City Council · 2016-12-13

CITY OFOREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
December 13,2016
3:00 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; 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; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager;
Sam Kelly, City Engineer; Steven Downs, Assistant to the
City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
DISCUSSION - Housing
Mr. Downs introduced Jim Wood with the Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah. He
explained there had been regular discussions regarding the housing market in Orem, and as such
staff requested that he address the matter with the Council. He stated the County population was
projected to double in the foreseeable future, and he intended to speak to the movement on the
regional scale.
Mr. Wood said he had been working for many years in that field. He had observed various
housing booms that occurred over that time: first, condominiums; second, single-family homes;
and third, apartments. He said that was unusual territory, as there had been a shift in the
distribution of housing types, and a higher demand for rental products.
M1. Wood explained that the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute was part of a merger between the
University of Utah and the Bureau of Economic Business Research. Using State demographics,
the Institute conducted survey research which contributed to leadership training and economic
policies. Mr. Wood presented various demographic changes for major counties in Utah, and
noted the current population of Utah County was 603,362. The growth rate was 2.54 percent,
which was the highest growth rate of any county in the state during that time. The high growth
corridor had shown lots of growth in residential and employment.
The average annual employment growth rate in Utah County was 3.6 percent and was expected
to reach 5 or 6 percent in 2017, with Salt Lake residents commuting to fill them. Mr. Wood
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.1)


presented a map showing employment growth by county from the year 2008 through March
2016. He noted a boom and recovery during that period.
Mr. Wood said Utah County was 24.9 percent above the peak, which was overwhelming. It
showed a growth of 22,713 residential units over a six-year period, and at that point had more
single-family homes than Salt Lake County. Salt Lake and Utah Counties both had a lot of new
apartment construction.
Mr. Wood said the high growth corridor was from Midvale to Pleasant Grove. In that twenty-five
mile stretch, seventeen cities added approximately 60,000 new jobs for a total of 235,000 jobs,
which was a forty percent increase in jobs statewide. HeWood noted the prison property was a
prime location, and stated that economic development would have occurred even if the prison
had stayed in place. The area in question was a planned community with tremendous efficiencies
and economies of scale. This particular corridor would continue its rapid growth.
Mr. Wood said the demand for housing helped the rental market. Utah's Silicon Slopes had
percentages rather than absolute numbers, and showed that the Provo/Orem metropolitan area
was an area of high-tech employment. Furthermore, Utah County had a lot of buildable land
available for development. Mr. Wood presented a map identifying vacant land, which totaled
2,700 acres. He said Salt Lake and Davis Counties would be built out in the next few years.
Mr. Wood said multifamily construction had averaged about thirty percent of new construction
since 2009 and 2010. More than half of residential construction was in multifamily
developments. The structure of the housing market had shifted in the last couple years, partially
due to changing preferences in the market. In surveying millennials most had post graduate
degrees and families, and nearly all of them rented. They had indicated that while they would
like to be in a home, they did not like home prices for the quality of existing homes. Economics
also affected the housing market.
Mayor Brunst asked how apartment projects were affected by tax policies, interest rates, and
banks’ willingness to lend on those kinds of projects. Mr. Wood turned the time over to Jim
Sieberg, Chris Longson, and Jenny Bradley with ICO Development.
what they built as legacy assets. He said ICO built great communities, and explained that banks
  s     s a  a  d 
longer to get bank approval, but during that time period the City had seen a big push for permit
approvals. Mr. Sieberg explained how equity with banks worked. Mr. Sieberg stated that, from a
property tax standpoint, companies were disadvantaged because of increased interest rates. As
such, it was becoming harder to do projects due to increased construction costs. However, the
demand had not changed. In Utah, twenty-one percent of households used to rent; however, that
rate was projected to increase up to forty-five percent. The homeownership rate in Utah among
millennials had decreased steeper than the national average.
Mayor Brunst asked about the quality of ICO projects and their amenities, and if they predicted
increased interest rates. Mr. Sieberg said ICO projects were built to a different level; they
constructed bigger clubhouses and put on social activities in ways their competitors did not.
Fiscal and monetary policies worked together nationally, and it was anticipated the United States
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.2)


Treasury would increase to a rate of 3.5 percent in ten years. Contrarily, in discussing population
rates Mr. Sieberg said they could not grow faster than interest rates, which he predicted would
hover around two and three percent.
Mr. Wood said retail was important in most communities. While sales in Utah had increased
since the recession, Orem's sales were still well below where they used to be prior to that period.
They were at about 9,200 per capita. Orem's lowest point was reached due to significant debts on
both the State and Federal levels between 2003 and 2007. Mr. Wood said most cities had seen a
flat growth in retail.
Mr. Lentz asked about permits issued for apartment units at University Place. Mr. Davidson
stated that several years ago the Council had amended the PD ordinances which limited key
corridors from the construction of multifamily units. Mr. Lentz asked if the current developments
were from permits previously issued in prior years. Mr. Davidson said there had been significant
growth in the market. He opined that Orem may not have peaked as high as other cities in the
County because of the code amendments the Council had put into place.
Mr. Wood explained the number of units through 2014 and 2015 as they compared to the current
day's numbers.
Mr. Lentz mentioned that citizens were complaining about the Council approving apartment
projects; however, there were projects already underway. He asked if those building permits had
previously been approved. Staff answered affirmatively. The current projects were approved
before the Council had moved to approve code amendments to the PD ordinances.
Mrs. Lauret asked where other apartment growth was taking place. Mr. Wood said most
apartment growth was occurring in Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Vineyard, Spanish Fork and Provo.
Prior to 2012, the Utah county rental market did not have traditional family apartments. Larger
apartment projects were down in Provo, where the market was affected by Brigham Young
University (BYU). Utah County was surprisingly low in the number of tax credit projects.
Affordability was a huge issue, and was therefore driving millennials to rent rather than own.
Mr. Wood said the demand for housing was changing in that the vacancy rate was 3.4 percent.
Lake County had a different market of mixed housing, and consequentially their numbers varied
from Utah County. Mr. Wood noted duplexes and four-plexes were not included as part of the
rental survey, which was conducted with brokers working with large investors of buildings with
25 or more units.
Mr. Lentz asked why one-bedroom apartments were more expensive than two-bedroom
apartments. Mr. Wood said units with two beds and one bath were a rarity and were usually an
older product.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Sumner how much units were running for in Orem. Mr. Sumner said
they cost around $1.50 a square foot for forty-year-old units. Mr. Wood said homes were also
being rented. High density neighborhoods had a mix, and thirty percent would be detached
single-family homes with an attached basement.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.3)


Absorption rates of recently completed projects were discussed. In Orem, most of the products
filled up once construction was finished. Mr. Wood said he had spoken with Ben Lowe who was
developing Parkway Lofts, and Mr. Lowe had filled thirty-six units in a matter of weeks.
Apartment markets which had a potential of overbuilding included downtown Salt Lake,
Sugarhouse, Orem, Vineyard, and Sandy. When assessing those markets and their vacancy and
rental rates, none of the units appeared to be overpriced.
Mayor Brunst said demographics influenced the market. He asked if changing demographics
have been taken into consideration. Mr. Sieberg reviewed demographics and explained that
seniors (55+) represented between 12 and 16 percent, single heads of household represented
between 25 and 30 percent, and young professionals and millennials made up the rest. Across all
of those demographics there were lifestyle preferences. Mr. Sieberg stated the friction from
having to move may have suppressed the supply but not the demand. The seniors? market was
smaller and had slower absorption. He mentioned a current 300-unit market-rate apartment
project for seniors. Chris Longson said it depended on the neighborhood as to what attracted
seniors.
Mr. Wood referenced the Lotus apartment building in Salt Lake, noting the complex had eighty
units. Units on the first floor were 550 square feet, had covered parking available for purchase,
and cost over $2 per square foot. Mr. Wood said he kept waiting for the other shoe to drop on the
apartment market, but it was not happening. As part of the survey he had spoken to landlords and
they indicated the market was tight despite construction levels. He then presented a map of
current projects under construction as of October 2016, as well as proposed projects. In total,
there were 3,800 units being considered, 2,500 of which were under construction. The rental
market had been growing consistently at three percent per year, even through the recession, or at
about 1,300 to 1,500 units per year.
Mr. Sieberg stated that roughly 50 percent of what was proposed was actually built. It did not
look like the market would be significantly stressed based on current projects under construction.
The vacancy rate was 3.4 percent and 2,500 units were under construction. He briefly reviewed
upcoming proposed projects.
Mr. Lentz asked if the only way a project would come before the Council for review would be if
the applicant asked for modification to either the project or zone. Mr. Wood agreed, explaining
that some projects had been approved, whereas others were still being reviewed. Mayor Brunst
said Midtown was looking at building two additional towers.
Mr. Wood said the question they needed to consider was whether or not Utah had a housing
shortage. He stated the number of housing units had to expand in order to accommodate the
increase in households. Utah County's 1980s census report indicated an increase in housing units
more units than households. Mr. Wood stated this overage was attributed to vacancy and second
homes. Since 2010, Utah County had 81,000 housing units; however, the number of households
was nearly 110,00o. When discussing the issue of whether or not a housing shortage existed, Mr.
Wood explained that people started out renting. As such, there were very low vacancy rates
which in turn increased rental rates and market absorption. Another way people entered the
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.4)


enough listings. Statewide, Utah County had the lowest level since the data had been recorded.
Mr. Wood briefly reviewed projected numbers based on changing demographics.
Mayor Brunst said in a recent meeting with Ivory Homes, they indicated their prices had
increased dramatically due to climbing interest rates. Mr. Wood spoke with home builders during
the surveying process, and many had indicated they were satisfied with the market. Several
companies did not have spec homes because of the strong demand. According to the numbers,
home builders should have been building more, but they were not, due to labor shortage, land
availability, costs, and local regulation. Mr. Wood stated there was a borderline housing
shortage, and he asked the Council to consider the implications of such a scenario.
Mr. Seastrand asked about student housing and how that fit in with the impact on the total
housing market. Mr. Wood said that was the most complex housing market in the State, and he
thought they were almost two separate markets. Mr. Seastrand said Utah Valley University
(UVU) was looking to add on-campus student housing, and asked if those units would positively
Or negatively affect the overall market. Mr. Wood stated there were no signs the market would be
destabilized as a result of UVU's on-campus student housing.
Mr. Davidson stated some people had speculated that some of the apartments being built at the
time would be vacant in the next 4 or 5 years, and that there would be an outward migration to
single-family homes. If that occurred, neighborhoods would be challenged. Mr. Davidson asked
rather, there was a greater risk for large single-family homes trying to find a buyer into the future
ten years from now. Furthermore, he explained that they mapped the market based on assessor
records of parcels with detached single family homes that were over sixty years old, and had an
assessed value of less than $150,000 to $175,000. He noted the County had purchased several
rehabilitation projects in an effort to revitalize the market.
DISCUSSION-Arts CARE Recommendations
Mr. Downs invited Kyrene Gibb to come forward and present. He said they had conducted many
studies regarding the use of the CARE tax, and the Council needed to determine how to
reallocate the funds in any way.
Ms. Gibb stated the survey was meant to be an instrument of information, rather than a decision
maker. Residents were not policy experts; however, the survey results revealed their general
priorities and preferences.
· The majority of residents had an overall favorable view of the CARE tax.
Sixty percent of Orem residents participated in the arts a few times per year
·
When allocating grant monies, residents prioritized high quality productions and popular
activities.
How fiscally responsible an organization was also mattered to residents.
A majority of City residents were willing to make a tradeoff to fund fewer projects or
activities in order to support capital expenses like venue improvement or construction.
Ms. Gibb gave a quick review of the information from the survey.
· Sixty percent of survey respondents participated in arts and cultural activities every year
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.5)


