City Council · 2017-04-25

CITY OF OREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
April 25, 2017
2:30 P.M. WORK SESSION - PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald (2:50 pm), Mark Seastrand (2:42 pm), David
Spencer, and Brent Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF  Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Richard Manning, Administrative Services
Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl
Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Matt Pedersen, Police Department;
Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public
Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason
Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steven Downs,
Assistant to the City Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
DISCUSSION -- Land Use Liability Issues
Mr. Earl said URMMA required training on land use liability issues. He explained that exactions
were requirements that a developer had to meet in order to obtain a development permit.
Exactions included items such as street dedications or utility line installations. The United States
Supreme Court indicated that there were two requirements municipalities had to meet to in order
to qualify for an exaction. First, they had to satisfy the Nexus requirement, which meant there
needed to be a connection between the exaction and the impact of development that was
happening. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court had outlined the Nexus requirement in the
1987 case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
Secondly, municipalities had to meet a rough portionality requirement, which meant that a
development had to be roughly proportionate to the impact it would have on a given property.
For example, if a development increased traffic, then a municipality could require a developer to
put in street improvements. The City could not require a developer to install improvements
where the cost or value significantly exceeded the impact of the development. He then
referenced the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court case in B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County.
Note: Mr. Seastrand arrived at 2:42 pm.
Mr. Earl mentioned that the City would be proposing connector streets between State Street and
Orem Boulevard. When development proposals started to come in for that area, standards needed
to be preestablished so there wouldn't be any questions as to who would be responsible for
financing said infrastructure improvements.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.1)


Mr. Earl discussed standards for valid zoning, and addressed the grounds by which a rezone
denial by the Council could be challenged. Essentially, a ruling from the Council had to make
sense. The standard in Utah was called a Reasonably Debatable Standard; in other words, was
the action made on behalf of the general welfare of the public. Mr. Earl referenced the 2010 case
in Petersen v. Riverton City where this standard applied. Mr. Earl said the Reasonably Debatable
Standard only applied to legislative decisions. Other types of decisions that the City Council was
called upon to make would not receive that same level of discretion. The Council was required to
approve a site plan or plat application if it complied with City ordinances.
Mr. Seastrand asked if the Council needed to provide explanation as to why they voted a certain
way. Mr. Earl said there needed to be some evidence in the record, such as discussion where a
Councilmember stated their opinion. If there was nothing in the record and an action was
challenged, the court would request testimonies from members of the Council. Mr. Earl said that
the Orem City Council was good about specifying for the record why they voted a certain way.
Note: Mr. Macdonald arrived at 2:50 pm.
Mr. Earl briefly discussed personal appearances.
Mr. Earl said that during the last legislative session, a bill was proposed which prohibited cities
from regulating short term rentals, such as Airbnbs. He provided an overview of the deliberations
that took place over the bill, which included involvement from the Utah League of Cities and
Towns (ULCT). The bill that eventually passed did not prohibit municipalities from regulating
short term rentals; however, it did prohibit them from penalizing someone for advertising their
rentals online, due to First Amendment rights.
A short-term rental was defined as less than thirty days, and included trading homes. Mr. Lentz
asked if the City had received any complaints regarding short term rentals in the City, to which
Mr. Bench responded in the affirmative. There was subsequent discussion regarding parking
DISCUSSION-City Center DistrictPlan
Mrs. Susie Petheram provided updates on the City Center District Plan, which corresponded with
the State Street Master Plan. Two districts were added that were specific to the Civic Center,
which allowed for exploring opportunities for public/private partnerships, and factoring the new
City Hall in with the broader perspective. There might have been an opportunity to include
smaller uses or buildings to help support the City's offices.
Mayor Brunst said they had talked about changing the landscaping along the City's frontage, and
he asked if the McDonalds had been approached about the changes. Mr. Bench said McDonalds
Ms. Petheram said they were looking at introducing residential as an allowed use within Core A
and Core B. This would reduce traffic and support retail in the City Center. She said that most of
the feedback given at the open house pertained to scale, intensity, green space and transition to
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.2)


surrounding neighborhoods. However, these issues could be addressed by updating the standards
for allowable building types.
Ms. Petheram said that in creating the City Center District Plan, they took a form-based code
approach. Instead of being limited to a particular use, long term and short term uses could flex
over time. There was subsequent discussion on the ways in which the City Center District Plan
would further the vision outlined in the State Street Master Plan.
In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, Ms. Petheram noted that approximately thirty to
thirty-five people attended the open house. She said that as citizens gained a better understanding
of the project, they became more interested. Using an aerial map, she identified which
neighborhoods had citizen representation present at the open house. Residents along 10o North
had expressed particular interest.
  sn  n oe     s    s
Bench said the drive-thru was a big component to their property layout.
DISCUSSION - Street Connections/General Plan Update
Mr. Snideman said that one of the recommendations in the State Street Master Plan was a better
grid network near State Street. Therefore, they were looking at increasing connectivity
throughout the area. He said medians would be added on some areas of State Street, which would
help achieve this objective. Some of the benefits of increased connectivity included shorter travel
times, more frontage for retail, better access for emergency vehicles, better utility connections,
and better accommodations for transit uses. Mr. Snideman presented several examples, which
were then subsequently discussed.
Mr. Snideman said they were currently working with UDOT to create a State Street Corridor
Management Agreement. UDOT already had rules in place that would affect where Orem City
would place additional intersections; however, with an agreement in place those rules could be
modified slightly. In recent meetings with UDOT, they were agreeable to the concept maps that
were presented by staff. Mr. Snideman stated that corresponding text explaining said maps
would be added to the Transportation Master Plan, State Street Master Plan and the Street
Connection Master Plan, where they would be available for reference for future development.
Developers would be responsible for the costs that were proportionate to the size of their
development.
Mr. Lentz asked if those figures were calculated based on street frontage, car trips, or some other
combination of reasons. Mr. Snideman said there were a number of different ways the
calculation couldbemade.
Mr. Earl said street impact fees would be considered, the funds of which would be used to
construct new roads.
Mr. Snideman presented an aerial map showing all possible connections, and said one concern
was starting and ending points. The General Plan would include text indicating flexibility so as
to be sensitive to existing developments and the needs of property owners. There was subsequent
discussion regarding the following items:
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.3)


There was a road through Scera Park that would be a bicycle or pedestrian route, and
would not be used for cars; it would add connectivity through the park.
A traffic signal would be installed at an intersection that would be created once a
connector road between State Street and 800 East was fully constructed.
The time frame for completing street connections throughout the City would be driven by
property owners and development as it occurred.
RCL Company and Zions determined that usage would be the main driving factor of
building height requirements along State Street.
The vision for the area took into account land usage and functionality.
Similar sized cities that were reviewed as part of staff's research for Orem's General Plan
updates included Lakewood, Colorado, Sandy, Utah, and Hillborough, Oregon.
Student housing would not be a significant component of the City Center District Plan.
Ms. Petheram said this would depend on the transit connections that would be made via
the General Plan updates as previously discussed.
Building types would be specified in each sub district.
Center Street was being assessed for whether or not it could accommodate future transit
stops. This issue was also addressed in the State Street Master Plan.
The primary goal of the General Plan updates was to preserve open space.
The node concept was used to identify an area in the City that could accommodate
multiple uses.
Traffic and deteriorating roads were concerns often expressed by the public. Bike paths and
public transit would help alleviate those concerns. Additionally, a multiuse development area
would spread trips throughout the day. Mayor Brunst said UDOT conducted a study of lanes that
flowed onto the freeway and determined that if those lanes were not metered they would become
significantly backed up. However, the issue was mitigated when implementing a specified flow
rate.
Genelle Pugmire said that according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Orem was growing at
an exceptionally fast rate.
In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, Mr. Goodrich stated that the Transportation
Advisory Commission had forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt a
speed limit of thirty miles per hour on 400 East from 1600 North to Center Street. He said at
some point in the future, a similar recommendation may be made on 400 South. Mr. Goodrich
mentioned there were six intersections in the City where stoplights were being considered.
DISCUSSION - CARE Major Grants and Facilities Final Reports
Mr. Downs said the City would be receiving around an $80,0oo increase from last year in
available CARE funds. The funds would be split in half between recreation and the arts. The
total amount of CARE funding available was $2.5 million. Mr. Downs said that over the past
month, members of the CARE Tax Commission met with applicants to determine how the funds
would be distributed. The CARE Tax Commission also decided to set a $60,0o0 cap amount for
mini to mid-grant organizations. Mr. Downs reviewed the interim reports submitted from the
Ballet (URB). Each proposal was reviewed in the order listed. For each organization, Mr. Downs
City Council Minutes -April 25, 2017 (p.4)


