Paul Goodrich, Transportation Engineer;
Brandon Stockdale, Long-rang Planner; and Donna
Weaver, City Recorder
DISCUSSION - City Center District
Mr. Bybee said the presentation would have two sections. CRSA
Kelly Gillman said they had the kick off meeting earlier in the day. He reviewed what they
planned to do over the next few months.
Susie Putteram went over their philosophical approach to the city center district, including:
Land Use & Technical Components
Technical Analysis
GIS Analysis
Market Analysis
Future Land Use
Infrastructure Process
Transportation & Infrastructure
FBC / Guidelines
Small Area Planning & Modeling
Scenario/ Alternatives
UrbanForm &Illustrations
Design Guidelines
Form Based Code
Scenario Planning
0Design Guidance
CityCouncilMinutes-September20,2016(p.1)


Integrated Guidance
o1
·Focus Groups
0Stake Holders
 Residents
Possible Developers
Outreach Process
Jim Child with JRCA Architects said they had focused on governmental buildings for several
years. He then reviewed the project objectives:
Enhance delivery of municipal services
Add to the vitality of State Street
Leverage the property's development
Potential to reduce development costs
Develop long rant space needs assessment
Promote sustainable and efficient facilities
Create a positive and safe environment for city staff
Project Tasks and Milestones
Library Auditorium
Structural/Seismic Investigations
PowerPoint
Review Existing Facilities
Review Mechanical Engineering
Architectural Functional Analysis
Operational Efficiency
。 Citizen friendly
Staff safety
Needs Assessment
oCurrent
。 Future
Opportunities for Share Use
0 Functional Space Standards
Planning Concepts
OCreate a One-Stop Center for most citizen needs
Model Facility Tours - What Other Communities Are Trying - Tentative November 15
Interactive Master Planning Workshop
Public Visioning Session
Another Interactive Master Planning Workshop
Public Open House
Finalize Master Plan and Present to City Council
Mr. Davidson said staff wanted the Council to understand that there were two distinct but related
processes going on. With the Center Street Node process, staff was already in the process of
talking with property owners.
City Council Minutes -- September 20, 2016 (p.2)


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; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Debbie Boone, Recreation
Department; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Officer Brown, Police
Department; Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Steve
Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench, Planning
Division Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City
Manager; and Donna Weaver, City Recorder
PreviewUpcomingAgendaItems
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
Mr. Lentz noted that UTOPIA had been working to meet Orem's requests so the City would pay
the withheld operating funds. The Mayor said he would like to see more done on the marketing
request. After subsequent Council and staff discussion, the consensus of the Council was to make
the payment.
The Council adjourned at 5:53 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION -COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Richard F. Brunst
CONDUCTING
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
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; Gary Giles, Police
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steven Downs,
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.3)


Assistant  to   the  City  Manager;  Pete  Wolfley,
Communications Specialist; and Donna  Weaver, City
Recorder
INVOCATION/
Denise Warner
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Dillon Cutler
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the August 31, 2016, Joint City Council/Alpine School District
meeting minutes. Mrs. Lauret 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'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
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.
Recognition of NewNeighborhoods InAction Officers
There were no new NIA officers to recognize.
PROCLAMATION -Constitution Week
Mayor Brunst read a proclamation declaring September 17-23 Constitution Week in the City of
Orem.
Mr. Spencer moved to accept the proclamation. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those
voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand,
CITYMANAGER'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.
Jeff and Karen Hamilton - Ms. Hamilton provided a map to the Council as Mr. Hamilton said
they live on a dual elevated property. Historically the backside of the property had been accessed
by a variety of people. A locked gate was located on the property in late 2015. That,
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.4)