Sixty-one percent attended events outside of Orem.
· The event centers people frequented most:
 Hale Center Theater Orem (HCTO)
。
The library
。 Both the indoor and outdoor SCERA facilities
Survey respondents were asked on a scale of zero to ten to rate the importance of the criteria
used by the Council and its commission of citizens and lawmakers who interviewed CARE grant
applicants and then make recommendations on funding:
Respondents were favorable to events with historical or cultural significance, as well high
·
quality projects.
Residents had a slight preference towards funding fewer projects with larger grants, and
using CARE funds to build or upgrade venues.
When asked about the allocation of funds, several residents indicated a preference for the
construction of a library auditorium as well as improvements to the SCERA Center.
Outdoor concerts, musical performances, and cultural festivals were next in line.
Next, Ms. Gibb presented the distributions of how residents clustered their funding priorities.
 s          
cultural events, whereas thirty-two percent disagreed.
Twenty-eight percent didn't express opinion.
 Just over half of Orem residents (fifty-two percent) would support devoting CARE funds
to building an auditorium at the Orem Library.
Mr. Seastrand asked if those who were strongly opposed to the library auditorium gave any
reason why. Ms. Gibb said they did not ask.
Genelle Pugmire asked about the portion of the respondents who were students, and wanted to
know the influence of their statistics. Ms. Gibb said only a small portion of respondents were
students. Mr. Gibb said among survey participants the “very favorable" attitude towards the
CARE tax was only thirty-three percent students, whereas forty-three percent represented
residents.
When Mayor Brunst expressed an interest in seeing the input from people who had attended all
venues, Mr. Davidson noted that, because of the nature of the broad policy decisions, it was
important to consider the overall spectrum of the community and not just hone in on the opinions
of a select group. Mayor Brunst said he understood Mr. Davidson's point; however, he explained
the value in having input from people who had been to events at each venue.
Ms. Gibb stated the survey was meant to solicit feedback from the public regarding their
priorities in allocating CARE funds. After removing the sample of those residents who had not
attended events at certain venues, she felt the data was fairly representative. The survey was not
meant to be an evaluation of a particular event, but rather a general sense of how CARE funds
should be allocated based on citizens' priorities.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.6)


Genelle Pugmire asked if in the questioning of the survey people understood that money had
already been set aside for the auditorium. Ms. Gibb said she didn't have that information while
writing the survey. Therefore, they couldn't assume anything regarding the issue.
CARE funds. He said he was not as concerned about the minutia of the survey, but how the
information could help navigate the vision and future of arts in Orem.
Mr. Lambson said the challenge was finding a way to benefit as many residents as possible. He
said he did not want to overstep his bounds and would support the Council's decision. He
Ms. Millett said it was wonderful to be part of the process which built arts programs in Orem.
She had seen outreach to children and seniors through different programs, and she suggested
these types of programs receive funding. Ms. Millet stated she loved the idea of an auditorium
but was unsure how to fund it properly.
Mayor Brunst said the CARE tax was intended to benefit the citizens. In general, the CARE tax
received favorable ratings from survey respondents. As he had attended various events
  s    sa n   s    s
each time. The community supported the arts, and as such they were willing to pay the tax
because they recognized its benefits.
Mayor Brunst stated there was a demand for the library auditorium. He noted that $1.9 million
had been collected to go towards the library auditorium, in addition to $1.7 million in CARE
funds. Additionally, private donors, as well as the Utah County Commission, had indicated a
willingness to monetarily support the project. There were still discussions on costs; while they
were not set, the City was still short on funds. Mayor Brunst stated the shortage could possibly
be covered by the General Fund, provided the Council approved that type of allocation. If they
were to build a new City Center and auditorium at the same time, there could also be some cost
sharing. Mayor Brunst said the auditorium was needed, and his personal feeling was that waiting
too long to move forward could lead to higher expenses to the City.
Mayor Brunst mentioned he was waiting to receive information from Joe Smith, the architect of
the proposed auditorium. He wanted to utilize the CARE funds for operations, because donors
did not usually donatefor operations.
Mr. Lentz said he wanted to move forward with the auditorium. However, if he didn't know
there was funding available, he might have been less supportive. He said the survey participants
made a strong statement of support for the auditorium, especially when considering they were in
favor of the project without having had any prior background knowledge of the existing funding
mechanisms that were already in place.
Mr. Macdonald said he agreed with Mr. Lentz and stated they should have committed CARE
funds to the project over a period, while having built in budget restraints at the same time. He
said:
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.7)


· The City had been relatively unproductive with the set-aside funding, and it was time to
move forward.
 The CARE tax had passed because residents felt strongly about the SCERA Center and
HCTO.
Survey participants were patrons of HCTO and that predisposition skewed the results.
 In broad numbers more people attended events at the SCERA Center rather than HCTO.
The needed to move forward in completing the library auditorium said they could
possibly borrow from the General Fund and later make a reimbursement using CARE
funds, provided they committed to the project over a period of time.
Mr. Sumner said they needed to be sensitive to what the residents had expected of the CARE tax
in the future. He looked at what was done with the All-Together Playground, and wondered if the
same level of support existed for the auditorium.
Mr. Davidson said there was unanimous support for the All-Together Playground, from day one.
That had not been the case with the library auditorium/Center for Story. Collectively, the Council
had never fully backed the project as a united front. He said it was different to compare the
auditorium project to the All-Together Playground because they were two completely different
projects.
In response to a statement from Mr. Sumner, Mr. Davidson said the divisive opinions had existed
on both the community and Council levels. Several arguments were that the proposed project
was either too big, too small, couldn't accommodate parking, or was too extravagant, etc. The
    s s s   s     
on the neighboring campus. There had also been discussion as to whether or not a library
auditorium should be a function of the City.
Mr. Davidson expressed frustration with the allocation process, and said the hope was for the
survey results to be a tool. Hard feelings had surfaced with people feeling like they were a
winners or losers, depending on if the program or project for which they were most passionate
about received more or less funding. The suggestion every year was to collect quantifiable data
so the Council could move the needle; however, year after year they continued to make the same
funding decisions. He said if that was the case this year, they should have not wasted time and
Mrs. Lauret said the library auditorium got off on a bad public relations note from the start, and
suggested they let some former issues go since the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival was gone.
She did not want to hurt the SCERA Center or HCTO; however, she was interested in seeing
what the City could do for the auditorium. She said she viewed the survey as a tool, and the
overwhelming feedback provided in the survey was support for the auditorium. She was willing
to expend some CARE funds to help move towards that goal, without negatively impacting the
SCERA Center and other programs.
Mr. Spencer said he did not want to change the funding for the SCERA Center and HCTO. He
had never been in favor of the Center for Story. He said it was “lipstick on a pig" to him, and
they could make a justification for anything. He mentioned that while doing research on the
matter, there were many opposing sentiments expressed by the public. He said he did not care for
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.8)


the survey and the way it was written. He felt the CARE process was fine on its own, and a
survey had not been needed.
Mr. Davidson said programming had always been part of the library's mission. Any library
offered programming, and it had not been falsely enhanced to push for the auditorium. Mr.
Spencer said the library previously had 286 programs, and the number had jumped to 800 which
seemed odd. Mr. Davidson observed that, while that was true, to Mr. Spencer's point anything
could be justified using numbers.
Mr. Lentz said it wasn't necessarily that the residents were approving how the CARE funds were
being distributed; rather, they indicated they were in favor of the CARE tax being in place
generally. He wanted to be cautious about patting the Council patting themselves on the back
regarding the seventy-six percent approval rating as was shown in survey results, because he felt
in many ways that number was inaccurate. The survey was valuable data because it provided
external data on community opinion.
Mr. Spencer said the maintenance cost of a building had been low in projections. Mayor Brunst
noted the Covey Center cost the City of Provo quite a bit of money and as such they had tried to
find a way to offload the facility to a private owner.
Mr. Seastrand said the CARE funds had been used for the same purposes for the past ten years,
and as such they achieved the same results year after year. He was not complaining because they
had seen stability in the organizations, venues, and facilities. However, if no changes were made
in the distribution of funds, they would not see changes in the City's arts programs. He opined
that as a City they could have done something extraordinarily better. He suggested that as a
  o ,  s sin    o au,  s  n o
things thrive." He wanted to move the arts in a direction that would put the City in a position to
provide even more.
Mayor Brunst said the SCERA, HCTO. and library had all improved dramatically over the years.
He wanted to have further discussion on this matter in the future before giving direction as an
elected body. He said he also knew of private donors he wanted to approach.
Mr. Downs said he did not know what direction to take the CARE advisory group based on this
discussion. Mayor Brunst said the Council wanted more time to discuss the matter.
There was a brief discussion regarding other funding mechanisms that might have been available
for the library auditorium, in addition to CARE funds. Mrs. Crozier said they had approached
foundations and corporations, and she would give the Council an updated list of possible private
donors. At a minimum, the project would require $1.75 million; however, they would work with
contractors to drive down those costs. She said the community would be more responsive if the
Council put more momentum behind the project.
DISCUSSION-CAFR
Mr. Nelson provided an overview of the annual audit report. Overall, revenues decreased by
$800,000. Sales tax had increased by $630,000, ambulance services revenues had increased by
$400,000 and public safety service fees for Lindon and Vineyard increased by $200,000. He
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.9)