presented information on the amount of funding awarded in previous years, patron
demographics, participation levels with each of the activities offered, and goals for future CARE
Tax dollars.
SCERA Center for the Arts (SCERA)
Mayor Brunst said there was a decrease in participation at the museum, and he inquired as to
why that was the case. There was subsequent discussion as to the different activities that took
place during the year that caused museum attendance to fluctuate. Mr. Downs said that overall,
attendance at the SCERA was high. A cost breakdown of how the SCERA spent the CARE
funds in 2015 and 2016 was presented, as well as a list of their long term goals.
Mr. Seastrand said that one of the characteristics he looked for in an organization was whether or
not they had an overall solid foundation, and would be able to remain financially secure moving
forward. He asked if there was a way for this principle to be better reflected in the SCERA's
interim report, as well as how CARE Tax funds would support programming. Mr. Downs noted
that the SCERA was audited annually; however, CARE-eligible expenses were not reported to
the City.
Mr. Davidson said that overall, the City played a significant role in the maintenance of the
SCERA's activities, namely the parking lots, restrooms, the shell, landscaping, etc.
Hale Center Theater Orem (HCTO)
M1. Downs presented CARE Tax allocations to HCTO in the years 2013 through 2016. He said
Mayor Brunst asked about season ticket holders; he noted that thirty percent of season ticket
holders came from Orem, and wanted to know where the other season ticket holders were
coming from. Mr. Downs said that most season ticket holders came from within different areas
in the County; however, some season ticket holders came from Salt Lake County as well. Close
to ten percent of HCTO's season ticket holders came from out of State.
Mrs. Lauret asked about the approximate size of a cast for youth productions. Mr. Cody Hale
said it was around thirty cast members, as well as a full production staff which included some
youth volunteers. Mr. Hale said about half of the students who were involved with HCTO were
Orem residents.
Utah Regional Ballet (URB)
Mr. Downs reported increased participation with URB within the last six months. Mayor Brunst
commented that he had attended several of their events and observed high attendance levels. Mr.
Downs said URB hosted a production of the Nutcracker for women and children and crisis, as
well as families affected by autism. Admission was free to these families due to contributions of
CARE Tax funds, and was a positive experience for those who attended. Additionally, URB also
hosted a choreography design competition, which was made possible with the use of the CARE
Tax.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.5)


Mr. Davidson asked what level of financial support URB received from other cities in Utah
County. Ms. Jill Moulton said Orem had taken the lead in support from local communities. She
said they applied for funds through American Fork and Lindon and had not yet received funds
from either City. URB also planned to apply for funds through Provo City as well.
Mr. Downs reviewed the SCERA's forthcoming activities this year and stated that they requested
$707,446 to meet the following goals:
· Increased event attendance
·Increased endowment
·New marketing avenues and community partnerships
Enhanced facilities
expenditures. He then stated that HCTO requested $898,645 to meet the following goals:
·Artist stipends
· Increased community outreach programs
Educational opportunities in Orem schools
Websiteupgrades
A full season of productions
Increased revenues
Increased partnerships with local businesses
Establishing Orem as a regional arts destination
? Increased participation from local residents
·Construction of a state-of-the-art facility in Orem
There was subsequent discussion regarding the aforementioned goals and objectives of the
SCERA and HCTO. Mr. Downs then stated that URB requested $75,000 to meet the following
goals:
· The production of the following shows:
。 Legend of Timpanogos
o Choreography design competition
Once upon a Time
Peter Pan; this production was also planned for the Autism show
The Nutcracker; this set would be redesigned and reconstructed
Ms. Moulton said one of their goals was increased promotion to strengthen their identity as an
organization in Utah County. It was noted that they would be changing their name to the Utah
Metropolitan Ballet. It was the goal of the organization to compete with Ballet West. Ms.
Moulton said a third of URB were local dancers; the rest came from professional dance
companies across the United States, as well as three international dancers.
There was subsequent discussion regarding the costs associated with the ballet training program
and the quality of the training provided, as well as various opportunities available to all ages of
performers.
Mr. Downs said that City-owned facilities were also an important component to this discussion.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.6)


significantly for each mini and mid-major applicant; the smallest decrease was ten percent
whereas the highest was close to fifty percent.
Mr. Blake Tierney said they spent a lot of time reviewing each group that applied. While there
were differing opinions, eventually the CARE Tax Commission was able to agree with the final
awards. Ms. LaNae Millet said they considered participation of Orem residents, as well as local
outreach efforts. There was subsequent discussion as to how the CARE Tax Commission
determined the funding allocations for mini and mid-major applicants. Ms. Annette Harkness
stated that the CARE Tax Commission followed the Council's recommendations when making
their final decisions.
Ms. Charlene Crozier spoke about the library auditorium and said it was a project that had been
pursued for several years. It would be used to facilitate the presentation of cultural arts programs
in a space that was accessible to families. The facility was originally designed as a two-story
facility, with some additional smaller spaces. Funding would go towards updating the plans to
remove the second story and additional smaller spaces, thereby creating a more cost effective
proposal. Furthermore, the Arts Council had discussed different creative projects that established
Orem as having a permanent presence in the arts.
5:00 P.M. STUDY 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; Richard Manning, Administrative Services
Director; Bill Bell, Development Services Director; Karl
Hirst, Recreation Department Director; Scott Gurney, Fire
Department Director; Keldon Brown, Police Department;
Charlene Crozier, Library Director; Chris Tschirki, Public
Works 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.
It was noted that JIVE was moving out of Orem.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.7)


The Council adjourned 5:49 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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
Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; Scott
Gurney, Fire Department Director; Keldon Brown, Police
Department; 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 TitusMcKenzie
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Lucinda Cluff
APPROVALOFMINUTES
There were no minutes ready for approval.
MAYOR'S REPORT/ITEMS REFERREDBY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
PRESENTATION-Incentive Check from Rocky Mountain Power
Mr. Mark Cram with Siemens Energy, Inc. gave a quick update on the energy project. He
indicated that it was ninety-one percent complete. It would be one hundred percent complete by
the end of June. He then noted that the final day of the contract was July 17, 2017. Mr. Cram
introduced Kathleen Hoffman, the Regional Business Manager from Rocky Mountain Power,
and Richard Wood, a lighting specialist of Rocky Mountain Power.
             s
Program. She then presented a check to Mayor Brunst for the City's commitment to enhancing
energy efficiency, particularly with the use of LED lights, which are state-of-the-art and are very
energy efficient. Ms. Hoffman indicated that the City was not only receiving the check to be
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.8)


given, but the City would also be saving energy money every day going forward. Ms. Hoffman
then presented a check to Mayor Brunst.
PROCLAMATION-ArborDay2017
Mayor Brunst read the proclamation naming April 28, 2017, as Arbor Day in the City of Orem.
This was the 24th consecutive year for Orem to be recognized as a Tree City.
Mr. Lentz moved to accept the proclamation. 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.
PROCLAMATION - Rebekah Reno/Prudential Spirit of Community Day
Mayor Brunst read the proclamation naming April 25", 2017, as Rebekah Reno Day in the City
of Orem.
Mr. Seastrand moved to accept the proclamation. 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.
City Manager's Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mr. Davidson asked for the advice and consent of the Council in the following appointments:
e on p  r po       p  
Mickey Cochran to the Public Works Advisory 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.
Mayor Brunst expressed his appreciation for those who were willing to give service to the City.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on
the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior to the meeting, and comments
were limited to three minutes or less.
David Busath, resident, wanted to remind the City Council that the Southwest Orem
Neighborhood Association (SWONA) does not oppose UVU growth. He clarified that SWONA
opposed UVU growth on the Orem campus. Mr. Busath noted that he had made that statement to
the Orem City Council on January 24, 2017. However, the Daily Herald article left off “on the
S     n  ,     s  
Busath clarified that SWONA welcomed UVU growth, but SWONA opposed growth on the
Orem campus because it was already unusually dense in terms of students per acre, both by Utah
and national standards. Mr. Busath stated that UVU reported that there were 36,000 students,
8,000 of which were local high school students taking concurrent enrollment classes, but the
other 28,000 students came to campus regularly. Mr. Busath noted that this was a very large
student body on a commuter campus, putting pressure on surrounding streets and residential
housing. He said the PEG and ICO developments east and north of campus could have been
beneficial because some of the students could be housed in a car-free way. However, it could
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.9)