unfortunately, made it difficult for them to access their property. After research, they determined
that everyone with an easement to the property were behind it. He said they had been having a
David Wise said he was a neighbor to the Hamiltons. They were in the same situation in that
they were also with having a difficult time accessing their property. He said he needed to be able
Melodee Andersen expressed concern about proposed fee increases being used to build unfunded
water pipes and storage tanks. She quoted LDS leaders and discussed her fears about the City
Council helping to spread of socialism.
CONSENTITEMS
Mayor Brunst moved to cancel the November 29, 2016 City Council Meeting. Mr. Sumner
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
6:00P.M.PUBLICHEARING-SouthwestAnnexation #2
ORDINANCE-Adoptionof theLakeviewAddition toOremCity #2AnnexationPetition
The applicant requested that this Public Hearing be continued to October 25, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Sumner moved to continue the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. at the City Council meeting
October 25, 2016. 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.
6:00P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-Sign Zone MapAmendment
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 14-1-4 and the sign zone map of the Orem City Code
by designating property located generally at 85 North 400 East as Sign Zone D
The applicant requested that this Public Hearing be continued to October 25, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Macdonald moved to continue the public hearing to 6:00 p.m. at the City Council meeting
October 25, 2016. Mr. Lentz 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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -PD-5 Changes to Development Standards
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-11-17of the Orem CityCodepertaining to
development standards of the PD-5 zone generally at Main Street and University Parkway
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.5)


Mr. Bench presented Steven Usdan's request that the City Council amend Section 22-11-17 of
the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-5 zone at Main Street and
University Parkway.
The PD-5 zone was located along University Parkway and contains several commercial uses.
Among the existing uses were Lowe's, Dick's Sporting Goods, Garff VW, and Chili's. The PD-5
zone restricted uses and required different development standards than the C2 general
commercial zone.
The applicant proposed to amend the PD-5 zone to add fast food to the list of permitted uses. The
current ordinance allowed restaurants but not fast food. Fast food was defined as those
restaurants that have a drive-through. The applicant represented a fast food restaurant that they
 s   s o     s   a  n    
permitted.
Staff also proposed to modify the requirements pertaining to acceptable exterior finish materials
for buildings in the PD-5 zone. Staff proposed to limit the use of colored split-face block, EIFS,
stucco, cementitious siding, wood or any combination of these materials to no more than fifty
percent of any building elevation. An additional amendment was also proposed to require that all
sides of a building have the same architecture, design theme and construction materials as the
front elevation.
The proposed amendments are shown below:
22-11-27
B. Permitted Uses.The uses listed below shall be permitted within the PD-5 zone.
Standard Land
Use Code Category
1510 Hotels, tourist courts, and motels
5260 Home Improvement Centers
5392 General Stores
53XX All General Merchandise Retail Category, (except 5395, Flea Market) NEC*
54XX
All Food Retail Category (except 5420, Farmers Market)
5511 Motor vehicles (new and used)
56XX All Apparel & Accessories Category
All Furniture, Home Furnishings and Equipment Category
57XX
5810 Restaurants
5811 Fast Food
Drug and proprietary
5910
5931 Antiques
5932 Gold and Silver
594X Books, Stationary, and Office Supplies Category (except 5949, Video Rental)
5951 Sporting goods
5952 Bicycles
Toys
5953
5970 Computer goods and services
5996 Optical goods
61XX All Financial, Insurance and Real Estate, Services Category, (except 6161, Pawn Shops)
6220 Photographic Services Category
6230 Beauty and Barber Category
6331 Duplicating, Mailing and Stenographic, Category NEC
6350 News Syndicates Category
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.6)