explained that building-related revenues had decreased $1.2 million and property taxes decreased
$881,000 due to G.O. Bond refunding for the Center Street road project.
Mr. Manning said the lost revenue was primarily from one-time moneys, but the increases were
in ongoing moneys. Mr. Nelson said those revenues would have gone to pay the old debt.
However, since they refunded that debt those moneys did not have to pay that debt. Instead, they
In response to a question from Mrs. Lauret, Mr. Manning said staff specifically overstated
expenses and underestimated revenues due to one-time moneys.
Mr. Nelson said the total expenditures were basically flat, and declined around $200,000. That
decline, however, occurred because of a $2.5 million booking of a new park in association with
the Cascade Golf Course. While there was revenue from the golf course, it was not part of the
revenues as previously discussed. Expenditures actually increased because this capital outlay was
included in a prior year's budget. Spending increases occurred as a result of salary and benefit
increases, as well as other capital outlay expenditures in the Public Safety and Public Works
departments. There were also several equipment expenses. Mayor Brunst asked about differences
on the pension amount, to which Mr. Nelson stated he would address the matter later.
Mr. Nelson said the City had a decline in fund balance of $40o,0oo. While this may have
appeared to be negative, the transfer was made from $4.8 million in overages from capital
projects accounts from prior years. If those transfers had not occurred in the current year, they
would have shown an increase of $4.4 million, which was not the case. Mayor Brunst asked how
much of that amount had been spent. Mr. Nelson said not much. They were approaching
completing almost $2.8 million. However, there was a huge planning element before spending
themoney.
Mr. Nelson explained that the State had requirements on minimum and maximum fund balance.
In Orem's case, the City had exceeded the maximum fund balance during Fiscal Year 2016. As
such the City needed to transfer $1.6 million to the CIP fund. Furthermore, to meet the City's
fifteen percent fund balance goal, the City needed to transfer an additional $1.8 million.
Regarding pension liability, GASB rules dictated that the City show its proportionate share of the
pension liability of the URS, which could have changed dramatically from year to year. In 2016,
their liability was $12.6 million, which increased $4.3 million from the prior year (2015). Mr.
Nelson stated that the City had almost no control over that volatility. The URS gave the City the
information which was then plugged into the City's financial statements. He said there was a
difference between projected and actual earnings.
Mayor Brunst said it was his understanding the pension earnings would be seven percent, and he
was not sure if that amount had been passed into law by the State Legislature. Mr. Nelson said
the earnings would be based on the historical average. Mayor Brunst asked to clarify that if
earnings did not hit seven percent, the cities would be required to chip in the money. Mr. Nelson
said that was potentially the case. Mayor Brunst asked if seven percent had been a market rate
reality before, and Mr. Nelson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Macdonald stated GASB
requirements were not logical all the time but the City was still subject to them.
City Council Minutes -December 13,2016 (p.10)


Lastly, Mr. Nelson said the current budget needed to cover losses in the recreation fund from the
prior year, as they did not have the ability to fund themselves. Mr. Davidson clarified that the
recreation fund was covering a portion of its expenses, just not everything.
The Work Session concluded at 5:22 p.m.
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
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; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason
Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steven Downs,
Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
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 5:57 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.11)


Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attormey; 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; Ryan Clark,
Economic Development Division Manager; Steven Downs,
Assistant to the  City Manager;  Pete  Wolfley,
Communications Specialist; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT
Steven Downs
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Boy Scouts Alex and Wyatt
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the following meeting minutes:
· November 15, 2016 City Council Meeting
● November 16, 2016 Joint Orem/Alpine School District Meeting
·November 29, 2016 Joint Orem/UVU Meeting
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 REFERREDBY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mr. Seastrand moved to reappoint Sean Orullian to the Beautification Advisory Commission.
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.
Mr. Seastrand moved to appoint Darren Hawkins, David Staub, Erin H. Lyons, Gwenna Terry,
and Sara Bateman to the Natural Resources Advisory Commission. 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.
City Council Minutes - Decermber 13, 2016 (p.12)


MAYOR PRO TEM - January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017
      od  s   nn n p ns r
June 30, 2017. 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.
City Manager Appointment
Mr. Davidson asked for the advice and consent of the Council to reappoint David Moulton to the
Planning Commission. Mayor Brunst moved to reappoint David Moulton to the Planning
Commission. 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.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on
were limited to three minutes or less.
No one signed up for personal appearances.
CONSENTITEMS
Mr. Seastrand moved to adopt the 2017 Annual City Council Meeting Schedule. 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.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINIG- CONTINUED ITEM - PD-4 Davies Office Building
ORDINANCE - Amending the OremGeneral Plan land use mapby changing the
designation from_ Medium Density  Residential to  Community  Commercial; amending
Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by rezoning property from
the R8 zone to the PD-4 zone at 1000 East 800 North; amending Section 22-19-1(A) and
the Appendix of the Orem City Code by enacting Appendix “RR", PD-4 zone; and
amending Section 22-11-16 of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of
the PD-4 zone
Mr. Bench presented Danny Mason's request that the City amend the Orem General Plan land
use map by changing the designation from Medium Density Residential to Community
Commercial; amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by rezoning
property from the R8 zone to the PD-4 zone at 1000 East 800 North; amend Section 22-19-1(A)
and the Appendix of the Orem City Code by enacting Appendix “RR", PD-4 zone; and amend
Section 22-11-16 of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-4 zone.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.13)


This item was continued from the November 15, 2016 City Council to allow the applicant time
to finalize an access agreement and a development agreement. The applicant had finalized the
The owners of property at approximately 1000 East 800 North wanted to develop a commercial
This property  was  ideally suited  for commercial
office project on the subject property.
development as it fronted on 800 North. The proposed project consisted of two office buildings.
  a  s       sa  
was zoned R8. The first request was to change the General Plan designation to Community
Commercial and rezone the property to the PD-4 zone. The PD-4 zone currently existed on the
property directly to the west which was known as the Orchard Shopping Center.
The second request was to amend the Appendix to the City Code by enacting Appendix “RR'"
which would include the concept plan for the PD-4 zone and which divided the PD-4 zone into
 a s n s  s  s e, r   a, r s
would limit the types of uses in Area “B". The concept plan and building elevations of Area “B"
would also be included in the appendix.  All new development must have substantially
conformed to the concept plan contained in Appendix "RR".
The last request was to amend Section 22-11-16 pertaining to development standards in the PD-4
zone as detailed below.
The first text change was to specify that only office uses (SLU 6530) were permitted in Area B.
All retail services in the PD-4 zone would be located in Area A. The possibility of new retail
development in the proposed Area A was minimal as the remaining square footage was needed
to park the existing uses. However, redevelopment could have occurred if existing buildings or
structures were removed.
The second proposed text change was to reduce the required setback from a street or residentially
zoned property from forty feet to thirty feet. The existing Harmon's building was approximately
sixty feet from the residential property to the south while the proposed new office buildings
would be set back approximately seventy feet from the nearest residential property. The change
in the setback would have allowed the new office buildings to be closer to 1000 East and to 800
North.
The third proposed change was to increase the maximum area of the PD-4 zone from nine acres
to twelve acres to allow for the addition of the subject property to the PD-4 zone.
The fourth proposed change concerned the orientation of buildings. The PD-4 zone currently
stated that no building shall face south. At the time the PD-4 was originally approved, there was
concern about having main entrances to a building face south toward the then-existing residential
zones. The applicant would have liked to have the new office buildings face south and therefore
proposed to amend the text to require that only retail buildings may not face south.
That final change would have added 1000 East as an access point to the PD-4 zone.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.14)


A neighborhood meeting was held on June 9, 2016, with several neighbors in attendance. The
overall response from those at the meeting appeared to have been positive. Minutes of the
meeting were attached.
Staff and the developer had negotiated a development agreement to address certain issues such as
access to the project and the relocation of certain power poles. At the time this agenda summary
was prepared, the issue regarding power pole relocation had not yet been completely resolved.
Staff and the developer were hopeful that this issue would be resolved prior to the City Council
meeting. In addition, an agreement between the Orchard Shopping Center and the property
owner regarding reciprocal access between the two projects should have been finalized prior to
City Council consideration.
In the event that either the development agreement or the access agreement had not been
finalized before the City Council meeting, Staff recommended that this item should have been
continued until the next Council meeting.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
22-11-16.PD-4 at 800 North 800 East
B. Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within Area A of the PD-4 zone:
Standard Land
Use Code Category
5330 Limited PriceVariety Store
5394 Musical Instruments
5410 Groceries and/or food - retail
5440 Candy & other confectionary products
5600 Clothing, Apparel, & Accessories
Furniture & home furnishings
5710
5730 Music Supplies
5810 Restaurants
Antiques
5931
5932 Gold&Silver
5941 Books
5943 Office Supplies
5945 Newspapers/Magazines
5946 Cameras & Photographic Supplies
5949 Videorentals
5951 Sporting Goods
5952 Bicycles
5970 ComputerGoods&Services
5996 OpticalGoods
6120 Security and commodity brokers, dealers, and exchanges
6150 Real estate agent, broker, and associated services
6231 Beauty and barber Shops
6233 Massage Therapy
Apparel repair, alterations, laundry/dry cleaning services (pick up only)
6251
6291 Catering Services
6320 Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services; adjustment and collection services
Travel arranging service
6330
6331 Private Postal Services
6332 Blueprinting and photocopying
6334 Stenographic services and other duplicating & mailing, NEC*
6342 Locksmithing
6350 News syndicate
CityCouncilMinutes-December13,2016(p.15)