have also been detrimental, encouraging further UVU growth and bringing even more cars to
southwest Orem.
Based on the letter of March 30, 2017, from UVU President Matt Holland to Mayor Brunst, Mr.
Busath opined that the UVU leadership did not seem to understand this issue and concern. Mr.
Busath stated that SWONA opposed the zone changes unless and until it could be clarified which
outcome would occur. To be persuaded, SWONA would have needed to see a restructuring of
the UVU Master Plan instead of the current Plan, which was designed to service over 40,000
students on the Orem campus within one decade and over 60,0o0 students within twenty-five
years. Mr. Busath stated that SWONA expected UVU to create community colleges, campuses
that would be satellites in Vineyard, Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Payson, where the student
population growth was expected to take place. He said this idea made the most sense because it
would control the size of the Orem campus student body. Such a course of action would benefit
the students, staff, professors, and neighbors. Mr. Busath reiterated that SWONA would like to
see UVU place an enrollment cap in their Master Plan for the Orem campus.
Richard Jones, resident, said his daughter built a home on the south side of 1200 South, and
those homes were moved to make way for the business park that developed along there. He said
he could have benefited by a zone change in the area in question to build another home or two.
However, he said that over the years he lived in Orem, the City welcomed new businesses and
more population into Orem, ostensibly to build the tax base. Mr. Jones said new population
brought problems with water, crime, etc. and the City could never catch up with the growth. Mr.
Jones therefore stated that he opposed any zone changes that would allow housing to encroach
upon the neighborhood. Mr. Jones stated that he had taught at BYU and watched that campus
grow, and he was seeing this again with the development proposed by UVU. Mr. Jones said he
wanted to put in a plea for maintaining single family residences.
Murray Lowe, resident, said he was opposed to the PEG development. Mr. Lowe stated that he
thought UVU loved the development because it acted as quasi-on-campus housing and would
help increase graduation rates. He said he didn't believe that the development qualified as quasi-
on-campus housing.
He then enumerated several reasons for that opinion:
1. Residents were not required to be full-time students.
2. Residents could bring cars to the facility. Mr. Lowe noted that at the BYU Heritage Halls,
where there are about 2,700 units, there was zero parking. Mr. Lowe opined that BYU
didn't want students at Heritage Halls to bring cars because it would take them away
from the campus community.
3. The proposed housing was not targeted at on-campus students, typically the freshmen and
sophomores. Mr. Lowe added that the price point of $450 was too high.
Mr. Lowe noted the traffic concerns. If the PEG facility were to go to 3,0o0 students,
4.
there would be approximately 2,400 more cars in the neighborhood.
Roger Harrison, resident, stated that he and his family were opposed to any zoning changes for
their neighborhood. He noted that the PEG development was right across from Lakeridge Junior
High. The developer was proposing around 1,600 beds in apartments that would be four and five
stories high. He said that approximately twenty nice homes would be razed to accommodate the
development, which would change the population of the area from about one hundred people to
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.10)


1,600 people. He was concerned with the additional traffic and compromised safety of the
children and students.
Jeff Evans, resident, echoed the opposition to the zone change for the PEG/Paulos Verdes
property. He added that if the development proceeded as proposed, he anticipated that the
existing neighbors would move at some point because the neighborhood quality would be
affected so dramatically. In addition, Mr. Evans opined that neighboring property values would
be negatively affected, and the overall quality of life would be compromised if the proposed
development went in.
Joseph Carlson, resident, said he did not like how the City allowed junk on private property. He
asked if Orem City had a policy or ordinance that would give the City power to enforce the
cleaning up of property. Mayor Brunst indicated that Mr. Carlson could visit with City staff after
the meeting.
Mayor Brunst closed the personal appearance part of the meeting.
CONSENT ITEMS
Mr. Downs, Community & Neighborhood Services Manager, recommended that the City
Council pass a resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to
         
programs.
Within the last couple months, President Trump released his budget which proposal to eliminate
the CDBG and HOME Investment partnership programs. This funding source provided
significant resources to those in the community that were in less-than-ideal economic situations.
             
representatives in Washington to not eliminate or further reduce funding to the CDBG & HOME
Investment partnership programs.
Mayor Brunst moved, by resolution, to oppose the proposed elimination and further reductions
in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
partnership programs. 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.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -  Cascade Park  Land   Conversion  Environmental
Assessment
Mr. Clark began by introducing consultant Angie Fellows, who was with Jacobs, and was
working on an environmental assessment for the project to be presented.
Mr. Clark began by providing a historical overview of Cascade Park. In the 1970s the land was
purchased with federal and City funds. The federal grant was used to purchase the property. In
1983 the City acquired additional matching funding to build the park. The federal funds were
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.11)


part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The requirements associated with the funds
required the park to remain as outdoor recreational land in perpetuity. Over time, Mr. Clark
stated, as City staff had left, the knowledge of this requirement had been forgotten. In the year
2000, a cell tower was constructed in the park and a lease was executed with a cell provider. This
action converted a portion of the park into a commercial use and violated the original federal
requirements.
The City of Orem was subsequently notified that it was in violation of the federal requirements,
and would therefore have to find a suitable replacement property of approximately the same size
and monetary value as the property that was out of compliance. Consequently, the City paid for
an appraisal on the current cell tower site and on the proposed replacement site. In addition, an
by Ms. Fellows.
To remedy the problem, the City of Orem proposed to convert 2,500 square feet of Cascade
Park, currently encumbered with a cell tower, from a recreational use to a commercial use as
defined by requirements of the State Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2,500 square feet
of Cascade Park would be replaced by a new triangular parcel located on the northwest corner of 
the intersection of 11o0 East and 800 North. This parcel was also located adjacent to the
intersection of the Murdock Canal Trail and the 80o North Trail. Mr. Clark showed the City
Council a picture of the proposed replacement property. He noted that the location was ideal
because it would allow the construction of a pocket park for the convenience of the people using
the adjacent trails.
As per the requirements of the environmental assessment, a presentation and opportunity for
public comment was required. The proposal would be posted on the Orem City web site for
thirty days to allow for public comment. After the public comment period, the City would move
forward and present the proposal to the State Coordinator for approval by the National Parks
Service. Mr. Clark stated that his contact information would be on the website for those who
wanted to make public comment. Mr. Clark then showed a diagram of some concepts that were
being considered for the pocket park. There were three possible options that had been prepared
by Landmark Designs. Mr. Clark indicated that this was an informational item and the City
Council would not take action.
Mayor Brunst said that he thought the proposed idea was a good idea.
Mr. Lentz said that he had noticed some bike stands in some of the renderings so that people
could do bike repairs. In response to his question if the bike stands would be included in all three
options, Mr. Clark stated that the bike stands were in two of the renderings. He assured Mr.
Lentz that the bike stands would be included in all three options. Mr. Lentz stated that the
proposed location would be heavily used.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing
RESOLUTION - Adopting the Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan
and amending the City of Orem General Plan to include the Northridge, Heatheridge, and
Windsor NeighborhoodPlan asAppendix E
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.12)


Kirby Snideman, Long-Range Planner with the City of Orem, presented the request from the
Department of Development Services that the City Council approve, by resolution, the
Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan and amend the Orem City General
Plan to include the Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan as Appendix E.
S   s  s       q s 
for developing the various Neighborhood Plans. He explained that the Neighborhood Plans
communicated the wants and needs of the neighborhoods to City staff and elected officials. The
idea was to keep updating these plans every five years, and they would be able to pass the
information along that would help the City Council make the decisions for planning in those
areas. The Plans would include pictures, graphics, and other information about those
neighborhoods, along with the major goals, objectives, and concerns that were obtained from the
meetings with citizens. The Plan was not meant to resolve all neighborhood concerns, but if
everything everyone wanted was in it, the document would be five hundred pages long and
would not give the main sense of the neighborhoods. He shared the timeline of open house
meetings and advisory council meetings.
Mr. Snideman explained that three public open houses were held and a citizen-driven Advisory
Committee was formed to help identify concerns, shape the vision statement, and assist in
drafting the plan. Community outreach was also supported by online surveys. The major
elements of the plan included an introduction, an inventory of existing conditions, future land
uses; transportation, neighborhood preservation, and implementation.
Mr. Snideman next reviewed some pages from the Plan. He indicated that a Plan could not be
done for each single neighborhood, so neighborhoods were grouped together that were
geographically close to each other. The Plan had a section on demographics that contained
information that came from the U.S. Census. Mr. Snideman explained that the Plan also
contained information on not only the existing conditions of the neighborhood, but also the plans
that the residents had. There was a section of business development and a section on
neighborhoodpreservation.
With regard to the public comment about the conditions of private property, Mr. Snideman stated
that the Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU) officers had a very difficult job. The difficulty,
he stated, was that citizens loved the idea that they could do whatever they wanted to do with
their private property, but didn't necessarily feel the same about their neighbors acting in kind.
Mr. Snideman said NPU officers worked hard to balance citizens’ needs and citizens’ property
rights.
Mr. Snideman stated that an important part was the Implementation Guide in all of the
Neighborhood Plans. He stated that planning staff took this document reviewed the Guide
regularly to tackle the objectives as time and funds permitted. He noted that any
recommendations that came from the planning staff would be informed by this document.
He noted that this was the third neighborhood plan to be completed in the City of Orem's
Neighborhood Plan Program. The major goals of the plan included promoting community
planning by working with residents to identify local concerns and needs; improving
communication with residents; and applying City-wide plans at the neighborhood level.
City Council Minutes -April 25,2017 (p.13)