6360 Employment Services Category
6392 Business and Management Consulting Services
6396 Photofinishing
65XX All Professional Services Category (except 6515, Veterinarian Services, Kennels & Runs)
711X Cultural Activities Category
7212 Motion Picture Theaters
7214 Legitimate Theater
K. Building Standards. The following building standards shall apply:
1. Materials: All structures must be finished on all sides with acceptable finishing materials. No more than
fifty (50)_percent of any building_elevation shall consist of colored split-face block, EIFS, stucco.
cementitious _siding. wood or any_combination of these materials._ The following materials may beare
acceptable_withoul any_coverage limitation:brick, stone,fluted-block, colored-textured bloek,and glass, and
wood. Other finishing materials may be used upon approval of the City Council; provided, however that
corrugated sheet metal shall in no case be used except for trim, soffits, fascia, mansards or other similar
architectural features. In determining whether or not other materials may be used, the City Council shall
consider the purpose of the zone in promoting well designed, aesthetically pleasing commercial buildings in
close proximity to residential areas, the attractiveness of and the City image created by, the proposed
development as seen from 1300 South Street, which is a major transportation corridor through the City, and
the purpose of the Planned Development zone in promoting a higher development standard than that found in
othercommercialzones.
2.The architecture. design theme. and construction materials of a commercial building's front elevation shall
be appliedtotheexteriorwallsofallelevationsofthebuilding.Allelevationsofacommercialbuildingshall
includewindows,awnings,varyingfacadedepth,high-qualityexteriorfinishingmaterials.lighting.andother
similar features that are used in the front elevation of a building.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Section 22-11-17 of the Orem
City Code pertaining to development standards in the PD-5 zone at Main Street and University
Parkway. Staff supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
added after the Planning Commission meeting. He expressed concern about the difficulty of
having to apply a four-sided design on the building in a commercial corridor. He said that type of
architecture was found more in a downtown district, where there was more pedestrian use. Mr.
Finglin said they presented a quality building and were more than willing to work with staff to
improve upon the enhancements. Requiring fifty percent on all sides was restrictive. It could get
very costly when unneeded.
Mr. Lentz wondered how it would be applied since many buildings were in the middle of the
parking lots and had four exposed sides, while others did not. He asked if there was a way to
could have unintended consequences.
Mr. Bench said those buildings facing a residential zone should have at least some of the
elements that the front had on all four sides, which would make it more compatible with a
residential zone.
Mr. Finglin said they also owned the University Crossing Shopping Center, where they had
demolished the old Outback Steakhouse and built a new restaurant out front, as well as a Pier 1
Imports. In those instances, they would have had to provide four-sided architectural features
which could become costly. Several of the buildings at the shopping center had stucco. Typically
City Council Minutes -September 20, 2016 (p.7)


  o nb e n os  ' xoq  i  o sm is i-n
Mr. Finglin explained the design elements of the Outback Steakhouse.
  e q     d  e    s
expectation.
Mr. Finglin said that specific numbers could restrain creativity. He would have preferred
Mr. Seastrand stated that the Council did not know what would go in that area. They were trying
to set a parameter for creating an image. They wanted to create a reasonable expectation that was
not a pure stucco wall. He asked how to construct the language for the entire corridor without
requiring a design review committee for each individual project.
Mr. Finglin suggested requiring fifty percent for the entire project rather than each side. There
needed to be areas for prominent features, as well as a place to locate utilities, dumpsters, etc.
Mrs. Lauret asked which side would face University Parkway, and he said the front would. The
back would face the Guitar Center or Ashley Furniture, and there would be a drive-through and
dumpster. The rear would be very narrow and was not well-suited for a four-sided presentation.
Mr. Macdonald asked if the design requirement was fifty percent of the building, in total rather
than for each side, would it meet the vision of the area. Mr. Bench answered affirmatively, and
stated that the second item listed in the aforementioned building standards would still allow the
City to require elements on the front facade. Mr. Macdonald said he was in favor of setting
specific numbers because it would not leave much discretion for the developer. Having a level
playing field was helpful when reviewing project proposals. He asked if setting the fifty percent
design requirement for the entire building would be a compromise. Mr. Bench said that it would
necessitate working with every developer to make sure they met the requirements. Mr.
Macdonald asked if this would work for both staff and the developer. Mr. Bench said it was a
        o       s
necessary.
Mr. Finglin inquired about the items mentioned in the building standards. Mr. Bench said those
items were already required by ordinance; the verbiage in the site plan requirements was placed
in the zone. Mr. Finglin asked if the design elements were a list from which he could choose
when designing the building. Mr. Bench answered affirmatively, noting that the intent was for
the elements selected to be incorporated evenly in order to create a complete building rather than
one-sided architecture.
Mr. Finglin suggested that rather than having the language read “...all elevations of a
commercial building shall include windows, awnings, varying facade depth, high-quality
exterior finishing materials, lighting, and other similar features..." it be reworded to indicate the
developer could select certain elements from that list, without necessarily including all of the
elements listed above.
Mr. Davidson said the building was visible from all four sides, including other businesses. They
needed to be considerate of others who had made sizable investments in the community as well.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.8)


