City Council · 2017-05-23

CITY OF OREM
CITYCOUNCILMEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
May 23, 2017
4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION -PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
APPOINTEDSTAFF Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Donna
Weaver, City Recorder
DISCUSSION - CARE Deliberations and Policies & Procedures
Steven Downs first reviewed the policies and procedures for CARE Tax allocations. He
explained that the purpose was to better protect against the misuse of public funds (similar to
CDBG program). He explained that at the beginning of fiscal year 2018 mini and mid-major
organizations would receive their funding on a reimbursement basis, rather than as a lump-sum.
Exceptions included:
Organizations having completed an audit or review within last year would be able to
receive a lump-sum payment
Advances could be made for single purchases exceeding $1,0o0 with proof of invoice and
proof of payment
Mrs. Lauret expressed concern about the Chauntennettes. Mr. Downs said they already had an
audit done every year so they would be exempt from reimbursement. He then presented
background on the CARE Tax:
In 2015 to 2016 there was a 50/50 split between the Cultural Arts and Recreation
Staff projected that $2.05 million would be available for allocation during the 2017 to
2018 year (collected in 2016 to 2017)
$1,009,625 was available for each grouping (1.5 percent deduction for administrative
costs)
Grant Applicants this year: fifteen mini; five mid-major; three major; three facility
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.1)

Mr. Downs listed the CARE Tax Advisory Commission Members as LaNae Millett, Jeff
Lambson, Annette Harkness, Patricia Olson, Christine Alleman and Blake Tierney.
Mr. Downs then outlined the arts allocation process:
 On March 3oth and April 13th the CARE Advisory Commission, along with three City
Councilmembers, heard presentations from each of the mini and mid-major grant
applicants
All fifteen of the mini and all five of the mid-major grant applicants met funding
requirements
On April 25th the CARE Advisory Commission and the City Council members received
reports from all three major grant applicants
 On April 25'h a proposal was presented to the City Council for initial discussion
There was an opportunity for further discussion before adopting the final proposal
Mr. Downs reviewed the recreation process:
· Over the last several years the Recreation Advisory Commission had studied the
recreational needs of the Orem community
A community survey was completed in 2015 asking the residents how they would like to
see the recreation portion of CARE spent
Only one application was submitted requesting recreation funding, and it was for the
fitness center. The proposed award was $1,009,625.
Mayor Brunst asked about a bike park next to the dog park, which had been proposed by a group
of citizens. Mr. Hirst said a bike park was a set of trails with some structures for mountain
biking. He said they were still early in the process of conceptualizing such a park for the City of
Orem.
Mr. Bybee said that since it had come up recently they were looking at applying for a grant to
help with construction. The minimal cost was estimated at $50,0o0 and any amenities would
increase that amount. Pleasant Grove and Draper had such parks. Mr. Hirst added that Provo had
just added a similar park in Slate Canyon.
Mrs. Lauret asked if there were plans for pickle ball. Mr. Bybee said staff had been discussing
pickle ball courts with IHC. They could also have a connection with the City's CDBG dollars.
He said there were annual upgrades to the regular tennis courts as well, and it was possible to put
in more pickle ball courts in the space normally occupied by tennis courts.
Mr. Downs reviewed the recommendations, noting there was a decrease from the previous year.
He presented the mini and mid-major grant funding proposals, which included the following
organizations: Orem Chorale, Wasatch Chorale, Utah Storytelling Guild, Utah Baroque
Ensemble, Chauntennettes, Utah Film Center, Center Stage Performing Arts, Utah Valley Civic
Ballet, Utah Music Association, Wasatch Contemporary Dance, Onsite Mobile Dance Series, 4th
Wall Players Foundation, Freedom Vehicles, Colonial Heritage Foundation, Grassroots
Shakespeare, Witness Music, Cantorum Chamber Choir, and Roots of Freedom. The total awards
granted to mini and mid-major organizations in 2016 was $76,499, whereas this year they were
proposing a total award amount of $60,000.
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.2)