Mr. Snideman next reviewed some of the major objectives of the Plan, as follows:
Preserving the single-family nature of the neighborhoods through similar low-density
residential development and in-fill.
Planning for the North Village District (160oNorth and State Street) to serve as a
gateway into the neighborhood, allowing for retail, office, and residential development.
Limiting land uses in other areas along the State Street Corridor to office and retail.
Maintaining appropriate setbacks, buffering, and height restrictions.
Maintaining current commercial zoning requirements in the neighborhoods, excluding the
North Village District.
Increasing green space as remaining areas develop and provide public open space in each
neighborhood.
Seek future trail opportunities on the North Union Canal, but consult with the Police
Department to ensure that safety will not be compromised.
· Considering opportunities for community gardens.
Mr. Snideman noted that each section had an outline in order to make it clear and easy for
everyone to understand the major goals, objectives, and concerns of each neighborhood.
Mr. Snideman reiterated that each Neighborhood Plan served as a guide for future planning
decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council based on the goals
and vision established by the residents. It was intended that each neighborhood plan would be
updated approximately every five years.
Mr. Snideman observed that the residents’ primary concern was new growth, but they thought
new growth would be acceptable if it was well located and well planned. Mr. Snideman
emphasized that the staff's objective was to learn what the residents wanted and to put that into a
plan form. He stated that the residents wanted to maintain the residential areas as single-family
detached dwelling units. He indicated that the vacancy rate in Orem was extremely low, at five
percent.
Mr. Snideman recommended that interested individuals could review the completed and adopted
Neighborhood Plans online at www.orem.org/planning. In addition, there were proposed
Neighborhood Plans in draft form at this site.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Northridge,
Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to
include the Orem Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan as Appendix E. Mr.
Mr. Sumner asked about the implementation of bypasses and the creation of more bike paths.
Mr. Snideman explained that in the Plan there was a map that showed the future bike routes.
That map came from the City's Transportation Master Plan. He noted that if it was a bike route,
the process would entail redrawing some lines, which still cost money and took time. Bike routes
also required funding, thereby making prioritization necessary, which was not addressed in the
document. Most of the discussion focused on the north canal. Residents expressed concern that
the trail along the north canal was a lot thinner than what they would like to see for a bike path.
City Council Minutes ~April 25,2017 (p.14)


He noted that because the Murdock Trail was so popular, the residents would like to see that
duplicated in other areas, if possible.
Mrs. Lauret said that the subject neighborhood was her neighborhood. She added that she was on
the advisory council and thought the Plan was great. Mrs. Lauret commended the emphasis on
safety, especially in school zones. The City now had a crossing guard there, and she wanted to
thank the planning department for their response.
Mayor Brunst opened the floor to members of the audience who wished to comment on the Plan.
John Reinhard, resident, said he had worked with both Brandon Stocksdale and Kirby Snideman
on this plan. He stated that he liked this plan a lot, and he thanked the staff and the presenters
who gave so much time and effort on behalf of the neighborhood. He said there was one small
item he wanted to address: the limiting of land use along the State Street Corridor to office and
retail, and the maintaining of current commercial zoning requirements in the neighborhoods,
excluding the North Village District. Mr. Reinhard noted that in the document on page 18,
Section 3-2, there was a statement that some residents thought a high and medium density
residential development should be discouraged, while others expressed support for well-planned
multi-family residential located along State Street. Mr. Reinhard said that the statement could be
true, but the feeling he got from the meetings was that the vast majority of the residents were
against having high and medium densities. There was also a need to define “well-planned."
Varden Hadfield, resident, said he was a user of the Murdock Canal Trail and the Provo Canyon
Trail. He said he was pleased by the residents’ support for converting the North Union Canal into
a bike path.
LaNae Millet, resident, said she was also a member of the neighborhood advisory council. She
was grateful to have worked with City long-range planners. She said that they listened to the
citizen's input in crafting a plan that outlined their thoughts and opinions. She said she believed
the citizens’ sentiments were represented; therefore, she was supportive of the document. She
added that she appreciated the work that went into the preparation of this document. She said
Orem was a wonderful place to live, which was why the occupancy rates were so high.
Mayor Brunst closed the public comment portion of this item.
Mrs. Lauret moved, by resolution, to adopt the Northridge, Heatheridge, and Windsor
Neighborhood Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to include the Northridge,
Heatheridge, and Windsor Neighborhood Plan as Appendix E. 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.
6:00P.M.PUBLIC HEARING-DeepLotsStandards
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-6-8(B) of the Orem City Code pertaining to
setbacks in a residential zone
Mr. Bench presented Development Services's request that the City amend Section 22-6-8(B) of
the Orem City Code pertaining to deep lot setbacks in a residential zone. Mr. Bench said that
Section 22-6-8(B) of the City Code contained the required setbacks for residential zones. He
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.15)


noted that the chart contained in the Code listed the setbacks for standard lots, but did not list the
setbacks for deep lots. He explained that the setback requirements for deep lots were currently
found in Chapter 17 (Subdivisions) of the City Code. He said that since the logical place to find
the setback requirements for a deep lot in a residential zone was Section 22-6-8(B), the setbacks
for deep lots should be included in this section. The proposed amendment would include the
deep lot setback standards in Section 22-6-8(B) while also keeping them in Chapter 17.
22-6-8(B) -
..
Deep Lot Setbacks. The minimum setbacks for the primary structure on a deep lot shall be as
follows:
1. At least two (2) of the setbacks on all deep lots shall be at least twenty-five (25') feet.
2. All other setbacks for deep lots approved prior to March 13, 2007 shall conform to the side yard
setbackrequirementsoutlinedinArticle22-6.
3. For deep lots approved after March 13, 2007:
deep lot subdivision's exterior lot boundary shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. All other
setbacks shall be at least twelve (12) feet (at least two of the setbacks shall be at least twenty-five
feet as required by subsection (l)).
b. If the height of the primary structure excecds twenty-seven (27) feet, all exterior setbacks
than the height of the structure.All other setbacks shall be at least twelve (12) feet (at least two of
the setbacks shall be at least twenty-five feet as required by subsection (1)).
4. All primary structures shall be set back at least five feet (5') fron a private drive accessing a
deeplot.
5. Garage doors and carport entries that face a deep lot access shall be set back at least eighteen
(18) feet from the private drive accessing the deep lot.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend a portion of
Article 22-6-8(B) of the Orem City Code pertaining to deep lot setbacks.
Mr. Lentz said his concern was that if the City started to duplicate sections of the Code in
multiple places, it would become more onerous to stay on top of that in the future because the
changes might not be made in all sections of the Code where there was duplication of verbiage.
Those oversights would result in internal contradictions within the Code. His question was if
there was any way to avoid copying and pasting, or if a reference to the section could be made.
Mr. Bench said they were launching a new online code option and a hyperlink could be included.
Mr. Lentz said there could be a more manageable way to utilize that technology.
Mr. Macdonald asked if this would also be called “flag lots," because people might use that term
for online searches. Mr. Bench said they could link key words. Mr. Macdonald said that the term
"flag lot”" could be inserted parenthetically. Mr. Bench concurred with that idea.
In response to Mr. Seastrand's question as to whether or not the inclusion of the term “flag lot"
would require a code amendment, Mr. Bench said that the term “flag lot" could be included as
part of the motion.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-6-8(B) of the Orem City Code
pertaining to setbacks in a residential zone, and that the amendment of flag lot designation lot be
City Council Minutes -- April 25, 2017 (p.16)


There was subsequent discussion about the hyperlink option. It was noted that the Code still
existed in written form and had not been completely converted to electronic form. However, this
change would not be added to the book because the electronic conversion was imminent.
Mr. Seastrand amended his motion to include the option to hyperlink the language to this code.
Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam
Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD-48 zone - Senior Dignity Care
ORDINANCE -Amending Article 22-11 of the Orem City Code by enacting Section 22-
11-61, PD-48 zone, amending the Appendix of the Orem City Code by enacting Appendix
"RR", and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by
changing the zone at approximately 1785 South 100 East from the R8 zone to the PD-48
zone
Mr. Bench presented Ryan Sorensen's request that the City amend Article 22-11 of the Orem
City Code by enacting Section 22-11-61, PD-48 zone, amend the Appendix of the Orem City
Code by enacting Appendix “RR", and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the
Orem City Code by changing the zone at approximately 1785 South 100 East from the R8 zone
to the PD-48 zone.
Mr. Bench explained that the applicant owned a 6.74-acre lot on which a large home was
currently located. He added that the lot was located in the R8 zone and had a General Plan land
use designation of Low Density Residential. He noted that there was a substantial amount of
undeveloped area on the subject lot.
Mr. Bench indicated that the applicant proposed to create a new PD zone (PD-48) which would
allow the development of forty independent living residential units surrounding the existing
house. The forty new units would be located in ten separate buildings with four units per
building. A portion of the existing house would be demolished and the remainder would be
converted either to an assisted living facility with a maximum of twenty beds and/or a clubhouse
for the use of the new residential units.
The new residential units would each be constructed with a single story with a possible second
story which would be limited to forty percent of the area of the main floor. The residential units
would be similar to what could be constructed in a PRD zone. The elevations included as part of
the concept plan showed that the residential units would each have a two-car garage with two
garages on each side of the building. This would make the buildings look more like two-unit
buildings than four-unit buildings. The residential units would be constructed of brick and
stucco.
The layout of the development in the proposed PD-48 zone was shown in the concept plan which
would be become part of the City Code as Appendix RR. All development would have to
substantially conform to what was shown in the concept plan.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.17)