6392 Business and management consulting services
6510 Allmedicalandotherprofessionalservices
6514 Chiropractors& Osteopaths
6591 Engineering and architectural
6599 Interior design
7425 Gymnasiums&Athletic Clubs
7426 Health spas
The following shall be permitted uses within Area B of the PD-4 zone:
6530 Professional office
E. Site Development Standards.
-1.-Building Setback. The building setback from any dedicated street right-of-way or adjacent
residential property line shall be forty thirty feet (430')-except however, a-portion of-an-irregular shaped
building may encroach into the-setback area provided the- following criteria are met:
a. The square-footage of-the portion-of the-building that encroaches-into the-setback area shall-not exceed-the
total square -footage-of the area-that is located between the forty foot setback line and-those portions of the
building-that are set back more than forty feet from-the street.
In no- case shall-any building-or portion thereof be closer than-thirty feet (30') to any dedicated
b.
street-right of way or residential.
2. Maximum Area. The maximum area of the development site shall be ninetwelve (912) acres.
5. Building Orientation. No building containing a retail use shall face south. For buildings containing
a retail use. tThe only building accesses permitted toward the north-and-south residential zones shall be
15.Vehicular Accesses.Vehicular accesses to the site shall be from 800 North Street,-and 800 East
Street,and 10o0EastStreet.Deceleration lanes shall be provided at all entrances to the sitefrom dedicated
24. Site Plan. A new site plan shall substantially conform to the concept plat contained in Appendix
"RR".
Transportation Issues
Mr. Goodrich explained there were was a proposed rezone of the subject property in 2014 which
 i  s  8 p  s  s o e q p
restaurant with a drive-through. The total trip generation estimation for the previous rezone
 e    o s     s  sm pso
generation of 506 trips per day.
Multiple access points would have been available to the property including 800 East, 800 North,
and 1000 East. The existing Harmons access on 800 North would have been widened to forty
joint access easement would not only allow the office building users to access the improved
access on 800 North but also the full Harmons development site including access to 800 East.
This joint access easement would also allow residents in the 1ooo East area to access the
Harmons property without having to travel onto 8o0 North or maneuver circuitously through
adjoiningneighborhoods.
               
1000 East was listed on the 2015 Transportation Master Plan to warrant needing a traffic signal
sometime in the future (with or without the proposed rezone). The developer agreed in writing,
by development agreement, to widen 1000 East north of the proposed access so that a two-lane
approach to 800 could be accommodated. One lane would accommodate left turns onto 800
North and the other would accommodate right turns.  This widening would not only
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.16)


accommodate additional traffic created by the office use, but would also better accommodate
local traffic at the 8oo North intersection.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend the Orem General Plan land
use map by changing the designation from Medium Density Residential to Community
Commercial at 1000 East 800 North; amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem
City Code by rezoning property from the R8 zone to the PD-4 zone at 1000 East 800 North;
amend Section 22-19-1(A) and the Appendix of the Orem City Code by enacting Appendix
"RR"; and amend Section 22-11-16 of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards
of the PD-4 zone. Staff supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bench stated that the two office buildings would have footprints of 11,500 square feet.
Improvements along 800 North would be required of the developer, as would the widening along
1000 East. The proposed elevation was thirty-one feet. The buildings would have aluminum
storefront windows, brick and cement panels. Mr. Bench stated this was not the PO Zone, as the
PD-4 Zone did not have the same requirements. Images of the south and west elevations were
presented. There was a reciprocal cross access easement the entire width of the proposed site
plan. There were a couple of power poles on 1oo0 East that needed to be relocated because they
were in the public right-of-way. In the event Rocky Mountain Power didn't move them, the
responsibility would then fall on the applicants. Additionally, there was an existing wall
between the Harmons and the subject property which the applicant needed to remove as well.
He turned the time over to Mr. Goodrich, who discussed the transportation issues (described
above).
In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, Mr. Goodrich explained that a speed table was a
traffic calming device similar to a speed bump but was flatter on top and had a slightly different
design. He stated that the project's concept plan was tied to the development agreement.
Mr. Lentz had questions regarding traffic. He said the shared access on 800 North currently had
one lane coming in and one lane going out. He anticipated that access would become busier, and
asked if a left turning lane would be added as well. Mr. Goodrich said it was narrow access, but
they would be widening the eastern access to forty feet. At the time there was not a left turn
restriction coming out of that access. He anticipated UDOT would allow left turns because it
         o   n   s
        r     
curved line along Harmons would be modified, so that the deceleration area would have been a
full-width area. The benefit was that the access in question would have been improved for the
neighboring site as well as for Harmons.
Mr. Lentz asked if blockages would occur at the access where people waited to turn left while
the majority of traffic was turning right. He asked of those people waiting to turn left would
have to cross through the office park to exit the development. Mr. Goodrich said they hoped to
widen the road so they could add in a left-only lane; however, UDOT controlled traffic
movement at that particular location.
Mr. Lentz had similar questions regarding 10o0 East, and wanted to know if it would be widened
sufficiently for both right and left turn lanes. Mr. Goodrich answered affirmatively, and stated
the access in question could be widened. In this circumstance, they would widen the access to
City Council Minutes -December 13,2016 (p.17)


the south, which would lose a few parking stalls. Mr. Lentz asked what circumstances would
lead to a future access in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Goodrich said the applicant wanted
to maintain the possibility of having an access at that location, which could have potentially
occurred after UDOT widened the road sometime in the future. If the access went in that
location they would have had to move the curb in order to create a deceleration lane into the
access.
Mr. Goodrich said one of the benefits of moving over the Harmons main access was they would
 ee s ha  s u  e sn a   
sidewalk was back far enough to create sufficient wiggle room. Mr. Goodrich said yes, they
would be getting an eight foot wide park strip. The existing sidewalk on 800 North was right
next to the curb and gutter and closer to traffic. UDOT recognized the need for widening 800
North and putting in those improvements, although it was not one of their immediate priorities.
Mr. Lentz said during a prior public hearing a resident had expressed a desire to see traffic
diverted around the central parking area rather than directly through the center. He asked if that
suggestion was considered as a feasible option. Mr. Goodrich's recollection was the person who
made comment wanted to have circuitous access through the parking lot to discourage people
from cutting through the lot in order to get to Harmons. There were hundreds of people who cut
through the City's office parking lot even though it was designed circuitously to keep people
from using it as a through-way.
Mayor Brunst said Harmons preferred to have a straight through access. Mr. Goodrich said he
hadn't been part of the Harmons negotiations; all he knew was Harmons agreed to a cross access
in the development agreement.
Mr. Macdonald said he preferred this proposed development over the strip mall that was denied
by the Council and Commission a couple years ago. With regards to parking, he asked how
many stalls there would be per 1,oo0 square feet, and Mr. Bench said there would be around
four. Mr. Macdonald asked if the traffic counts to which Mr. Bench referred previously included
traffic that would likely be going from Harmons to 10oo East, or if it only anticipated new
traffic. Mr. Bench answered in the negative; the counts reflected what was generated at the site.
He further explained 800 East was an arterial road and had a speed limit of thirty-five miles per
hour and was wider with ample shoulder space. 800 East to 1600 North was the belt route that
naturally attracted more traffic. 1ooo East was not the same, but it would have helped to
accommodate the existing traffic on 100o East, as well as given better access to 800 North and
Harmons.
Mr. Macdonald said his only concern with this project was the building on the east. If it was
moved to the west the street could have curved slightly so it pointed to the former bank exist
instead of into a neighborhood home. He thought this opportunity had been explored. Mr.
Goodrich said if they lined up the street with the existing access to the east it would be too close
to the future traffic signal. After further discussion as to where the access could have been
placed, Mr. Goodrich stated in order for the City to convince UDOT to signalize the intersection,
they would have to follow their spacing criteria.
Mr. Macdonald asked what would happen with the bank building exit. Mr. Bench said it was an
existing access and it would have much less traffic. Mr. Macdonald stated he wished the
City Coumcil Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.18)


developer would have left a couple of those building lots to the south, so the road could have
turmned and faced 760 North instead of a house. Mr. Goodrich said the lot in question had been
sold.
Mr. Mason explained said the homeowners most affected by this proposal had been more than
reasonable in their requests of them as developers. The homeowners had invested in a lot of
home improvements and as such Mr. Mason and his partners wanted to be good neighbors. They
had offered to put in Evergreen trees to help mitigate light pollution from headlights.  When
meeting with the homeowners, they expressed that their main concern was the traffic. They did
not want this access or the grid network system connecting onto 1ooo East, as it would have
created more traffic. Furthermore, they did not want the road widened. However, those
conditions were outlined in the Transportation Master Plan. Mr. Mason said he understood the
reasoning behind straightening the path as the matter pertained to safety reasons, and he agreed
with Mr. Goodrich's position on the issue.
Mr. Mason stated the neighbor had a pool in the northeast cormer of their property and they
   s r    ss d   a  n
adjacent lot. Mr. Mason said they happily agreed to planting trees on their property to buffer the
view from the upper window. They committed to planting twenty foot high trees.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Goodrich if they anticipated that a divider or island would be
constructed down the middle of 8oo North after further development had occurred. If so, he
wondered if that would have made the left-hand turn obsolete. Mr. Goodrich said the medians
    p   ss n ss od    
severaldecades.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Bench about development options and whether or not it was possible to
develop a retail strip mall as a standalone for the PD-4 zone. Mr. Bench said staff recommended
the PO (Professional Office) which was specifically designed for 800 North. Alternatively, they
recommended the C1 zone; both zones prohibited retail. Mr. Seastrand asked if there were any
benefits to connecting to the PD-4 zone. Mr. Bench answered in the affirmative, and stated it
would create multiple ways to exit and access the property. Developments that didn't have cross
connections onto State Street were more difficult to maneuver.
Mr. Spencer asked if the outlet on the east side of the development was required, and wondered
why they didn't just put an outlet onto 800 North. Mr. Goodrich said even if there was an
additional access on 800 North, they would still need the connection onto 1000 East. Access in
that area was critical for future development. Mr. Spencer inquired as to how they would
appease the fears of the adjacent neighbors regarding traffic not becoming overly problematic.
Mr. Goodrich acknowledged traffic was the common concern for neighborhoods. Mr. Goodrich
stated that while 800 North was a long road, it was not an arterial that collected a lot of traffic.
Rather, it was a collector street needed in order to serve the neighborhood's needs. He
anticipated people would take 800 East when driving longer distances, whereas 1000 East would
be used for shorter routes. 1o0o East better distributed traffic into local streets, which was
indicated in the City's Transportation Master Plan. He said Orem had seen a lot of growth over
the years as it was a community of larger families. As such, they needed to develop the grid
system network in order to better serve traffic needs.
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.19)