The major organizations and facilities proposal included the Hale Center Theater Orem (HCTO), 
Utah Regional Ballet (URB), the SCERA Center (SCERA), Library Auditorium, Arts Council 
Public Art, permanent public art and library, and other facility funding for projects such as the 
SCERA shell and Library auditorium. Mr. Downs presented two out of three funding allocation 
proposals, outlined as follows: 
•
Proposal A:
o
The total 2016 total award amount to the three major organizations (HCTO, URB
and the SCERA) was $893,093, whereas this year they were proposing a total
award of $820,000 to those same organizations.
o
The proposed 2017 award amount for facilities projects was $129,625.
•
Proposal B
o
The total 2016 award amount to the three major organizations (HCTO, URB and
the SCERA) was $893,093, whereas this year they were proposing a total award
of $876,000.
o
The proposed 2017 award amount for facilities projects was $73,625.
Proposal C, though included in Mr. Downs's PowerPoint presentation, was not reviewed and 
discussed by the Council. However, it was outlined in the PowerPoint presentation as follows: 
•
Proposal C
o
The total 2016 award amount to the three major organizations (HCTO, URB and
the SCERA) was $893,093, whereas this year they were proposing a total award
of $880,000.
o
The proposed 2017 award amount for facilities projects was $69,625
Mayor Brunst suggested giving the SCERA $525,000 this year. Mr. Macdonald asked where the 
additional funds would be taken from, to which Mayor Brunst said the funds would come from 
the "other" column. He also suggested $325,000 for the HCTO, and said he wanted to see those 
organizations thrive, not just survive. He suggested $26,000 be allocated to URB, and $5,000 for 
the two arts projects. He said he preferred that $25,000 go towards the Library auditorium, and 
the remaining funds to go toward contingencies for the facilities. 
Mr. Sumner said "people" could also be a legacy and not just buildings. He said he was okay 
with allocating $325,000 to HCTO. He would like $535,000 to go towards the SCERA and 
$25,000 towards URB. The difference could be made up in contingency funds. 
Mr. Lentz said his concern with the CARE process over the last several years had been that it 
ultimately came down emotional decisions by certain individuals who had ties to specific 
programs. He said he preferred a more data-based decision-making process. He cited a survey 
that was done last October, and the top two priorities that the citizens indicated were the Library 
auditorium and SCERA shell. He said he did not want to throw out those survey results. It was a 
mistake to assume that Councilmembers were smarter than professionals who conducted surveys 
for a living. He said the total amount being allocated toward the SCERA should also include 
money for the Shell. He said he was comfortable with a $500,000 allocation for the SCERA. 
Mr. Macdonald said he agreed 'Yith Mr. Lentz that funding allocations needed to be more 
quantifiable. He said frustrations occurred if expectations were violated, and explained that 
organizations used to be able to ask for an amount because the "pot" was a certain size. There 
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.3) 