Mr. Lentz said he would like to see language that recognized a building that was visible from all
four sides versus one with fewer sides visible. Mr. Bench said there was already language in the
site plan requirement that set a distance limitation of 200 feet from within an arterial or collector
road, which would have included University Parkway but not 1400 South. If they were to strike
out Item #2 in the proposed building standards language, it would have been limited to 200 feet
as was indicated in the site plan, and eliminated the design needs on the back sides of the
existing structure. Mr. Lentz said he was more comfortable reverting to the requirements in the
site plan, because he did not want unintended consequences of overregulation on the matter.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Laurie Liljenquist said she had received notice that the parking requirement was also changed
and expressed concern about the driveway access from the old RC Willey building.
Mr. Bench said the request for a parking requirement change had been withdrawn by the
applicant. He indicated that as for the driveway access there were already reciprocal agreements
in place.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst said he liked keeping Item #2 in and preferred having no more than fifty to sixty-
five percent, so that thirty-five percent stucco would be kept on all four sides. Other buildings in
the area had design standards all the way around. He said he wanted to keep some semblance of
beauty and consistency on all four sides.
Mr. Macdonald asked if windows, which might not be needed on all four sides, could be limited
under the Mayor's proposal. Mr. Bench said the Texas Roadhouse building had fake windows
that faced State Street. That was one way to make the requirement work.
Mr. Lentz asked if they could stick with the fifty percent requirement in general, but allow one
side to remain up to sixty-five percent stucco. That would raise the appeal and lasting value of
the building, while making an allowance for one side to remain more utilitarian than the others.
He wondered if the ProTrip project would raise concerns with parking. He asked if one fast food
restaurant would impact the corridor, and wondered if by adding the use to the entire zone the
property owners through the area would be prepared for the potential impact.
Mr. Goodrich, Traffic Engineer, said they were looking at how much more infill they could
           s    e 
were “seas of asphalt" with underutilized parking, and said parking in certain areas could be
lowered.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the access on the west side of the old RC Willey building, and
whether or not it created a traffic concern. Mr. Goodrich said the code was flexible on the width
of commercial driveways, and assumed the access in question met the correct code.
Mayor Brunst said the access needed to be widened, but wasn't sure of which process to follow
on the matter.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.9)


Mr. Goodrich explained that the access was currently only an access easement and the easement
owner during the site plan approval process.
Mayor Brunst noted that the request was not just for one restaurant.
Mayor Brunst then moved to amend Section 22-11-17 of the Orem City Code pertaining to
 ae           s 
the change that the design requirement be increased to sixty-five percent rather than fifty percent
of a combination of building materials as they had been outlined, thereby maintaining a design of
thirty-five percent on all four sides.
Mr. Lentz suggested they maintain the proposed amendment language and include a single
allowance for one side to be up to sixty-five percent for a more utilitarian approach. He said he
how to approach the properties on the backside because they didn't serve the same purpose as
businesses or restaurants that were more visible in the corridor on all four sides.
Mr. Macdonald said their goal was to upgrade Orem, and increasing the design percentage would
 sq  m e s  o eq pp om h Pis   u pn nou
professional rather than less expensive materials.
David Spencer seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Mark Seastrand and
David Spencer. Those voting nay: Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, and Brent
Sumner. The motion failed by a 4-to-3 vote.
Subsequent to Council and staff discussion, Mr. Lentz moved to amend Section 22-11-17 of the
Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-5 zone generally at Main Street
and University Parkway as outlined, with the exception of allowing up to sixty-five percent of
the listed materials on one side within 200 feet of an arterial street, as well as striking Item #2
sd ans a  n as a sn s p    srs q  
Mark 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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD-47 - Flying Horse Condominiums
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 22-11 of the City Code by enacting Section 22-11-60.
PD-47 zone, amending the appendix of the City Code by enacting Appendix *QQ', and
amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone
at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47
Mr. Bench presented Bruce Dickerson's request that the City Council amend Article 22-11 of the
City Code by enacting Section 22-11-60, PD-47 zone, amend the appendix of the City Code by
enacting Appendix ^QQ', and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem
       oa Ax e a   qg
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.10)