Mr. Spencer asked if adding an access onto 800 North would have deferred traffic onto 1000
East. Mr. Goodrich said there would already be an adequate access just a few feet away from the
building and would've connected through the east and west connection. Mr. Spencer asked
about the access location as it was currently proposed at that time. Mr. Goodrich stated while
 s p sd r   sd ss    p o 
Harmons of having a cross access easement. In other words, while it was necessary to have one
access onto 800 North, two would have been superficial. There was continued deliberation on
the matter.
Mr. Spencer asked about speed bumps in the Palisades development and wondered if the City
still used them. Mr. Goodrich answered in the negative, as they had discovered that other cities
around the country lost lawsuits as a result of having implemented them.
Mayor Brunst inquired as to where the widening of the road would take place. Mr. Goodrich
said the widening would occur all on the development. Mayor Brunst said he believed the traffic
would flow out onto 8oo North, and he preferred to see central improvements made. Staff and
Council reviewed an aerial map of the subject property, and identified the intersection of 800
East and Canyon Parkway. Mayor Brunst said if they duplicated the Harmon's main access on
the subject piece of property rather than changing the east side, traffic would have been better
mitigated on 1000 East.
Mr. Davidson said Canyon Parkway was owned by UDOT, and as such the City could not make
an independent decision regarding a second access. Mr. Goodrich said the reason the Harmon's
main access was a right-in and right-out was because they could not have legally made a left-out
turn due to its proximity to 80o East. The road further down by the gas station had the best
opportunity for the left turn. The planned access points had been strategically positioned. Mayor
Brunst commented that was valuable information.
Mr. Lentz asked if UDOT would be opposed to having another right-in, right-out turn in the
middle of the two office buildings. Mr. Goodrich said there was not a safe shoulder in that area
if that were the case. One of the problems with putting in a right turn deceleration lane was an
existing irrigation pipe, and moving that pipe had exponential costs. The access was better in
between the two developments, which was why a joint agreement was reached between the two
parties. The developer, UDOT, and City all agreed the best location was at the east Harmon's
access.
Mayor Brunst asked if as per the development agreement the applicant had agreed to put in
additional lanes coming out onto 800 North on the east side of Harmons. He asked if the intent
was to have another turning lane, and Mr. Goodrich answered in the affirmative. He stated while
this was not detailed on the concept plan, it was part of the development agreement.
Mayor Brunst said the power poles along 1000 East were significant and crossed 800 North, and
asked how they would be relocated. Mr. Goodrich said each of the poles were identified in the
concept plan. According to the development agreement, the developer would relocate some of
the poles to the west into the park strip area between the new curb and gutter. Mr. Mason stated
they agreed in writing to move the two poles in the corner, and Rocky Mountain Power would
relocate the remaining poles.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.20)


Mr. Earl said Rocky Mountain Power would be required to move the pole located in the City's
public right-of-way. However, if for some reason Rocky Mountain Power didn't agree to move
the pole and the City was unable to compel them to do so, the cost would have then fallen to the
developer. Mr. Mason said he was completely unaware of that stipulation, and did not recall
having agreed to those terms. Mr. Earl said the City would use their best efforts to compel
Rocky Mountain Power to move the pole. He thought all parties had this same understanding.
Mr. Mason stressed that he was one of four partners, and at no point did they agree to bear the
costs of moving the other poles in the event Rocky Mountain Power refused to move them.
There was further deliberation on the matter.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Gary Wise, resident, said he lived in Orem for thirty-eight years, nineteen of which he spent
working for the City. In 1996, he was appointed by Governor Leavitt to be the State Fire
Marshall, and was appointed to the Planning Commission by Jim Reams in 1997. He served two
terms on the Planning Commission. Mr. Wise stated he wished to correct misinformation. He
stated it was not illegal to create a left turm out of the Harmon's main access point. Harmons was
built while he was on the Planning Commission, and at the time he wanted to make the left turn a
condition of approval. However, he was told by the City's legal counsel at the time that the
Commission could not attach such a condition. Mr. Wise also inquired as to why they couldn't
apply the PO zone if offices were going to be built. This way, the building exteriors would have
also been consistent with other buildings in similar zones. Lastly, he noted 1oo0 East was thirty-
nine feet wide from curb to curb, which would be problematic for an inevitable influx in traffic.
Alletta Bergoff said three minutes would never be enough time to express the far reaching
negative effects of the proposed access easement to the residents of the area. She said she
wanted to immediately dispel the false information regarding what concerned residents the most.
They were not concerned about headlights shining into their bedrooms. She had written down in
the detail the matters they found most concerning, and distributed copies to each Council
Member. She thanked the developers, staff and elected officials for being willing to address
their concerns, which she had categorized into two areas; traffic hazards and quality of life.
Lastly, Ms. Bergoff requested access to the minutes that were taken during a previously
mentioned neighborhood meeting. Lastly, she briefly commented on speed tables and increased
traffic in the area.
Dan Meacham, resident, said the developer had been accommodating to residents’ needs, for
which he expressed appreciation. The developer allowed flat roofs instead of peaks, and Mr.
Meacham said Class A Commercial was the best situation for this area. He said he found it
ironic that everyone was concerned about the traffic on 1ooo East, because his own street was
much more problematic and they weren't getting an easement. He said the development needed
to have narrowing streets to keep traffic from flowing through neighborhoods. He stated his
preference of moving the buildings further toward the streets. He understood the need for
privacy, and stated the developer had determined the best ways of mitigating those concerns.
Loren Lowe, resident, stated he was the one who had suggested a circuitous path through the
parking lot. He did not disagree with the idea of having a right turn coming out of the office
area. Mr. Lowe stated his opinion that Mr. Goodrich's professional opinion was more anecdotal
City Council Minutes -December 13,2016 (p.21)


and not based on fact. Mr. Lowe said it made sense to have at least a right turn coming out of the
office complex to help reduce traffic coming off at 1ooo East.  Mr. Lowe wanted the
development to have a park strip between 800 North and the sidewalk, to hedge against future
widening at the intersection of 10o0 East and 800 North. He asked staff to follow their intuition
of having the right turn out of the complex, and he was in favor of Mr. Wise's idea to have a left
turn out of Harmons.
Matt Ward, resident, echoed Mr. Meacham's comments regarding safety hazards caused by
speeding in the area. He was supportive of having access behind the business complex.
Cherene Bergoff, resident, was concerned about the added traffic an easement would have
caused. They had been coping for years without the easement, so she failed to see how having
one would solve their problems. She had also been informed that a portion of her property might
be taken through imminent domain, to help widen 1oo0 East into three lanes. Ms. Bergoff said
she was told a traffic light would be installed, but the story was never the same as to when that
would have occurred. Her understanding was that UDOT was not interested in putting a traffic
light on 10o0 East. She was told to build a concrete wall or a tall hedge along her property line,
and said that while the City was free to do what it pleased, she would then become imprisoned
within the confines her own property. She asked the Council to look at this issue very carefully.
Lucille Macmillan, resident, asked the Council to reconsider the proposed easement. She drove
from 1ooo East to Center Street and there were no areas where three lanes or an easement
existed. She mentioned they had been in their home for thirty years and had been recognized by
the Beautification Commission twice in a row; putting up a concrete wall would have been
devastating. Furthermore, they had put a lot of money into making the home accessible for Ms.
Cherene Bergoff. She hoped those poles would not be moved so that an easement wouldn't be
put in, thus rerouting the access points.
Allen Perry, resident, said he had lived behind Harmons for forty years, and for nearly twenty-
five years it was a dead end road. Once the road was finished traffic increased significantly.
Soon thereafter a new development was built kitty-corner from his property. Over the course of
   n  n n d  n u   s   s m
more than doubled in four decades, and he felt that a Class A development would be one of the
best looking improvements along the street.
John Reinhard, resident, referenced a prior question as to why the area was zoned PD rather than
PO. He wondered if this could have still been achieved without the traffic thoroughfare. He
asked if the PD zone could stand on its own, and if there were other benefits to having a PD zone
rather than any of the other zones mentioned throughout the discussion.
Juan Chavez, resident, said he was currently building a house that would directly face the
commercial development.  His biggest concern was the setback from the commercial in
proximity to his house. Regarding safety, he wanted a buffer because anyone with kids would
want the privacy of letting them play outside without people watching.
Bonnie Call, resident, said that prior to allowing access and widening of the road, residents
wanted a real traffic study done, instead of estimates from two years ago. She could understand
M  q ou  s    a  d   a sap  
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.22)


widened would be in the best interest of the neighbors.
Keith Davidson said he was one of the developers of the residential properties, and when they
purchased the property they were concerned with what commercial went in adjacent to them.
The ideal situation was to have low buildings that didn't block the views. The developer had
implemented much of the feedback they were given from public input. He sympathized with
several of the issues raised by the neighbors, and recalled discussions he had with his neighbors
when he built his home. He acknowledged that while a new development would create more
traffic, it would be for the greater good of the community.
Kylen Lundeen said that as a neighbor he had tried to consider the alternatives. However, he felt
this was the best proposal. He said as a father who had children who waited at a bus stop in the
area, safety was of significant interest to him. He still felt the proposal as presented provided the
best scenario.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Lauret asked if traffic would be alleviated if the City required a second access on 1000
East. Mr. Mason said while he wanted to have that option, UDOT had the authority to make that
decision and they had not indicated a willingness to add a second access.
Mr. Goodrich said UDOT's preference was to not even show a future access. Mrs. Lauret asked
              s  
proposal for months and believed this was the compromise.
Mr. Sumner asked Mr. Goodrich to speak to the traffic study, to which Mr. Goodrich said they
had traffic counters out all around the City. 400 East started out at 5,300 vehicle trips per day
and the number grew to approximately 6,300 further south. 800 North saw 8,200 vehicle trips
day, and further south beyond that point there were closer to 10,800 vehicle trips per day. Mr.
Goodrich stated all streets had different characteristics and therefore carried different volumes.
1000 East was classified as a collector, and was designed differently than the connecting
neighborhood streets. 80o North was a major arterial road upon which they conducted an
exhaustive traffic study. The study helped them better understand specific areas as well as needs
throughout the entire City as a whole. While the developer could have chosen to get another
traffic study done by another engineer, they felt they would be duplicating work that was already
done.
Mr. Sumner asked Mr. Goodrich to provide an overview of traffic on 1ooo East. Mr. Goodrich
said for a low traffic generating area such as the corner of 800 East and 800 North, there would
be about 250 cars going in and 250 going out, for total of around 500 per day. His understanding
was the Davies Corporate office wanted to relocate there, and as such was likely going to be a
low traffic generator; however, it they were going to lease to other tenants the traffic could have
been higher. They did not know exactly how many trips there would be on the road; all they
couldprovidewere estimates.
o     a  m s s o e   
said there were a number of different uses which all varied in one way or another.
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.23)