As mentioned above, each residential unit would have a two-car garage. There would also be one
guest stall for every dwelling unit or at least forty guest parking stalls. The Planning Commission
also recommended that a minimum of eight (8) parking stalls be required for the assisted
living/clubhouse use with appropriate signage restricting the use of such stalls for this purpose.
The streets within the project would be private and the applicant proposed to install gates on the
west side and east side to control access to the interior of the development.
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 5, 2016, with several residents in attendance.
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Article 22-
11 of the Orem City Code by enacting Section 22-11-61, PD-48 zone, amend the Appendix of
the Orem City Code by enacting Appendix “RR", and amend Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning
map of the Orem City Code by changing the zone at approximately 1785 South 100 East from
the R8 zone to the PD-48 zone. Staff supported the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mark Hampton introduced himself as a representative of the applicant and Dignity Senior Care.
When Mayor Brunst sought to confirm that Mr. Hampton was also building a similar facility at
2000 North and State Street, Mr. Hampton replied in the affirmative. He added that the facility
on State Street was a full assisted living and contained approximately one hundred beds. He
added that the facility was two months from completion. Mayor Brunst thought that would be a
great addition for senior and assisted living.
Mr. Seastrand asked if the Code allowed for an assisted facility to be operated in a PD-zone. Mr.
Bench said it would be entitled through this PD zone. Mr. Bench added that there were other PD
zones spread throughout the community. When Mr. Seastrand sought to confirm that this type of
facility would not have to be in the commercial zone, Mr. Bench indicated that Mr. Seastrand
wascorrect.
Mr. Hampton said it was a beautiful piece of property and had a larger than average home on it.
The previous owners had moved, and Mr. Hampton thought a community like this was an
interesting option for this neighborhood. Mr. Hampton clarified that the dwelling units were not
condos; rather, they were homes. They would be for sale and HOA approved. The existing home
was intended to be split into two uses, east to west. The existing pool would be included with the
clubhouse, which would include an office, activity center, and bathrooms. It would also include
an outside entrance for a visiting doctor or nurse station. The clubhouse would be owned by the
HOA. The other side of the home would be a licensed, small assisted living (AL) facility,
consisting of twenty or fewer beds. It would not be a beehive home, but it would have AL2
licensing. The two portions of the building would be completely separate facilities.
Mayor Brunst's asked whether or not the people living in the homes would also be able to use
both the clubhouse and the home health service, to which Mr. Hampton replied in the
affirmative. He added that those seeking home health care could use the providers in the AL, or
they could outsource to another provider. Mayor Brunst asked if there would be parking
provided for the people in the AL facility and Mr. Hampton answered affirmatively. In response
to a question from Mayor Brunst, Mr. Hampton said the facility was going to be two facilities,
separated with a fire wall. The clubhouse portion would be owned by the HOA. The AL facility
City Council Minutes - April 25,2017 (p.18)


would be owned by Dignity Care. If that facility wasn't viable, it could be sold or repurposed. In
response to Mayor Brunst's question about the roadway on 20o East, Mr. Hampton said the
roadway in question needed to be dedicated to the City. He assured the City Council that the road
did not interfere with the park and the tennis courts.
In response to Mr. Sumner's question as to whether or not a traffic study had been done, or if one
was required, Mr. Bench said a separate traffic study had not been conducted.
Paul Goodrich, Transportation Engineer, explained that his office conducted a traffic study of its
  o  sm   u   s  s n  o
occur if the subject property was used for single-family housing with twenty-five units. For
single-family units the trip generation rate was about fourteen trips per unit per day. For senior
housing the trip generation rate would be closer to five trips per unit per day. Consequently, the
total trip generation for single-family housing would be about 350 vehicles per day; whereas the
senior housing component would generate about 200 vehicles per day. The addition of sixteen to
same level as the single-family housing units. The street to the east would be a hybrid between
local and sub-local streets. There would be red curb and no parking other than on the park side of
the street. While streets that were proposed to connect east-west through the facility would be
gated and would not allow public access, staff recommended that pedestrian access be allowed
dwelling units, the east-west street would be public and would be open to public vehicle access.
Mr. Seastrand's asked about the traffic impact resulting from an increased number of visitors for
this kind of unit. Mr. Goodrich said it was still a lower rate than for single-family housing. His
conclusions were based on his use of averages and national data to get this information. He
reiterated that for single-family dwellings, the east-west street would be a public street. Mr.
Goodrich stated that although there were traffic issues involved with any kind of development,
he said that it was more of a planning issue rather than a traffic issue. He did not see any public
safety issues with regard to emergency vehicles.
Mr. Macdonald asked whether or not the proposed private road going east-west would be wide
enough to park on it, to Mr. Goodrich replied in the negative. He added that there were parking
spaces off to the side for visitors, and that visitors could either pull into the driveway or in a
parkingspot.
Mr. Sumner indicated that he tried to find information on the Internet regarding Dignity Care
Center, and he said that he was not able to find much information on the facility. Consequently,
Mr. Sumner requested a brief overview of Mr. Hampton's vision of the proposed development.
Mr. Hampton explained that the subject property would consist of a gated community of
restricted senior housing units. The residents would own their own houses. The care center itself
would be owned by Dignity Care and would be run by a licensed assisted living care manager.
Licensure was granted and regulated by the Utah Board of Health. A CNA would be on site
around the clock and nurses would be on call. There was also food preparation on site. The
model for this facility was comparable to the Beehive Home AL facility. The facility would not
be a hospice facility, per se, but hospice care could take place in the facility.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.19)


Mr. Lentz first asked about the broader benefit to the neighborhood or community, beyond just
turning a profit, and how this facility would positively impact the neighborhood and that part of
the community. Mr. Hampton said there were many facilities like this in the surrounding area.
He said that a facility near his home consisted of attached fourplexes. He then stated that he
watched that facility intently because the people living there were active seniors that were
service oriented. He then observed that soon thereafter, one or both would need care. The facility
he was proposing was very similar to the facility in Lehi. As to the question of how it benefited
the community, Mr. Hampton stated that the residents in that type of development were good
neighbors, and it provided appropriate services for senior members in the community.
Mr. Lentz's said that while Orem citizens liked the concept, but they didn't like the proposed
location because it was an island right in the heart of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lentz then
asked Mr. Hampton what he would do differently if the facility were located elsewhere. Mr.
Hampton opined that the subject property was the perfect spot for this use. He added that this
facility was for not for people with the plague; to the contrary, the residents would consist of
parents and grandparents. Therefore, he believed that the proposed development would be a
blessing for the community.
In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, Mr. Hampton stated that the people would need to
be fifty-five or older.
Mr. Spencer's asked about the price structure for the homes, and Mr. Hampton said they would
range from $320,000 to $350,000. The square footage would be 1,650 to 1,800 square feet.
Mr. Hampton stated that the HOA fees would cover the costs of pool maintenance, snow
removal, landscape maintenance, and the clubhouse maintenance. Mr. Sumner said HOAs could
be problematic because the fees kept going up. In response to Mr. Sumner's regarding how much
people fifty-five and older would use the pool, Mr. Hampton stated that the clubhouse and pool
would be used substantially. He also noted that the clubhouse and pool could be reserved for
family parties. With regard to the fees, Mr. Hampton estimated they would be $120 to $130 per
month.
Mr. Earl said that at the Planning Commission meeting it was stated that the clubhouse building
would be a common area to be owned by the residents, and he thought something different had
been stated at the City Council meeting. Mr. Hampton reiterated that the clubhouse would be
owned by the residents of the forty units of the facility. He then clarified that there would be two
adjoining facilities that would be separated by a fire separation wall. The AL would be owned by
Dignity Care, and the clubhouse would be owned by the HOA. The separation would be
indicated on the subdivision plat.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Jeff Myers, resident, said his initial concerns were about the HOA and what would happen to the
HOA if the business portion failed. He thought it was a better idea to have them owned
s   s     n s      s s
owned. Mr. Myers said his other concern was the traffic because the traffic from the subject
o  e n u    s   s o   n s m 
manage much more traffic. Furthermore, the traffic generation from a commercial entity was
unknown.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.20)