currently zoned PRD. Because the property is located west of Sandhill Road, it was subject to the
requirements of the high-density PRD zone which allowed a density of up to sixteen units per
acre.
The applicant would like to apply a new PD zone (PD-47) to the property. The applicant had
submitted a proposed concept plan that would be adopted as Appendix QQ and would be made a
part of the PD-47 zone. The applicant's proposed development would contain 136 units which
represented an overall density of about twenty-five units per acre. Under the current PRD zoning,
a total of eighty-seven units could be constructed based on the sixteen unit per acre maximum
density. The PD-47 zone would also increase the allowable building height to forty-five feet
from the forty foot height limitation that is currently allowed in the PRD zone.
The proposed increase in density to a maximum of twenty-five units per acre (136 units) was a
fifty-six percent increase over the current allowable density of sixteen units per acre.
Parking was proposed at 2.25 stalls per unit which is an increase from the 2.15 stalls per unit that
was initially proposed and presented to the Planning Commission. The current PRD requirement
was 2.5 stalls per unit. At least one covered parking stall was required to be provided for each
residential unit. Paul Goodrich, Orem City Transportation Engineer, was satisfied with the
purposed parking ratio of 2.25 stalls per unit which provided 307 parking stalls.
Staff supported the proposed development as the subject property was ideally suited for high-
density development as the current zone permitted.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 6, 2016. Support of the project was expressed by
those in attendance. Traffic was an item of concern that was discussed with the residents and the
applicant's traffic engineer.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Article 22-11 of the City Code
by enacting Section 22-11-60, PD-47 zone, amend the appendix of the City Code by enacting
Appendix ‘QQ', and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by
changing the zone at approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47. Staff
supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Brunst asked if any of the units on the east side of Sandhill Road were condominiums or
if they were all apartments. Mr. Earl said there was a project that had been approved as
townhouses; however, it had not yet been built. Mayor Brunst asked if Orem had any other
condominium projects or PD zones with twenty-five units per acre. Mr. Bench said there were,
noting that the Lake Ridge Condominiums on 430 West 1430 South had the exact same ratio as
the proposed project. There were ninety-six units in that facility, with a parking ratio of 2.5 stalls
per unit.
Mayor Brunst noted the proposed development had a setback of twenty feet instead of twenty-
five feet, and asked why this was the case. Mr. Bench said that most of the projects that were
coming in on State Street were encouraged to move closer to the street for parking reasons, as
well as to feature architecture on the buildings.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.11)


Cory Andersen, developer, said the landscaping along Sandhill Road would have fencing and
bushes to provide a buffer. The amenities included basketball, sand volleyball court, a tot lot, and
two barbeque areas. Because they wanted to keep the homeowners association (HOA) fees
low-—-which factored into long-term financing—there was no swimming pool.
Mayor Brunst noted that the proposed development was a Federal Housing Administration
Mr. Andersen explained the process for qualifying for an FHA loan. He said the FHA program
allowed buyers to receive gifts from individuals to go towards a down payment. A significant
part of their marketing was comparing the cost of renting versus owning, and they found that it
was cheaper to own than rent in Orem. There was a need for affordable housing in this area. Part
of the reason why this type of housing was lacking in the City, was because of the challenge
       s     s    s
project, and were already starting to take reservations for the proposed development. Not all
units were FHA, because they were also required to piggyback on conventional loans. He
explained that conventional loans were slightly better loans, and were available for buyers who
were able to make a larger down payment. Mr. Andersen noted that about thirty-three percent of
the units were approved for FHA financing. Insurance, sewer, water, internet and landscaping
were included in the HOA fee.
Mr. Goodrich said the road had been widened about eight years ago and was oversized for its
capacity, including what was projected for future projects. The interchange was likely to fail with
or without the proposed project. However, Provo had finally agreed to a new interchange at
800 South, and there were plans for one at that location.
Mrs. Lauret asked how the fifty-one percent homeownership rate requirement would be policed,
Mr. Andersen said they would focus on the homeownership rate requirement; however, about
twenty-five percent of investors at their other project had purchased to rent. He said that the issue
would be policed through the HOA, and that a condominium certificate would be filled out with
every loan. The process also entailed a questionnaire that needed to be turned into the HOA and
lender to ensure that the project remained within the fifty-one percent limitation. Property
management would maintain an annual record of those documents.
were to maintain ownership of the unit after moving. Mr. Andersen said they would be required
to notify the HOA and property management that the unit was no longer owner occupied.
Mr. Macdonald asked what the HOA fee of ninety-nine dollars would cover. Mr. Andersen said
insurance, landscaping, sewer & water, trash, and Internet would be covered by that fee. Mr.
Macdonald asked about the length of the billboard lease on the property, and Mr. Andersen said
it was a year-to-year contract. They were also required to provide a ninety-day notice to the
proposed project and wondered if it could be developed with the current zone.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.12)