Mr. Mason stated Class A offices would generate the lowest traffic volume, whereas Class B
produced higher volume. He anticipated the tenants they hoped to attract would produce lower
traffic volumes. Mr. Lentz asked if there were any potential tenants that would potentially reach
higher volumes, and Mr. Mason said he could not say at this point. Mr. Goodrich explained the
number 1,4o0 was in the national range; When determining that statistic, trip generations from
other states with different characteristics were also taken into consideration. Mr. Lentz asked if
there was any way of talking with UDOT about having right turns only at the future access on
800 North. Mr. Goodrich said UDOT strongly recommended taking the future access off of the
conceptplan.
One of the project developers, who did not state his name for the record, said a right turn access
at Harmons as well as a right turn access 150 feet down the street would create a major traffic
conflict. The deceleration was a concern in the same stretch of road.
Mr. Seastrand invited Mrs. Wise back to the podium. Regarding traffic, Mr. Seastrand said the
situation was never quite as good as the developer believed, but it was never quite as bad as the
neighbors believed either; usually, the reality of the situation was somewhere in the middle of
that spectrum. He asked Mr. Wise, if in his professional opinion he believed the professional
businesses would bring a lot of extra traffic, or if most of the added traffic would have related to
the Harmon's access. Mr. Wise said the Harmons access would cause more of an increase in
traffic on 1ooo East than the office building. He stated at the Design Review Committee
meetings at the time, he wished the City Attorney would have indicated that the City had the
ability to create a left turn out of Harmons. Mr. Wise said he was also a former police officer,
and he was concerned with people speeding through the intersection without stopping.
Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Wise if he had observed anyone from the north side of 800 North using
it as a shortcut to get into Harmons. Mr. Wise said yes, because there was a center area where
they could wait to turn left into a driveway. The time of day was a factor in terms of traffic
congestion. Mr. Wise mentioned the Palisades development had lighted access onto 800 North.
There was continued discussion as to where traffic would flow, depending on the direction. Mr.
Wise said the road was a nightmare for drivers and needed to be widened.
Mr. Seastrand was concerned with the possibility of eminent domain, and/or requiring the
neighbors to build a concrete wall. Mr. Goodrich and Mayor Brunst both stated they were
unaware of any possibility that eminent domain would occur. He said if the City did any
widening on 1ooo East, it would take place north of the home in question and along office park
frontage as shown on the site plan. Furthermore, this would be costly and only occur if they
discovered it was necessary to add another turn lane.
Mayor Brunst said south of the development was all orchards and had since been developed as
residential. Therefore, there was already traffic in the area. He did not think the traffic from this
office building would flow further down on 1000 East, but rather would empty onto 800 North.
Mayor Brunst stated this was a prime spot for commercial and should be used as such.
Mayor Brunst pointed out that the majority of office buildings would be masonry, brick and
glass, which would attract the types of businesses they preferred. Mr. Mason said they
was their observation that younger businesses were fleeing Orem because they were not finding
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.24)


the office space they wanted. There was continued discussion regarding building design along
the corridor in question. Mr. Bench said the PO zone had minimum and maximum size
restrictions, which often meant buildings in the zone had smaller footprints. Since this project
was connected to the PD-4 it made sense to expand the zone. Mr. Mason said they liked the flat
other area businesses.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend the Orem General Plan land use map by changing
the designation from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial; amending Section
22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by rezoning property from the R8 zone to
the PD-4 zone at 1000 East 800 North; amending Section 22-19-1(A) and the Appendix of the
Orem City Code by enacting Appendix “RR", PD-4 zone; and amending Section 22-11-16 of the
Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-4 zone. Mr. Lentz seconded the
motion.
Mayor Brunst said if the area coming out of Harmons was expanded in addition to 1ooo East,
traffic would collide along the corridor. He was comfortable not having an exit out to 800 North
in the middle of project.
Mr. Macdonald wanted staff to use the same vigor in speaking with UDOT about the exit, as
with Rocky Mountain Power regarding the power poles.
After further discussion, the Council voted on the motion.
Those voting aye: Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Lentz, Mr. Sumner, Mrs. Lauret. Those
voting nay: Mr. Spencer. The motion passed 6-1.
6:00P.M.PUBLICHEARING-CONTINUEDITEM-LakeviewAnnexation#2
ORDINANCE-Approvalof theLakeviewAddition to OremCity #2Annexationpetition
annexing 25.53 acres of property located generally at 650West 2000 South into the City of
Orem
ORDINANCE - Amending the General Plan Map and Chapter 2 of the General Plan by
applying the Industrial Land Use designation to the property in the Lakeview Addition #2
to Orem City Annexation Plat; and amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and
the Zoning Map by applying the M1 zoning designation to the property in the Lakeview
Addition #2 to Orem City Annexation Plat
Mr. Bench explained that Paul Washburn requested the City approve the Lakeview Addition to
Orem City #2 Annexation Petition to annex 25.53 acres of property located generally at 650
West 2000 South into the City of Orem; and amend the General Plan Map and Chapter 2 of the
General Plan by applying the Industrial Land Use designation to the property in the Lakeview
Addition #2 to Orem City Annexation Plat; and amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code
and the Zoning Map by applying the M1 zoning designation to the property in the Lakeview
Addition #2 to Orem CityAnnexationPlat.
This item was continued from the October 25, 2016 City Council agenda which allowed the
applicant time to complete the clean-up of the property prior to the annexation. To date the
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.25)


applicant had made significant progress in the cleanup of the property. A few items still
remained, however, and the applicant was making every effort to complete the cleanup prior to
to verity the cleanup had been completed as requested.
On June 29, 2016, Paul Washburn filed an application with the City for the annexation of 25.53
acres from Utah County into Orem. All property owners in the proposed annexation area
supported annexing at this time. This annexation was in line with the City's current Annexation
Policy Plan in the General Plan which outlined the eventual annexation of the County land north
of 2000 South and west of I-15 to Utah Lake. The City Council accepted the petition for
consideration on July 12, 2016 and the petition was certified by the City Recorder, City
Attorney, County Clerk, and County Surveyor on August 9, 2016. A thirty day protest period
The properties in the annexation area would be accessed from 20oo South by a single road
located between the railroad tracks. The Southwest Area Annexation Land Use Plan indicated
that the annexation area should have been designated with industrial land uses. This area would
be subject to the Southwest Area Impact Fees to assist in making necessary infrastructure
improvements in the Southwest Annexation Area, as approved in August 2015.
Staff met with property owners concerning current Utah County zoning violations on the
properties. Staff met with the property owners, Utah County zoning administrators, and Utah
County Health Department officials on September 29, 2016 to begin the process of removing the
residents, animals, illegal structures, and businesses from the properties before the annexation
process into the City of Orem was completed. Property owners agreed to clean up the properties
before the annexation was accepted into the City of Orem by the City Council. The City and
Utah County staff had followed up with the cleanup progress during the month of October as the
application moved forward, and as of October 13, 2016, no significant cleanup had been
observedbystaff.
The proposed zoning designation for the property was M1 to allow for light industrial
development in this narrow piece of land located between the two railroad tracks.  The
geography of the area limited access to a single point on 2000 South which discouraged other
uses such as retail or residential development.  The M1 zone allowed for appropriate
development suited to the site, including potential warehousing or light manufacturing uses. It
was anticipated this would have minimal impacts on existing adjacent developments as the area
was buffered by the existing railroad tracks on the east and west boundaries of the property and
the existing industrial uses to the east adjacent to I-15. The recommended General Plan land use
designation was Light Industrial (LI) as was outlined in the Southwest Area Annexation Land
UsePlan.
The Development Review Committee had determined this request complied with all applicable
requirements  for  consideration.   Although  the Planning
Commission did not make a
recommendation for the annexation, they did express the opinion that the area, if properly
cleaned up and accepted by the City Council, should have been developed with the industrial
uses recommended in the Southwest Annexation Area Land Use Plan.
Staff recommended, subject to clean up of the property, that the City Council (1) approve the
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.26)


annexation petition and annex the 25.53 acres described in the annexation petition into the City
of Orem, (2) amend the Orem General Plan by applying the industrial land use classification to
the 25.53 acres in the annexation area, and (3) amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of
the City of Orem by applying the M1 zone on approximately 25.53 acres located generally at 650
West2000South.
Mr. Bench said the applicant had done a fine job in removing the above stated items of concern,
and he presented photos of the subject property.
Mayor Brunst asked about the owners of the property in the area. He wanted to know if they
wanted to sell their properties or if they were willing to develop. Mr. Washburn said all of them
wanted the property to have a productive use. Some planned to develop whereas others hoped to
sell.
Mr. Washburn said the use for storage was okay; however, he acknowledged that if they wanted
to maintain that use they had to install a fence to obscure the property. Mayor Brunst said there
was a new water line running down 2ooo South to move over to the new townhouse project that
was approved. He asked Mr. Washburn if he was in line to where he could tap into the line, and
Mr. Washburn answered affirmatively.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak so Mayor Brunst closed
the public hearing.
In response to a question from Mr. Lentz, Mr. Bench said the property could be maintained for
storage purposes if they renewed the lease.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to approve the Lakeview Addition to Orem City #2
Annexation petition annexing 25.53 acres of property located generally at 650 West 2000 South
into the City of Orem. Mr. Spencer 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 -McDougal/Keller Rezone
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by
changing the zone on approximately 0.91 acres at 380 North Palisade Drive from the R8
zone to the R12 zone
Mr. Bench presented a request from David McDougal and Nate Keller that the City amend
Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone on
approximately 0.91 acres at 380 North Palisade Drive from the R8 zone to the R12 zone.
The applicant (McDougal) wanted to construct a house on property he owns on Palisade Drive.
The current R8 zone permits a maximum height of thirty-five feet. This was taken as an average
of the measurement of each side of the structure. The applicant's house plan average was greater
than thirty-five feet. The R12 zone allowed twenty percent of a roof structure to exceed thirty-
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.27)


five feet with a maximum of forty-five feet. The adjacent neighbor (Keller) to the north had
included his property as it was adjacent to existing R12 zoned property.
The General Plan indicated the R12 zone was appropriate at this location. Appropriate zones in
the Low Density Residential designation were R8, R12, R20, and PRD. Each lot exceeds the
minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet required by the R12 zone.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the
zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone on approximately 0.91 acres at 380 North
Palisade Drive from the R8 zone to the R12 zone. Staff supported the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. McDougal came forward, and said he was requesting to rezone all three into the R12 zone.
Brunst asked if Mr. Keller was going to develop on the north. Mr. McDougal said they would
eventually sell as it was their existing home.
              