was $3 million sitting in a budget for an auditorium; however, no progress was being made and
construction prices were continuing to rise in the meantime. He said the matter should be
addressed. It was not prudent to not study it. He recommended no changes at this time and that
the City continue toworkwith each organization and project.
Mr. Sumner said the budget related to facility contingencies seemed vague. Mr. Macdonald said
they were putting the funds aside for now. Those funds would not get spent until the City came
up with a definite plan. Mr. Sumner said he would like to see better seating at the SCERA.
Mr. Seastrand said there were some unknowns relating to the Library auditorium. The Council
needed to make a decision about the size of the facility and whether or not to move forward. He
said he was okay with putting some money aside while they developed a concrete plan; there
needed to be a final consensus on what it should look like.
Mr. Davidson said he believed the current plans could be further modified. The more that was
cut from the facility the less happy he believed the City could be with the end result. He said he
felt comfortable with 21,000 square feet. He explained that much could be done inside the
facility but once the outside walls were done there was nothing easy that could be done to
expand the original footprint. The City did not plan for future build-out on any of its other
projects. The $35,000 allocated for the auditorium did not go toward reevaluating the facility;
just the engineering review alone would cost the City thousands of dollars. He said he didn't
think the intent of the $35,000 was for a new and improved auditorium, but to determine the total
budget for such a project.
Mayor Brunst said they needed to determine how they used the auditorium and what the needs
were. He said according to the study he presented at the retreat, they could do 500 seats at $3.8
million.
Mr. Davidson said he disagreed with Mayor Brunst's analysis. Staff had spoken with contractors
who had previously opined that they could complete the project for a certain cost; however, after
the contractors visited the site and evaluated the actual needs, they realized the project needed to
be done at a much higher cost. The proposal had already been pared back from what was
originally proposed. He asked if they wanted to pare back to a greater degree; if so, he
questioned if there was still value in proceeding with the project at that point.
Mr. Macdonald said it seemed foolish to not scrutinize $500,000 and $300,000 allocations and
then scrutinize a $35,000 expense.
Mr. Seastrand said they needed to make a decision on whether or not to move forward. The plan
was part of the reason the City received donations for the project.
Mrs. Crozier said the original designer was willing to continue working on the project; however,
they needed to know what the City's vision was for the project, so they knew what type of plans
to draw. It was the Council's decision as to what to include and what not to include. She
explained that if the vision was clear and it was designed to fit that vision, then the prebid
process would be different than a construction estimate. She said they wanted the library to be
something with which the Council and residents would be happy.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.4)

Mayor Brunst said it would be helpful to see different auditoriums throughout the community.
Mr. Seastrand said they could allocate the $35,000 and not spend the money until they had come
to a consensus on what that vision would look like. They would then need to know what it might
cost todesignbeyond that point.
Mrs. Crozier said if the project changed drastically it could cost a lot more, but if it didn't the
cost could be much lower.
Mr. Davidson said there were certain hard costs that the designer could not absorb. Time was of
the essence. The sooner some of these decisions could be made and fundraising done, the more
economical the project would be.
Mr. Sumner asked how a new City Center could impact the cost. Mr. Davidson said there were
some economies of scale that could be drawn on, but the uphill climb for a new City Center was
different from a Library auditorium. They would want to consider the two projects differently
and independently.
Mrs. Crozier said Jim Childs and Joe Smith had sat down together at one point and reviewed
how the two facilities might interact together. She said they discussed how the two facilities
Mr. Spencer said the survey questions could have been answered differently if they had been
phrased differently. He asked what the scope of use would be for a Library auditorium. Mr.
Davidson said Mr. Spencer was suggesting the City wanted to build a commercial grade
building, it was not unrealistic to pay $250 to $300 per square foot. Mr. Spencer asked if they
were being responsible to the citizens of Orem. He said he did not believe the residents wanted
the auditorium in spite of what the survey indicated. Mr. Davidson said if something was built it
should be current and meet future needs as well. He said bigger was better, but he was not tied to
any certain square footage.
Mr. then Spencer said he liked either the Mayor's or Mr. Sumner's proposals.
Mr. Davidson said not every citizen would use the splash pad, dog park, or soccer fields. The
City was in the business of meeting varying needs of the community. The auditorium would
meet some of those needs. He agreed they needed to be careful with tax dollars. Part of the
    e          
Center. If there were not going to be a new City Center, then it would not exclude additional
meetingroomsinthe auditorium.
Mrs. Crozier said 21,000 square feet was where they were without a balcony.
Mr. Lentz said the suggestion was brought forward that the citizens did not want the auditorium.
He then read a survey question, which asked how citizens would hypothetically divide $100 into
various projects, exhibits, events and performances. According to survey results, the number one
project was the auditorium, and by a wide margin. He said he was frustrated that there was some
rejection of the data because it did not match someone's campaign platform from several years
ago.
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.5)