Mr. Andersen said they were not sure if they could proceed or not. His experience supported that
there was a need for home ownership. A lender for the project had said to Mr. Andersen that the
  n  o ni  n       sm 
the subject property were to have been developed as apartments, they could have maxed out the
number of units and rented them out as individual bedrooms. Were that to have been the case,
they could have had fifty percent more occupants living there.
Mr. Spencer asked if the smaller density units could not also be condominiums. Mr. Andersen
said he did not know the answer to that question. However, profits for apartments would have
s    s       s      
per unit could have also been a deterrent. Mr. Andersen stated that their plan was not to do
apartments, and he was confident they could make the condominium development a successful
project.
Mr. Seastrand reviewed the history of the property, noting that it had been a difficult journey as
they had tried to find a good balance between the commercial portions and the single-family
neighborhoods. He questioned the impact this project would have on the neighborhood in ten or
fifteen years. From a neighborhood perspective, he wondered why sixteen units per acre were
now insufficient and how twenty-five units per acre would be more beneficial than what was
originally planned. He recalled that when the maximum limit of sixteen units per acre had been
established, it had come with neighborhood and developer consensus. He was disappointed that
that project had not come to fruition.
Mr. Andersen said that the current proposal was not for an apartment complex. The residents of
the complex would be homeowners and be part of the neighborhood.
Mr. Seastrand said the pattern of Millennials was that they did not stay longer than three or four
years. They changed jobs frequently. In his mind the likelihood of these condominiums turning
into apartments over time was high.
Mr. Andersen said the HOA would police it to keep the units owner occupied, and the property
owners would essentially govern their own investment. The fifty-one percent homeownership
Mr. Spencer asked about the fence on the north side of the property. Mr. Bench said they were
planning on a vinyl fence.
Mr. Lentz asked what year the North Abbey Condominiums were built. Mr. Bench said they
were built sometime in the 1970s. Mr. Lentz said that development was close to his
neighborhood, and he knew several people living there. They continued to remain primarily
Condominiums were a little different since they were farther away from UVU and were larger
units. He said he liked that this proposal provided an affordable approach to home ownership and
was walkable to services and transit. Looking to the future, Mr. Lentz said he wondered if they
must guarantee that it remain owner occupied but shouldn't be designed to anticipate that
possibility. He said he thought parking was the key. Because the future was uncertain, he was not
sure that 2.25 parking stalls per unit would be sufficient. He asked the developer if they could
work the numbers to see if 2.5 stalls per unit would be possible.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.13)