the attendees at the neighborhood meeting had no concerns to share. The majority of the
neighbors were on the north side and already in the R12 zone.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak so Mayor Brunst closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City
of Orem by changing the zone on approximately 0.91 acres at 380 North Palisade Drive from the
R8 zone to the R12 zone. 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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Orem Orchards/Farley Rezone
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the City of Orem by
changing the zone on approximately 6.50 acres at 287 South 400 West from the R8 zone
and the R7.5 zone to the R6 zone
Mr. Bench presented Michael Farley's request that the City amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the
zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone on approximately 6.50 acres at 287 South
300 West from the R8 zone and the R7.5 zone to the R6 zone.
The applicant owned vacant or underdeveloped property that currently had two zone
designations - R7.5 and R8. The General Plan land use classification for the subject property
was Medium Density Residential. According to the General Plan, the appropriate zones in the
MDR classification were R6, R6.5, R7.5, and PRD. The applicant proposed the current zones be
changed to the R6 zone which was consistent with the General Plan.
Lots in the R6 zone needed to have a minimum of 6,0o0 square feet and a minimum lot width of
sixty feet. Development of the property under the R6 standards would yield thirty-one lots
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.28)


whereas development under the current R7.5/R8 zone would yield a subdivision of twenty-five
lots. The applicant would thus gain six additional lots if he was allowed to develop under the R6
standards.
If the property was rezoned to R6, and the average lot size in the proposed development would
be 7,926 square feet which was similar to lots adjacent and to the north of the subject property.
The overall density of the proposed development under the R6 zone would be 4.77 lots per acre
while the existing zone would allow about 3.85 lots per acre.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the
zoning map of the City of Orem by changing the zone on approximately 6.50 acres at 287 South
300 West from the R7.5 zone and the R8 zone to the R6 zone.  Staff supported the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
John Prlina stated he was with Richmond American Homes. Mr. Bench said this was a multi-
zone property with R7.5 and R8 zoning, which the applicants were proposing to rezone. The
General Plan supported medium density residential, and the applicant was proposing R6. The
average lot size was just over 7,900 square feet. The concept plan included the required streets
which would eventually tie in to 280 West. R6 did allow lesser width for sub local streets which
was typical for new subdivisions. The biggest advantage of the rezone was to allow a slightly
higher density and better affordability base in the housing.
Mr. Sumner asked how many R6 zones currently existed in Orem. Mr. Bench said he did not
have that information readily available, but there were not many R6 zones. The R8 was the
typical residential stock in Orem. There was further review of zoning in neighboring areas,
which were compared to the subject property.
Mr. Sumner said he had a neighbor call him regarding the proximity of this project to UVU.
They were concerned the R6 zoning would attract an investor buy several of the units and
convert them into student housing. Mr. Prlina said the homes would be priced in the high
200,000s or low 300,000s, which was about $40,000 below other housing in Orem. The square
footage of the homes would be approximately 1,900 to 3,000 with unfinished basements. The
houseswould be a mix of ramblers and two-stories.
Mr. Seastrand asked if R6 zoning allowed accessory apartments on the lots, and Mr. Bench
answered affirmatively. In response to a question from Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Prlina said they had
no plans for accessory apartments. The land was relatively flat and the homes would all have
conventional basements; there would not be walkouts, which were typically used for
transitioning to apartment living. Their intent as developers was to sell to younger couples with
children. They would be individually owned lots, and as such Mr. Prlina did not see a need for
an HOA. However, they would record strict CC&Rs for the properties.
Mr. Sumner asked if they would build walkouts if the buyer requested them. Mr. Prlina said
getting the lot to drain would be difficult. Walkouts were more conducive to a hilly area where
there was an advantage of the street being higher above the lot. As this property was flat, it was
not conducive to walkout basements and would not likely be offered in the community.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.29)


Leon Pryzbyla, resident, said he lived directly across the street and he had voiced his concerns
before. His concerns were outlined as follows: (1) the area was a school zone and the proposal
would increase traffic where there were a lot of children crossing the streets. Furthermore,
increased traffic would dramatically affect peak drop-off and pick-up times at the school. (2) The
street was heavily used by emergency vehicles, and more traffic congestion which would slow
down Police and Fire vehicles in the event of an emergency. (3) There were pipelines under 400
West which would require future construction.  The traffic would slow down significantly
anytime construction occurred. Mr. Pryzbyla said the access should have been closer to 400
South because it had better access and was a wider street. He identified the location of his
property, and was concerned his property value would decrease.
LaNae Millett, resident, recalled that in a Council meeting several years ago, the Council voted
down an R6 rezone request because they wanted to maintain the integrity of Orem. At the time,
an area had been zoned to accommodate a particular size of single family homes for a purpose.
Unless there was a compelling reason other than to maximize the profits of the developer, she
did not see a reason why the property in question should be rezoned.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst said as he had studied the issue and visited the area, he came to the same
conclusion as Ms. Millett. He did not find a compelling reason to change the zoning. There
were very few R6 zones and he agreed they should protect the integrity of the neighborhood
around the subject property for homeowners who had already built there.
Mr. Lentz said the most compelling reason to approve the rezone would be for those who wanted
to start off buying a first home with a smaller lot. The subject property was well positioned to be
near a school and would therefore allow young families to have their children walk to school.
He asked about the dangerous conflicts Mr. Pryzbyla had mentioned. Mr. Goodrich said the
existing school crosswalk was on the south side of the intersection in question. They have had
discussions with traffic operations about potentially moving the crosswalk further south to tie in
from across the school driveway. Reason being, when there were turning movements on a three
lane road such as 40o West, there was concern as to whether or not the accesses lined up.
Engineering analyses determined that the best location for the southern street was to take an “"S"
curve to the south. No final decisions had been made about the school crosswalk, and it would
therefore stay in the exact same place. If moved, the City would take on the burden of relocating
it rather than the school or the applicant.
400 West was currently at a level of service “C", which from a traffic standpoint meant it could
carry a lot more traffic volume before it was considered a failing road. Studies showed that
additional traffic generated from twenty-five to thirty-one more lots would not affect this current
levelofservice.
Mr. Lentz asked how many more trips per day were added with the additional five or six homes
from the rezone. Mr. Goodrich said there was a 4.8 percent increase. Mr. Lentz asked Mr.
Goodrich if he felt this increase was substantial, and Mr. Goodrich said no.
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.30)


Mr. Lentz asked if the rezone would reduce neighboring property values. Mr. Bench said he was
not an expert in this area, but opined that it would actually increase neighboring property values.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the ingress and egress of the neighborhood. Mr. Goodrich said staff
recommended the grid network connection of streets. Mr. Seastrand said he liked the back
entrance on 280 West because it connected better with 400 South. He wondered if having just
the one egress and entrance would be a better scenario for the school zone, which could perhaps
allow the developer to better utilize the land as well. Mr. Goodrich said it was good to provide
options. Mr. Seastrand asked if it was a necessity to have both an entrance and exit. Mr.
Goodrich stated that was staff's recommendation.
Mr. Sumner said he was not comfortable with the R6 zone because it was not commonly used
throughout the City.
Mr. Seastrand was concerned by the possibility of having accessory apartments as a result of the
rezone. He was not in favor of the change.
Mr. Seastrand moved, to DENY Mr. Farley's request to amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the
       z   q o  o  
400 West from the R8 zone and the R7.5 zone to the R6 zone. Mr. Macdonald seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand,
and Brent Sumner. Those voting nay: Sam Lentz and David Spencer. The motion passed 5-2.
*** Mr. Spencer was excused from the meeting. ***
RESOLUTION - Conditional Use Permit - Amateur radio tower greater than 45 feet high
at 476 North 950 East in the R8 zone
an amateur radio tower up to seventy-two feet high at 476 North 950 East in the R8 zone.
Amateur radio antennas and support structures up to a height of forty-five feet (45') were
allowed as a permitted use in all zones. A conditional use permit may have been granted by the
City Council to allow amateur radio antennas and support structures to exceed forty-five feet in
height if the Council found that the additional height would not create any negative impact or
that the adverse negative impacts could be substantially mitigated.
The applicant requested a conditional use permit in order to install a new retractable amateur
radio tower in his back yard. The retractable radio tower had a height of seventy-two feet when
fully extended and a height of twenty-three feet eight inches when fully retracted. The radio
tower could be extended or retracted by use of an electric motor. The proposed location of the
tower in the applicant's back yard would be seventy-two feet from the nearest neighbor's house.
The applicant possessed an FCC Extra Class amateur radio operator license which was the
highest amateur radio license that can be obtained.
The applicant indicated that the tower would only be raised to the maximum height when it was
in use. When it was not in use, it would be retracted down to its minimum height. Unlike some
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.31)


radio towers, which were extended by a hand crank, the applicant's tower was easy and
convenient to retract because of the built-in motor. The applicant currently had a shorter tower
located at the rear of his house.
Section 22-6-10(K) of the Orem City Code provided that the City Council should consider the
following factors in determining whether amateur radio facilities should be allowed to exceed
forty-five feet in height:
a. The potential negative impact that the structure would have on the views of properties in the
neighborhood. Special consideration shall be given to the impact on the views of attractive
natural features such as Mount Timpanogos, Cascade Mountain, and Utah Lake.
b. The potential negative impact that the structure will have on the overall aesthetic quality of the
neighborhood in which the structure is located.
c. The potential impact the structure may have on property values in the neighborhood in which
the structure is located.
d. The need of the owner/operator for an antenna and support structure in excess of forty-five
feet.
e. The extent to which any negative impacts of the structure can be mitigated. Factors that may
reduce the negative impact that a structure will have on the aesthetic quality of a neighborhood
and which may be made a condition(s) for the allowance of a height greater than forty-five feet
include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Setbacks from adjoining property that significantly exceed the required setbacks listed
in subsection (1)(d) above.
(2) The current existence and use of trees or other means to screen or camouflage the
tower.
(3) The use of a retractable support structure which is retracted when not in use or which
is fully extended only during limited hours.
(4) The location of a support structure adjacent to land that is undeveloped and not likely
to be developed due to topography or other characteristics.
(5) The location of a support structure in or adjacent to commercial property, churches,
schools, parks or similar property such that the support structure will not impair the views
of residential property owners.
(6) Any other factor that could reasonably mitigate the negative impact of the structure.
Staff believed that the negative impacts of the proposed radio tower could be substantially
mitigated by requiring the applicant to retract the radio tower down to the minimum height when
the radio tower was not in use.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve a conditional use permit at
476 North 950 East in the R8 zone to allow the use of an amateur radio tower with a maximum
              g
when not in use. Staff supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.32)