Mr. Spencer said that was not true.
Mrs. Lauret said that when the mini grants came through a lot of the expenses went toward
facility rentals. Having the right Library auditorium would meet the needs of the smaller
organizations receiving CARE funds, and would lessen some of the funding allocations because
they would have access to a space at the Library for their performances.
Mr. Davidson said staff would find some facilities to show the City Council. They would also set
aside time to have a pointed discussion about this facility. He said it was obvious there were
different opinions, but he wanted to create an environment where they could have this
conversation and arrive at a consensus by the end of said discussion.
Mr. Macdonald said he was willing to set aside the $35,0o0 but did not want to spend the funds
until after they had received more information and engaged in further discussion.
DISCUSSION - Utah Wildfire Risk Assessment
Chief Gurney distributed a handout and explained that under the direction of the State
Fire and State Lands come up with a strategic plan or policy to address wildfire reduction. They
put together a policy that involved every municipality and county in the State as it related to
wildfires. He said dealing with these situations could be very expensive, especially when aircraft
was involved, or other teams needed to be brought in. A cooperative agreement had been
provided between the Utah State Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands and the City of
 o    a n s  n   -ido  s n 
the program, the City would have to shoulder all of the costs of bringing in additional teams or
using specialty equipment, whereas if they participated in the program they would have
      d    s  
several fire prevention education programs and activities. The only cost to the City for
participating in the program was $3,163.
Mr. Stephens said the cooperative agreement was like an insurance policy. Mr. Davidson added
that a lot of what was in the agreement was a result of a fire that occurred in Saratoga Springs a
few years ago. He said it was worth the cost to participate. This item would be brought before the
City Council for a vote in the next meeting.
Mr. Gurney said the agreement included the City prosecuting offenders in a fire event.
5:00P.M.STUDYSESSION-PUBLICSAFETYTRAININGROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
ELECTEDOFFICIALS Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.6)

Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
City Manager; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard
Manning, Administrative Services Director; Bill Bell,
Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Director; Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager;
Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager; and Donna
Weaver, City Recorder
Preview Upcoming Agenda Items
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
AgendaReview
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
City Council NewBusiness
There was no City Council New Business.
The Council adjourned at 5:56 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; Gary Giles, Police
Department Director; Charlene Crozier, Library Director;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Steve Earl,
Deputy City Attorney; Kirby Snideman, Long Range
Planner; Steven Downs, Assistant to the City Manager;
Pete Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Donna
Weaver, City Recorder
INVOCATION /
Read by Mayor Brunst
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE Sadie Spence
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.7)

APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the April 25, 2017 City Council Meeting minutes. 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.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mayor Brunst moved to reappoint Cody Clark to the Arts Council. Mrs. Lauret seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
PROCLAMATION-NationalPublicWorksWeek
Mayor Brunst read the proclamation proclaiming May 21-27, 2017, as national Public Works
Week in the City of Orem.
Mr. Sumner 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.
Mr. Tschirki recognized Neil Winterton, Loren Willis, Laurence Burton, Brian Johnson, Matt
Slaymaker, and Chad Johnson.
Mr. Winterton reviewed the awards received in the last year by the Wastewater Treatment Plant
and employees. He shared a story about Mr. Burton who had handled a call that came in and how
it represented the great attitude exemplified by Public Works employees.
REPORT - Summerfest Advisory Commission
Wallace Harkness, chair, read the mission statement of the Summerfest as “Engaging,
celebrating, and showcasing the citizens and community of Orem through annual events, service,
and recognition". The theme was “Sense of Community". He then reviewed the 2017
Summerfest schedule of activities as follows:
Monday, June 5, 7:00 pm - Storytelling at University Place
Headliner Kevin Kling
FREE to the public
Sponsored by University Place
Tuesday, June 6, 7:00 pm - Community Prayer Event at UVU Reagan Theater
Non-denominational community event
Orem Spirit & First Responders Awards
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.8)