Amy Glenn expressed her apprehension regarding the parking studies. Ms. Glenn added that
SWONA had gotten together for a good cause, but it was not the same cause as the UVU cause.
She noted that the housing proposed for the UVU area and the housing for the subject property
were completely different. She opined that there was disconnect in distinguishing between
student apartment buildings of five stories and a community for people who were fifty-five years
old or older. She said that while she appreciated the planning for neighborhoods, she felt she was
hearing the same phrases repeatedly since October. The phrases to which she was refering
included “commercial entity" and “"What if this fails?" She said she was hearing the same
arguments and that they sounded “parroted." She said that the phrases had already been
discussed and the questions had been answered. The subject property was not for a commercial
entity, so she urged more clarity on how this issue was communicated.
Sharon Mead, resident, stated that she was very much against this zoning change because it
would significantly impact her and her family. She moved to the neighborhood because it was a
quiet neighborhood, and the zoning change would negatively impact the neighborhood. She said
that she based her assessment on the fact that an AL facility had been built across the street from
her house. The traffic would increase and case parking issues, thereby jeopardizing the safety of
children in the neighborhood. Ms. Mead opined that the proposed land use would be more of a
revenue generator for the City as opposed to a neighborhood in which to raise families. Ms.
Mead asked the City Council to listen to their constituents and deny the zoning change.
Ryan Whiteman, resident, stated that he was opposed to the proposed rezone. He said the
purpose of zoning was to protect residential zones from proposals like the one under
consideration. In a conversation with Mayor Brunst, Mr. Whiteman was told that if this zoning
     ss  o        
added that over the last four months over 250 residents of the Cherry Hill neighborhood had
 u  pou o   psond s on soo  ns sd ns
many of his neighbors had sent emails to the City Council to voice their opposition to the
rezoning. He said he believed the data was clear and the resistance was strong, and urged the
Council todenytheproposal.
Robert Crawford, resident, said his property bordered the southeast corner of the existing
property. Mr. Crawford said he believed the proposal had more positive merits than negative. He
to maintain the quality of the property and the maintenance of the property. He said that
regardless of how the property was used, the traffic would change because there was hardly any
now. He believed that providing a variety of options for older people to live in this area and take
advantage of the services that were being provided would be a great advantage to the proposal as
stated.
Scott Weaver, resident, told the story of the Trojan Horse and stated that he believed that concept
was being used with the subject property. He had lived in the area all his life and asked that the
David Scarda, resident, stated that he was currently building a house in the neighborhood and
that he was very excited about moving to this neighborhood. His grandparents had lived in the
Cherry Hill neighborhood, so he had been looking forward to this opportunity for several years.
City Council Minutes -April 25,2017 (p.21)


He stated that it was critical for the City Council to think about this in terms of a project that
could not be undone. The zoning change had the potential to change the neighborhood
significantlyfor theforeseeablefuture.
Marvin Wiggins, resident, said this proposal was out of harmony for the low-density nature of
to allow for this to happen in multiple places. Mr. Wiggins stated that Jerry Jones, the owner,
estate. Mr. Wiggins also noted that Mr. Jones had stated that the market would not support that
proposed land use for the subject property would create a domino effect for higher density. The
zoning preserved property values and quality neighborhoods.
Eric Bingham, resident, stated that he wanted to see the community map that showed the
neighborhoods and schools. Mr. Bingham stated that he previously lived in the condos to the
north of Cherry Hill Park. His first two homes and now his current home were in the same
neighborhood. He stated that he was now in his fifties and his challenge was to determine what
to do with his aging mother. To make something like this available to the aging population of the
community would be a tremendous benefit. He noted that young families would not be able to
move into this neighborhood because at this stage of their lives, the young families would not be
able to afford the homes that would be built in this neighborhood. Mr. Bingham supported the
proposedrezone.
Pat Mosbacker, resident, stated that he was unaffiliated with SWONA. Mr. Mosbacker stated
that in the City Code, if a person wanted to make an island in the middle of a cohesive sixteen-
promote the health, safety, general welfare of the community, and how it would implement the
Master Plan. Mr. Mosbacker asked if a credible argument could be made to defend the assertion
cited several examples of other areas in Orem in which people would feel their property rights
were being harmed if a similar project was proposed in those respective areas. Mr. Mosbacker
Truman VanCott, resident, stated that he thought the proposed development would be a great
benefit. He added that he could assure the Planning Commission that the Bastian mansion was
not going to become a senior living center. He added that he had lived in north Orem in a
neighborhood that was comprised mostly of elderly people and they were good neighbors. He
supported theproposerezone.
Denise Gibb, resident, expressed her appreciation for the City Council's efforts to study this
issue. She noted that the Cherry Hill neighborhood was a sixteen-block radius and was the last
pocket of mostly owner-occupied, single-family residences in Cherry Hill. She stated that the R8
zone was an applicable, viable, and developmental zone in this area. She stated that there were
four developments in this neighborhood that were part of the R8 development. The most notable
one was Legacy Ridge, a sixty-lot subdivision that had eleven lots left. She added that fourteen
homes were currently under construction and the price range for those homes was $5o0 thousand
to $1.5 million. She stated that the quality of people that would come to such a development
would be beneficial to the area. The PD zone would allow for spot zoning or an island of zoning
City Council Minutes -April 25,2017 (p.22)


in the middle of this R8 zone. It would allow for higher density than what was allowed in the
low-density R8 zone. The existing home would become a commercial enterprise in the middle of
a neighborhood. Ms. Skibb stated that Orem currently had sixteen facilities that provided service
to the seniors, all of which were located on major or secondary roads. None were located in the
heart of a neighborhood and none were next to elementary schools. The continuation of private
streets and gates would reduce street connectivity and the effective flow of traffic. Ms. Skibb
was opposed to theproposed rezone.
Jerry Jones, property owner, said this had been portrayed as a lot of different things. He had lived
on that property for eighteen years. He stated that it was a fenced and gated property. He
indicated that he had received offers from drug treatment centers, troubled youth centers, homes
for recovering addicts. He wouldn't consider those offers for their neighbors. But he felt the
proposed idea was the perfect answer for what to do with the property. The home there was a $2
million home, and the economics of tearing down the home, subdividing, and putting in all of the
improvements, would result in $600 thousand homes. The homes in the area were built twenty to
fifty years ago. Mr. Jones noted that no young family could afford to buy his home, and those
who could afford it wouldn't want to buy there. He opined that the traffic wouldn't be any more
than it would be if there were single-family homes there. He stated that older residents could add
a lot to the area, and he did not think they would be a threat to anyone. He asserted that it was not
mainly a commercial development. Instead, it was people buying their own units and living out
the rest of their lives there. Mr. Jones stated that he believed the development had been portrayed
inaccurately. He added that he would love to put in single-family homes there, but he could not
makethatworkeconomically.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Bench about the zone to the northwest in order to get some context for
making a zoning island. Mr. Bench stated that if different residential zones were intermingled,
they were not considered an island. Mr. Lentz asked if there would be pharmaceutical services
associated with the home health service. Mr. Hampton clarified that there would be no
pharmaceutical services or inventory on site. In response to Mr. Lentz's question regarding a
person's wanting to meet with an on-site doctor, Mr. Earl explained that was not one of the
permitted uses for a facility such as this. A person would have to go to a medical office instead.
However, anyone could come and live in the assisted living facility.
Mr. Seastrand asked about other properties that were similar in nature to what was being
proposed. He indicated that he had done some research on Leisure Villas and noticed that one
bordered a high school on one side and a junior high school on another side. On yet another side,
there was a commercial zone. Mr. Hampton stated that the facility he had referenced earlier was
in Lehi, and it was in the center of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Seastrand said he wanted to
see how they fit into their neighborhoods. He said in regards to density, the lots would be for
single-family dwellings in the center of a residential area. Farther away from the center of the
residential area, the density would increase and transition into commercial properties. Mr.
Seastrand stated that it seemed unusual to him to have the proposed development right in the
middle of an R8 residential zone. Instead, he believed it would make more sense to create single-
family lots for homes similar to those being built in the Legacy Parkway.
City Council Minutes -April 25,2017 (p.23)


Mr. Hampton said he couldn't speak to that aspect; however, he felt it was more appropriate to
have seniors in a residential zone and not in a commercial zone. Mr. Seastrand said he had seen
some senior facilities that had been very positive in their neighborhoods. His struggle had to do
with the location of the facility, not the facility itself. Mr. Hampton said understood the struggle
of considering the impact on the neighbors, but he felt the proposed development added value to
the neighborhood. Mr. Seastrand said that perhaps the challenge was the four-plex aspect of the
proposal. Mr. Hampton said he took issue with the notion that the proposed development was
being deemed as a commercial enterprise.
Mayor Brunst said the proposed facility would be beautiful, but the question was if there was a
compelling reason to change the zone. He read from the City Code about planning in 22-6-2(c)
and had been a mainstay in the City for many years. He did not feel there was a compelling
reason to change the zoning because he believed the R8 zone was in place to protect a beautiful
and wonderful neighborhood.
Mr. Lentz expressed his concurrence with Mayor Brunst's perspective. He added that he loved
the idea of this development, and this service, but he was not convinced that this was the location
for it. He added that he would love to see another proposal that was not right in the heart of a
low-density residential neighborhood. Mr. Lentz commended both sides, for or against this issue,
and howconstructive they had been in their remarks.
Mr. Sumner asked if there was a backup plan is this proposal didn't pass. He stated that the
subject property is a beautiful parcel and he liked the concept. He added that he grew up on the
other side of town and was familiar with Cherry Hill. He liked the idea of a residential area for
people fifty-five and older, but he was struggling with the commercial use of the subject property
and putting it in that neighborhood. He saw this as spot zoning and tried to avoid that practice as
much as possible.
In response to Mr. Seastrand's question as to why this was a PD and not a PRD, Mr. Bench
stated that it was because of the existing home. The PRD did not allow existing homes to be part
of a PRD; therefore, it would have to have been torn down.
Mayor Brunst moved that the City Council DENY amending Article 22-11 of the Orem City
Code by enacting Section 22-11-61, PD-48 zone; DENY amending the Appendix of the Orem
City Code by enacting Appendix “RR"; and DENY amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning
map of the Orem City Code by changing the zone at approximately 1785 South 100 East from
the R8 zone to the PD-48 zone. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:00P.M.PUBLIC HEARING-Signs on University Parkway and StateStreet
ORDINANCE - Amending portions of Section 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code pertaining to
monument signs and freestanding signs along the University Parkway and State Street
corridors
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.24)