Mr. Sumner said if the project was approved, he personally wanted to buy a unit as an investor.
He wondered if could be prohibited legally. Mr. Earl said they could not discriminate against an
investor on the basis of protected categories such as race, sex, religion, etc. Mr. Sumner asked
what was to prevent him from selling his unit to three UVU students. Mr. Andersen said the
"power of the purse" was one way to keep that from happening, using the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He reviewed their draft covenants and restrictions, saying
they would help control the above scenario from happening.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing
Jay Henry said he had developed the property east of the subject property. He expressed concern
that the (1) building height being proposed did not fit the area; and (2) parking was inadequate.
He agreed there was a real demand for this kind of housing but did not think this was the right
place for it due to its proximity to UVU.
Doug Burtell asked if the property had already been purchased. Mr. Andersen said that it had.
Mr. Burtell voiced concern about traffic, the number of renters, insufficient parking, and an
HOA's ability to govern the owner occupant requirement.
Laurie Liljenquist said she was a real estate agent. When she had looked for a condominium for
her son to buy through the FHA program, they found that her son could own and still rent. They
read HOA rules for several different complexes and discovered that, while it was possible to
control homeownership rates, it also limited who could buy in the future. This then impacted
how well the units were being maintained. She said that having an HOA enforce the restriction
would not be sufficient. In response to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Liljenquist noted that the
price range in Salt Lake was $130,000 to $170,000, depending on unit size.
Jerry Andersen, project contractor, said there was more control with the proposal versus the
current zoning which had no control. The City could have either eighty-seven, three-bedroom
apartments built on the subject property tomorrow without requiring approval from the Council,
or they could have a project that provided affordable housing for prospective home buyers as
well as some form of control.
Trey Warner said he owned several units as an investor. He found there were more traffic
problems with three-bedroom units than the two-bedroom units. There were also fewer “get-
togethers" with smaller units. He said those patterns were true of rental problems, and he did not
think there would be any issues with the proposed development which would primarily be owner
occupied.
Mr. Sumner asked Mr. Warner if, as an investor, he would buy any of these units. Mr. Warner
said he would not. He said Orem was capable enough to adapt to any changes that might happen
in the future. He said that it was a great area, and that he believed the units wouldn't be occupied
just by students.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.14)


Kordel Braley, RSG traffic engineer, reviewed their traffic findings. They had looked into the
possibility of forty-nine percent of the units becoming rentals with three occupants. The amount
of traffic that this development would add in comparison to the baseline condition of what was
previously approved was on the order of twenty to thirty vehicles per hour during the peak hour
of the day. Mr. Braley said that in regards to whether or not a second access was needed, they
had determined that one access met Orem's Access Management Guidelines, as well as from a
traffic standpoint. In looking at data for parking, they had found that the student housing parking
ratio in surrounding complexes was less than two per unit, so Mr. Braley believed the parking
number being proposed was sufficient.
Mr. Seastrand asked how street parking was accounted for in their study, and Mr. Braley said
they did not count those spaces in the data collection process. They assumed every garage had a
car in it. Furthermore, it was clear at night that there was parking occurring on the street that
belonged to the complex they were analyzing. There were empty stalls within the complex as
 r se   d   o    n s   a
terms of parking.
Mr. Spencer asked about the acreage on the Villa property. Mr. Dudley said the Villa was
comprised of 4.47 acres with 116 units. He noted that the parking at the Villa had two stalls per
unit.
Mr. Sumner observed that if the study was done in May, which did not account for all UVU
students. Mr. Braley said the studies were completed in May while the Alpine School District
was still in session. They also did studies in August and September when UVU students would
havebeencounted.
Mayor Brunst said he believed this was a quality project, and that affordable housing was
important in the area. He said he also believed the HOA could handle the percentage of rentals,
and that the parking was sufficient.
He then moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 22-11 of the City Code by enacting Section 22-
11-60, PD-47 zone, amending the appendix of the City Code by enacting Appendix ‘QQ,’ and
amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone at
approximately 1700 South Sandhill Road from PRD to PD-47. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion.
Mr. Macdonald asked legal counsel what would happen if the proposal was denied. Mr. Stephens
said the applicant would not be able to bring back the same proposal for at least one year, unless
of the four Councilmembers who voted against it, three of them requested a reconsideration of
their vote within fifteen working days. Mr. Macdonald asked how much the proposal would have
to be modified in order for it to be considered a different proposal. Mr. Stephens said that the
ordinance was not that specific; however, in the spirit of the ordinance, it would have to be
significantly differentfrom the original proposal.
Mr. Macdonald said he agreed with the Mayor on some points. Mr. Macdonald said he was
leaning towards voting against the proposal because the engineering studies did not take into
consideration UVU student traffic. He was inclined to get more information.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.15)