Karen Jeffs was in attendance in lieu of her husband who was currently out of the country. Mr
Bench said the radio tower could be retracted down to twenty-three feet, eight inches, and the
condition was to retract to at least forty-five feet each time it was in use.
Mayor Brunst asked if this would replace the current tower or be in addition to the existing
tower. Mrs. Jeffs said the current tower was going to be removed but there was possible use
along other frequencies. Her husband, the applicant, would take it down as needed. She further
mentioned another tower that was similar to images of the one that was shown; however, they
would only install one or the other. Whichever tower was not installed would be sold. Mayor
Brunst stated his preference of having one tower instead of both towers installed.
Mr. Macdonald asked about how many towers they could have on their property, and Mr. Earl
said that according to City ordinance no more than one amateur support tower per lot could be
installed.
Mr. Lentz asked if the FAA had any additional lighting requirements for the top of the tower.
Staff answered that these requirements only existed for towers within a specific distance to the
airport. Mr. Lentz inquired as to what would happen in the case of power outage. Mrs. Jeffs
said they were planning to install a hand crank as well as a backup generator. Mr. Lentz said
even the lower height would have a good range, but the full height could be retracted as needed.
Mr. Lentz wondered if any homes would be endangered if the tower tipped over while standing
at the maximum height of seventy-two feet. Mrs. Jeffs said the closest home was seventy-five
feet away, and her husband was extremely conscientious about lowering the tower when needed.
Mr. Lentz asked if there was any way City staff could lower the tower in the event it was
inadvertently left standing upright and the Jeffs were unavailable. Mrs. Jeffs assured staff and
elected officials that would never happen.
Mayor Brunst asked what the wind load factor was for the tower. Mr. Bench said it would
require a building permit and would include those specific details. In response to a question
from Mayor Brunst, Mrs. Jeffs said the tower would be able to withstand sustained winds of up
to seventy-six miles per hours, and three second gusts of winds up to ninety miles per hour.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by resolution, to approve a conditional use permit to allow an amateur
radio tower up to seventy-two feet high at 476 North 950 East in the R8 zone. 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.
RESOLUTION - Consideration for adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City
of Orem, Utah, authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $3,200.000 aggregate
principal amount of Sales Tax Revenue Refunding bonds, Series 2017
Mr. Manning presented the City Manager's recommendation the that City Council, by resolution,
approve the parameter resolution to authorize the issuance and sale of not more than $3,200,000
aggregate principal amount of its Sales Tax Refunding bonds and related matters.
City Council Minutes -December 13,2016(p.33)


The City had the opportunity to refund the balance of the callable 2007 Sales Tax Refunding
Bonds with a projected savings of $93,000 over the life of the bonds.
This resolution approved the parameters that the City Council may have found acceptable for
such a refunding, i.e.,
1. The aggregate amount for the new bond issue could not exceed $3,200,000.
2. The interest rate could not exceed 3.0 percent.
The new issuance must have matured in not more than seven years from their date or
3.
dates.
4. The bond issue needed to be sold at a price not less than ninety-eight percent of the total
principal amount necessary to (i) refund the portion of the original bonds eventually identified to
be refunded and (ii) paid the cost of issuance for the new bonds.
The resolution also clarified other legal provisions such as the contest period, publication
requirement, the handling of the Official Statement and other pertinent matters.
Laura Lewis, representing Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham (LYRB), introduced herself
as the City's financial adviser. Ms. Lewis explained that the Council needed to approve a
parameters resolution in order to move forward with the bond refinance. Parameters needed to
have a bond structure with a coupon rate higher than the yield on the bonds. Her expectation
was to be in the neighborhood of 1.5 percent. As long as the City stayed within the parameters
as stated in the resolution, staff was authorized to execute the documents. This process was
different than the protocols often followed for refinancing other debts. They would be doing a
private placement; instead of going through a formal rating process and having a full official
statement, they would prepare a term sheet of ten or twelve pages containing links to the City's
audits and budgets which would then be sent out to a host of buyers.
Mayor Brunst asked about potential purchasers. Ms. Lewis said there were six respondents out
of a total of twenty, and much to her surprise Zions Bank did not respond. She said there was a
ninety-nine percent chance the bonds would be purchased by a banking institution.
Mrs. Lauret said it appeared the Federal Treasury would be increasing interest rates in the near
future, and wanted to know what the timeline was for getting the bonds sold. Ms. Lewis said
unlike consumer debt, bonds were fixed income investments so they technically were not
callable until April of the following year. However, there was a provision in Federal tax law that
allowed them to close on a bond and refund within ninety days. Therefore, the City could not
close until January 15'h. They would try pricing the bonds at that point in time and would ask the
bond purchaser to extend the closing date to February 15, so as to incur less negative arbitrage.
Ms. Lewis said everyone was anxious about the market because interest rates had jumped from
eighty to 100 basis points since before the election. The stock market had been volatile which
affected the bond market. However, she concluded that by and large the market had been
expecting the Federal increases and had built them into the market beforehand.
Mr. Lentz moved, by resolution, to approve the parameter resolution to authorize the issuance
and sale of not more than $3,200,000 aggregate principal amount of its Sales Tax Refunding
bonds and related matters. Mayor Brunst 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.
City Council Minutes - December 13, 2016 (p.34)


RESOLUTION-AcceptFiscalYear2015-2016Audit
Mr. Manning presented the City Manager's recommendation the City Council, by resolution,
accept the Fisca1 Year 2015-2016 audit as presented.
In accordance with State Law, the City was required to have a complete financial audit
Over the past several months, the accounting firm of Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC had been
reviewing the City's financial records and had now completed their audit. All of the audit
information is included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Representatives from Gilbert & Stewart CPA, PC would review the CAFR in their presentation
to the City Council during the meeting. The City ended the fiscal year at June 30, 2016, in sound
Mr. Manning introduced Ron Stewart to present the report. The City received an unqualified
opinion, which was the best opinion a City could receive. Mr. Stewart explained that they
assessed four areas: (1) Financial statements; (2) internal controls; (3) compliance with State
regulations; (4) single audits in specific spending areas. There were only a few findings that
surfaced from the report. According to State law, a City could not exceed twenty-five percent of
budgeting revenues in the General Fund balance and the City was over that limit. Additionally,
the State required Treasury bonds to be a certain amount based on revenues; however, as the
City's revenues increased their treasury bond did not. The City had already increased the
amount to the appropriate level. Lastly, Mr. Stewart reported that during the single audit they
reviewed CDBG grants, and there were no findings.
Mr. Macdonald said they were glad that this was not an exciting report. All was well, and that
was good news. He thanked Mr. Stewart for his work and his report.
Mr. Manning said some money needed to be moved from the General Fund, and those items
would be on the next budget amendment. He confirmed that the Treasury bond was doubled and
the City was in compliance with State law requirements.
Mayor Brunst asked about the State funding operations and another $12 million in funding. Mr.
Manning said there were three places of funding. The bulk of the funding was in the State pool
where money moved in and out. There were two investment funds that acted more like savings
accounts. Mr. Manning said in looking at cash savings, the two significant investment funds
helped the City's overall financial position by about $200,000.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to accept Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Audit. 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.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.35)


The Monthly Financial Summary for October 2016 was provided to the City Council.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr. Davidson reported on a hearing which occurred that same day contesting the $250 fee issued
to Steven Downs by the County Clerk. The County did not make a decision at the hearing,
because two of the three Commissioners recused themselves from the vote. At that point, there
wasnopotentialrecourseforMr.Downstocontestthefee.
Mr. Macdonald asked if it could be paid by the City since Mr. Downs was acting on behalf of the
City. Mr. Stephens said the fee wasn't the concern as much as the stigma of having the matter
on his permanent record.
Mr. Davidson said this was a foolish fine, and they planned to provide Mr. Downs with the
opportunity to work through this case. He explained that there had been inconsistent
communications with the Lieutenant Governor's Office regarding this issue, and discussions had
evolved as they went along in the process.
Mr. Lentz asked why the County Commissioners recused themselves. Mr. Davidson said one
Commissioner stated he didn't have standing in the matter. Mr. Stephens added that the County
Clerk had made the decision to issue the fine, which they did not have the jurisdiction or
authority to do. Mr. Stephens said Mr. Downs did not get a due process hearing when the
Commissioners refused to make the decision. He said they were expecting a formal letter from
the County about the recourse. The best scenario would be that the fine would be dismissed.
However, if not then the matter would be forwarded to the district court.
Mayor Brunst asked if attorney fees could be attached if the issue went to district court. Mr.
Stephens said no. There was brief discussion regarding a similar situation that had happened
with an employee in Provo. Mr. Davidson said this was an awkward situation and the City
remained firm in their representation that Mr. Downs had done nothing wrong.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Seastrand moved to adjourn the meeting. 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.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
City Council Minutes -December 13, 2016 (p.36)


OomaRCiauer
Donna R.Weaver,CityRecorder
Approved:January10,2017
OREM
CITYOF
CORPORATE
SEAL
2000
City Council Minutes-December13,2016(p.37)