Mr. Bench presented Development Services’ request that the City Council amend portions of
Section 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code pertaining to monument and freestanding sign
requirements along the University Parkway and State Street corridors.
This request was in response to new conditions created on University Parkway by the
design standards that were proposed in the State Street Master Plan.
University Parkway was being widened as part of PROTRIP which would cause a narrowing of
the landscaped park strips along University Parkway. In addition, the landscaping improvements
being installed as part of PROTRIP would include uniform tree plantings in the landscaped park
strips.
In order to address any reduced visibility of existing signs along the University Parkway
Corridor that may result from the new trees and/or the expanded width of University Parkway,
Staff proposed to allow larger monument signs along the University Parkway Corridor.
The proposed ordinance would increase the allowed height of a monument sign that is located
within twenty-five (25) feet of University Parkway from six (6) feet to eight (8) feet while
keeping the maximum sign area the same at fifty (50) square feet.
In order to encourage the migration from pole signs to monument signs, the proposed
amendment would also allow a parcel adjacent to University Parkway that was entitled to a pole
sign to substitute, in place of a pole sign, a large monument sign with a height up to twelve (12)
feet and a maximum sign area of ninety (9o) square feet. The monument signs would have a
minimum setback of two feet from the right-of-way while pole signs must be set back a distance
equal to the height of the sign.
A neighborhood meeting regarding these proposed amendments was held on March 21, 2017,
with three businesses represented. All those in attendance supported the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendment would also require that pole signs along State Street be set back a
along University Parkway. It would also allow a parcel adjacent to State Street that was entitled
  n    s    s d  g d e   s   
  s   s (    s     
located in the park strip but must be set back at least eight feet from the back of curb.
 sn n  ss sod    ond e  o  
attendees. At the meeting, the State Street Master Plan Design Standards were discussed as well
as the proposed sign amendments. During the presentation, Staff conducted a real-time digital
survey of opinions on topics related to the proposed standards. When asked about their opinion
preferred monument signs while 12.5 percent preferred pole signs.
The Development Services Department was requesting the City Council amend, by ordinance,
portions of Section 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code pertaining to monument and freestanding sign
requirements along the University Parkway and State Street corridors.
City Council Minutes -April 25,2017 (p.25)


Mr. Bench first addressed the University Parkway proposal. He said there were three sign zones;
C, A, and B. The request was to make a Corridor Amendment to allow those that had frontage on
the corridor to have additional monument signs. Mr. Bench overviewed the existing and
proposed signs and sign requirements. He then reviewed the size allowances and setback
requirements. He noted that businesses could still have pole signs, but it would have to meet
setback warrants and height requirements. They could have a larger sign if they chose a
monument sign. The clear vision requirements would still have to be met. The base of the
monument sign would have to be made of brick, stone, or rock so that there would be some
standard of design.
In response to Mayor Brunst's question regarding the overall sign height, Mr. Bench stated the
overall height would include the base. The number of signs allowed would be contingent upon
the amount of frontage. Businesses could have both a pole sign and monument sign if they
wanted.
When Mr. Lentz sought to confirm that no one would be forced to change, Mr. Bench said if
    a  s      o  s 
each type of sign was allowed, but they required certain setbacks and had other requirements.
Mr. Bench added that monument signs would be the most effective way for businesses to
advertise themselves. Mr. Lentz observed that as the area developed with more walkable space,
the blade signs would play more of a role. Mr. Bench said that as buildings on State Street were
required to be closer, the blade signs would be incorporated into the design standards for State
Street.
With regard to the survey, Mayor Brunst noted that twenty-four residents answered and asked if
       ss   ss  m ss 
administered at the neighborhood meeting at the SCERA, and the respondents were a mix of
residentsandbusinessowners.
Mr. Spencer asked about the differences between the signs on University Parkway versus the
signs on State Street. Mr. Bench stated that the specific standards were about the Parkway only.
He would address the standards for State Street afterwards. The motion would include both sets
of standards.
Mayor Brunst reiterated that the ordinance would read for both University Parkway and State
Street.
Mr. Bench next addressed the State Street standards. A business on State Street approached the
City about getting rid of their pole sign and putting in a larger monument sign. There was not a
provision for the business to do that, even though the City encouraged businesses to transition
from pole signs to monument signs. Therefore, this business collaborated with staff to revise the
sign standards. Noting that the frontages on State Street were smaller than those on University
Parkway, Mr. Bench said that the standards had to be somewhat different. Mr. Bench noted that
the City was providing incentives to businesses on State Street to have monument signs in lieu of
pole signs. Mayor Brunst said that the revised standards were aimed at discouraging pole signs,
and Mr. Bench agreed.
CityCouncil Minutes-April 25,2017(p.26)


In response to Mr. Macdonald's question as to whether or not current signs would be
grandfathered in, Mr. Bench replied in the affirmative. In response to his question regarding
safety issues for drivers with monument signs, Mr. Goodrich said the location of the signs was
on the “downstream'" side of the driveway so that there would not be a sight-distance problem. In
addition, he noted that there was a buffer between the traffic lane and the sign itself. Errant
vehicles could still hit the signs, but the pedestrians would be safer because cars were more
likely to hit a sign than a pedestrian.
Mayor Brunst mentioned that there were monument signs in Santaquin and said they looked
nice. Mr. Bench said the trend nationwide was to move toward monument signs. He noted that
since most people were using electronic devices to find businesses, he believed the monument
signs would be a better destination marker than a pole sign.
Mr. Sumner asked as development took place on State Street whether the sidewalks would zig
and zag. Mr. Bench said it would be developer driven and would be based on redevelopment.
Mr. Lentz referenced the McDonald's across the street that was in the process of redeveloping
the negative because the text amendments were not in place.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lentz moved, by ordinance, to amend portions of Section 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code
         s   
Street corridors. 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 - Design Standards for State Street
ORDINANCE - Amending Sections 22-2-1,22-8-5, 22-8-7,22-8-8, 22-8-9, 22-11-2,
Appendix “U", and Appendix “SS" of the Orem City Code pertaining to State Street design
standards
22-2-1 (Definitions); 22-8-5 (C2 Zone); 22-8-7 (C3 Zone); 22-8-8 (Zone Development
Appendix “SS" of the Orem City Code pertaining to State Street design standards.
In 2015, the City Council adopted the State Street Corridor Master Plan to guide the future
development of the State Street corridor. The proposed zoning text amendment implemented
some of the goals outlined in the Plan including to “enhance the open space system to encourage
walkability, community gathering, healthy living, and active storefronts" and to “improve the
aesthetic appearance of the corridor."
The proposed amendments would apply to all lots in the State Street Corridor Area which was
defined as “all lots that have frontage on State Street or frontage on a State Street Connector
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.27)


Street (defined as that portion of a public street that intersects with and is located within 5o0 feet
of the State Street right-of-way line)." Most of this area was located in the C2, C3, or PD zones.
The primary changes included in the proposed amendments include the following:
1. Create a maximum setback of ten feet for all new development in the State Street Corridor
Area. This will require all new buildings as well as new building additions to be constructed no
more than ten feet from the back of the required sidewalk along State Street and State Street
Connector Streets.
1a. An exception to this requirement is provided that would allow an existing building to
be increased in size by up to fifteen percent of its Gross Floor Area (GFA) without being
required to comply with the maximum setback requirement. The fifteen percent building
addition would have to be constructed at the same time and multiple smaller additions
made at different times that add up to fifteen percent would not be allowed. This
exception would not be available for any building on a parcel that was subdivided after
May 1, 2017.
2. Require “buffered sidewalks” consisting of an eight foot sidewalk separated from the street by
a fifteen-foot landscaped planter strip adjacent to State Street and an eight-foot sidewalk
separated from the street by an eight-foot landscaped planter strip adjacent to State Street
Connector Streets. Trees that were listed in Appendix “U" must be planted in the required planter
strips at least every forty feet along State Street and at least every thirty feet along State Street
Connector Streets.
3. Require new buildings or additions adjacent to State Street to have a public access facing State
StateStreetConnectorStreet.
4. Require all new primary buildings and additions to have a minimum height of fifteen feet
(15').
r q e d  nd  n  s, e    s
bonus.
The purpose of the proposed amendments was to improve the State Street Corridor by improving
the aesthetic quality of the corridor, maximizing the use of land in the corridor (by eliminating
the minimum setback and thus increasing buildable area), providing a more walkable and safe
corridor, increasing the accessibility of businesses for pedestrians, and creating an attractive and
distinct downtown experience that will increase the value and potential for future development of
the area.
For the past several months City Staff had been working to inform and solicit input from the
owners of property in the State Street Corridor Area and other members of the public regarding
the proposed amendments. Staff held a public meeting regarding the proposed amendments on
March 30, 2017, at the SCERA Center for the Arts. Staff sent out 2,315 postcard invitations to
the meeting and approximately fifty to sixty people attended. At the meeting, Staff conducted a
real-time digital survey of opinions on topics related to the proposed amendments. The results
from the survey were attached as part of this agenda summary.
City CouncilMinutes -April 25,2017 (p.28)