Mr. Lentz asked if the applicant would have to go back through staff and the Planning
Commission before coming back to the Council if there were significant changes made to the
d  e  nn n  s z   a s  o
Mr. Davidson said if the item were tabled to give Mr. Andersen time to redesign the plan, he
would not have to go through the entire process again. If minor tweaks to the proposal sufficed,
 m     s     q     
everyone time.
Mr. Sumner said there were many aspects to the project that he liked. His concerns were the
traffic and proximity to UVU. They needed some kind of assurance that it would not turn into an
apartment complex. He did not have confidence the HOA could control the owner occupancy
requirements.
Mr. Stephens said that any motion could be amended with approval of the maker of the motion
and the person who made the second, or by a separate vote.
Mr. Macdonald said his concerns included density and parking, but he needed more time to get
some answers. He said he thought he could get the answers he needed by the first City Council
meeting in October.
Mr. Lentz said he did not believe density was inherently evil. He thought the project was well
designed for the people and uses in the area, but he had concerns about the parking, long term.
Mrs. Lauret said she liked the affordability but would prefer more parking. She said she did not
want more apartments.
Mr. Spencer said he agreed with Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Seastrand.
Mayor Brunst made a substitute motion, and Mr. Macdonald concurred, to move to continue the
item to October 11, 2016. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Debby Lauret,
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
The monthly financial summary for August 2016 was provided to the Council.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr. Davidson reminded the Council of the Orem Reads Program, which had a mystery theme.
He provided a copy of a classic mystery book to the members of the Council.
He said Mr. Spencer was having a birthday and they could celebrate after the meeting.
City Council Minutes - September 20, 2016 (p.16)


Mr.Macdonald said he made no apology to being an active member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). He said he realized not all members of the community shared
that idea. He then read a statement from Dallin H. Oaks, a person whom Mr. Macdonald
recognized as aMember of theQuorumof theTwelveApostlesof the LDSChurch andwho the
(BYU). In a recent speech at BYU, Mr. Oaks had stated the following:
The fewmonthspreceding anelection have always been timesof serious political division.But
thedivisions andmeannessthatwe areexperiencinginthiselection-especiallyatthe
Presidential level-[and perhaps in the City of Orem,Mr.Macdonald added]seem to be
unusuallywideandugly.Partlythisresultsfrommoderntechnologywhichexpandstheaudience
forconflictsandthespeedofdissemination.Today,dubiouscharges[muchlikewhatwasheard
tonight,Mr.Macdonald added]misrepresentation andugly innuendos are instantlyflashed
around theworld.Weshouldremember not tobepart of thecurrent meanness.Weshould
communicateourdifferenceswithaminimumofoffenses.Inpublicdiscourseweshouldfollow
Gospelteachings,toloveourneighbors,andavoidcontention.
Mr.Macdonald said that regrettably,he did not see that displayed this evening.He continued to
quote Mr. Oaks:
Weshould beexamplesofcivility.Weshould loveallpeople.Begood listeners andshow
concernfortheirsincerebeliefs.TodayIsayiftheChurchorDoctrinesareattacked[orOrem's
CityCounciland/or City's Administration,Mr.Macdonaldadded]inblogsor othersocial
media,contentious responses are nothelpful.They disappoint ourfriends and provoke our
adversaries.Finally,when ourpositions donot prevail[which was experienced earlier,Mr.
Macdonald added]weshould accept unfavorableresults graciously andpracticecivilitywithour
adversaries.
Mr.MacdonaldsaidthathewouldliketoseeOrembecomethattypeofacommunity.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Spencer moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr.Macdonald seconded the motion.Those voting
aye:DebbyLauret,Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David Spencer,and Brent
Sumner.Themotionpassedunanimously.
Themeeting adjourned at8:47p.m.
CORPORATE
SF.AL MmmaR.Olaner
DonnaR.Weaver,CityRecorder
City CouncilMinutes-September20,2016(p.17)