   s    s  o  o 
meetings. Additionally, Staff utilized various Facebook and email subscriber lists as part of
outreach efforts. An article about the project was also published in the Daily Herald on
March 28, 2017.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council amend, by ordinance, Sections 22-2-1
(Definitions); 22-8-5 (C2 Zone); 22-8-7 (C3 Zone); 22-8-8 (Zone Development Standards); 22-
   eo s, xd p ‘, xuddy asa) 7-ie :(ds) -8
Code.
Mr. Bench said that Staff spent considerable time to facilitate implementation of the State Street
Master Plan, and Mr. Kirkham and Mr. Earl had worked to bring this forward.
Mr. Kirkham said this was the beginning step of implementing the State Street Master Plan
(SSMP). Mr. Kirkham stated that State Street was arguably the most important street in the City.
One of the goals outlined in the SSMP was to enhance the open space system, encouraging
walkability, community gathering, healthy living, and active storefronts,” and to “improve the
goals. The process would be incremental. Mr. Kirkham highlighted the affected zones as follows:
C2, C3, and PD zones along State Street.
In response to Mayor Brunst's request for the differentiation between Regional Commercial and
General Commercial zones, Mr. Bench explained that the Regional Commercial (C3) zone was
designed when the Smith's and the Pinehurst development was created, and the General
Commercial (C2) zone didn't provide for the type of buffer that was incorporated into the
C3zone.
Mr. Kirkham added that there was also a separate height requirement within proximity to
neighboring residential zones. To give an overview of what the updates would do, Mr. Kirkham
stated that they would be introducing buffered or protected sidewalks, which would include a
   s  s    s d s g
expansion. The trees would stay in place and fully mature. Protected sidewalks would add to
        s    s 
safety for pedestrians but also the perception of safety by pedestrians. Mr. Kirkham added that
there were incentives to create more spaces open to the public, like dining areas and small green
space. The method was to encourage this, not necessarily to mandate it.
Mr. Kirkham reiterated that the changes were development driven, so when a property was ready
to redevelop, that would be when the update would be activated. The buildings would be located
closer to State Street, with customer accesses facing and stressing the street. Therefore, someone
could park near a business in one place and walk and visit many different businesses.
The plan also included efforts to improve aesthetics. The list of tree species was narrowed down
by district; therefore, a person would be able to tell which section of the corridor they were on by
the trees that were present. With regard to the tree plan, Mayor Brunst observed that landscaping
   s n           s 
jungle.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.29)


Mr. Kirkham clarified that business owners would not be required to relocate any existing
buildings or signs unless they were redeveloping more than fifteen percent of the building.
Mayor Brunst's asked what constituted redevelopment of a building. Mr. Bench explained that it
referred only to adding to the square footage of the building or the footprint. Adding a facade or
new paint, or interior changes, would not be covered under the new requirements.
Mr. Kirkham said the landowner would not lose any of their property. In fact, since the setback
requirements had been reduced, the property owners gained more usable space of their land. Mr.
Kirkham also noted that the updates did not change the allowed uses.
In response to Mr. Sumner's earlier comment about business owners who might want to gut their
building, Mr. Bench said that they could do that, but redevelopment would be better.
Mr. Kirkham stated that the process for working on this ordinance update was so important
because so many important businesses were along State Street, and staff had reached out in many
different ways to reach out to business owners. He had personally answered dozens of emails and
phone calls concerning these updates. In addition, Development Services launched the new Orem
Forum, the new online community engagement venue for any important planning issues that
would come up. Mr. Kirkham stated that a digital poll was conducted at the SCERA to find out
what the people knew about the Orem Forum, which was less than two months old. Many of the
respondents had not heard of it yet and some had registered. He said that Development Services
was going to use this venue to try to enhance the feedback received from Orem citizens.
Mr. Kirkham said the purpose statements had been revised for the C2, C3, and PD zones to give
more clarification to what they were all about. In addition, the setback and height requirements
would provide a buffer. The changes also included incentives and some exceptions for the
fifteen-percent renovation projects and small public spaces. There were also changes in sign
buffered sidewalks. He then showed an example from a city from Texas. He next showed an
example of a “bulb-out crossing," where the sidewalks are brought really close together at the
crosswalk.
Mr. Seastrand noted the trees totally blocked signage. Though they were beautiful, they blocked
the businesses. Mr. Kirkham said they realized that exact issue on University Parkway, and that
they could not put in these standards and not have give-and-take. That was why they looked at
the alternative of the monument signs. Mr. Bench said this was a more extreme example, and
that there would be fewer plants to cover those signs. Mr. Kirkham said this would drive the
change for signs. In response to Mr. Seastrand's question as to who would maintain the green
strip, Mr. Bench said property owners would be responsible.
Mr. Earl stated that the hope was that the trees would mature to a point where they could be
Mr. Kirkham showed a cross section of State Street. He indicated that ultimately the right-of-way
would increase by a few feet, including the addition of usable, buildable space. He added that in
the future it was hoped that it would not become necessary to move street lights, trees, or poles.
CityCouncil Minutes-April 25,2017(p.30)


If the right-of-way were expanded, it would go from 101 feet to 115 feet. Mayor Brunst asked
about the width of the widest sidewalk on State Street. Mr. Kirkham said that nine feet was the
widest, but the width varied along State Street.
Mr. Kirkham said the incentive for the public open spaces included some flexibility with the
building setback. For example, an additional ten feet would be permitted if it was open to the
public. In the neighborhood meeting, staff asked about the impact transit would have on their
businesses. The majority said it would have a positive impact. Looking into the future, Mr.
Kirkham pointed out where additional parking and transit could occur down the center of State
Street. The citizens at the SCERA meeting were also in strong agreement with the idea of
breaking up the mega-blocks that were on State Street to make them more pedestrian friendly
and to increase the frontage of businesses. He reiterated that the fifteen-percent exception applied
to the building. The changes provided more flexibility than what was currently in place. Other
incentives for reducing pole signs included reductions in parking requirements, large wall signs,
building height bonuses and more monument signs permitted. He added that staff had worked
with the urban forester to identify the trees that would thrive on State Street. When the citizens
were asked what their top priority was, the number one response was the buffered sidewalks.
d   pnd  e o   od pr  ps a 
however, the attendees were very participative. Mr. Kirkham also said they could fill out
comment cards if they didn't want to use their smart phones.
Mr. Sumner said this was a job well done. On beautification, he thought it might cost a lot for
development and asked if a cost analysis had been done. Mr. Kirkham said the only cost he could
see would be with the landscaping, but it was a different configuration in landscaping. He didn't
             o     
landscaping, so this was just changing the kind of landscaping.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
City for moving forward in this direction, and encouraged the City Council to vote for this
proposal.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand said from a long-term standpoint, the future of retail would be further impacted by
internet access. As a result, he wondered if the new requirements were making it harder for retail
stores to be successful in that environment and wanted to relocate on State Street. Mr. Kirkham
said the experience of buyers was changing. He noted that places such as City Creek or
Downtown Provo were offering experiences, not just shopping for a product. Big box retail was
becoming more obsolete, and this brought smaller and more boutique shopping. Mr. Seastrand
said the clustering idea was smart and allowed more walkability. He also liked the incentive
aspect.
Mayor Brunst moved that the City Council amend, by ordinance, Sections 22-2-1, 22-8-5
(C2 Zone), 22-8-7 (C3 Zone), 22-8-8 (Zone Development Standards), 22-8-9 (Landscaping), 22-
  d o    e , x  , x ase a
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.31)


Street design standards. Mr. Macdonald seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Budget Amendment
ORDINANCE - Amending the Current Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget
Mr. Manning presented the City Manager's recommendation that-the City Council hold a public
hearing to discuss amending the current Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget and, by ordinance,
amend Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget.
The Fiscal Year 2016-2017 City of Orem budget had many adjustments that occurred throughout
the fiscal year. These adjustments included grants received from Federal, State, and other
governmental or private entities/organizations.
This amendment included the following significant changes:
1. Appropriation of General Fund Reserves for capital projects;
bonds;
3. Various grants.
Mayor Brunst asked about the movement of capital improvement project fund money. Mr.
Manning said that the City finished above the cap, so the money was being moved so that the
City was compliant with what the State required. All proper noticing took place on this item.
When Mr. Macdonald sought to confirm that this was paying for items with cash, instead of debt,
Mr. Manning responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by ordinance, to amend the Current Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget. 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.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
The monthly financial summary for March 2017 was given to the Council in the agenda packet.
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS
There were no City Manager Information Items.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Macdonald moved to adjourn the meeting. 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.
City Council Minutes - April 25, 2017 (p.32)


The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
OREM
CITYOF
R
CORPORATE
SEAL
STATE
slsmaRdeave
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved:May23,2017
City Council Minutes-April25,2017（p.33)