Hosted by Grand Marshal: UVU
Wednesday, June 7, 8:00 pm - VIP Dinner at UVU Culinary Arts and Nathan Pacheco at
theSCERAShell
Sponsors and Student Marshals honored (at dinner)
Tickets available online (Nathan Pacheco)
Thursday, June 8, 5:00 pm - Family Carnival Night at City Center Park
1st Annual Hot Dog Eating Contest (6:30 pm)
Orem's Got Talent (7:00 pm)
Food Vendors
Carnival rides and games
Friday, June 9, 12:00 pm - Orem Showcase at Scera Park
Business Showcase
Children's Entertainment & Crafts
Food Trucks, Rides, and More City Center Park
Food Vendors, Carnival, Boutiques
Dance the Night Away (Free Concert)
Saturday, June 10, 10:00 am - Various activities at the Scera and City Center Parks
Cooper's Run (Scera Park)
Children's Entertainment & Crafts (Scera Park)
Car Show / Military Vehicles (Scera Park)
BabyContest at OremHigh(CityCenterPark)
Grand Parade (City Center Park)
Fireworks with VIP Tent (City Center Park)
REPORT-HeritageAdvisory Commission
Jeff Olsen said they made recommendations to the City Council for two veterans’ memorials.
One memorial was in the City's cemetery, and the other was located at the City Center. The
Commission also established the local tradition of formally celebrating the City's heritage
through Memorial Day, Independence Day and Veterans Day. They also established the tradition
of flag raising ceremonies and educational outreach to enhance appreciation for the country. He
invited the Council and residents to attend the Memorial Day program on Monday, May 29th, at
9:00 am at the City's cemetery.
Mayor Brunst noted that the Miss Orem Pageant was held and he recognized Amanda Flinders as
the new Miss Orem and Cortlyn Sondrup as Miss Orem Outstanding Teen.
INVITATION - Strawberry Days -Miss Pleasant Grove Royalty
Lindsay Savage, Miss Pleasant Grove, with her attendants Ansley Funes, Courtney Ricks, and
Sami Jo Carson, and Shawnee Harward, Rodeo Queen, and Michelle Wall, First Attendant,
invited the Mayor and Council to participate in Strawberry Days activities June 10-18, 2017.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.9)

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
werelimitedtothreeminutesorless.
Caroline James said she represented the Chauntennettes and expressed appreciation for the
CARE grants.
Carol Harrison said she lived near UVU and expressed concern about the high density in the
proposed PEG development. The density would create too much traffic for the area. She
provided the Council with a handout.
Jill Molten, representing Utah Regional Ballet, expressed appreciation for previous CARE grant
support and said the funds were critical for their organization. She said they needed added
support this year in order to replace some of their costumes and set design. She said they were
working with other cities to receive contributions as well, namely American Fork.
CONSENTITEMS
MOTION -Reschedule the August 22, 2017, City Council Meeting to August 29, 2017
Mayor Brunst moved to reschedule the August 22, 2017 City Council Meeting to August 29,
2017, to accommodate the 2017 Municipal Election and Canvass. Mr. Macdonald seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- PD-48 -PEG Development
ORDINANCE -Amending Article 22-11 of the City Code by enacting Section 22-11-61,
PD-48 zone, amending the appendix of the City Code by enacting Appendix “UU', and
amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of Orem City by changing the zone at
approximately 1000 South 400 West from R8 to PD-48
The applicant had requested the item be continued until the June 27, 2017, City Council meeting
at 6:00 p.m. The applicant was working with City staff to clarify and address issues with UVU as
it related to the project improvements and requirements.
The project coordinator recommended the City Council continue the request to the June 27,
2017, City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Lentz moved to continue the public hearing for this item to the City Council meeting on
June 27, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F.
Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PD-11 Development Standards
ORDINANCE -AmendingSection 22-11-23(B) and AppendixX of the Orem City Code
pertaining to development standards of the PD-11 zone at 1430 South Sandhill Road
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.10)

     n     s  d  
  o ss sa  d     e x x p 
Zoneat1430SouthSandhillRoad.
The PD-11 zone currently allowed a townhome development with 149 units. The current owner
of the property had a contract to sell the development to DR Horton. DR Horton would like to
modify the concept plan which was approved as part of the PD-11 zone. In particular, DR Horton
would like to change the design and size of the townhouse units that were approved as part of the
          s   d 
approved building elevations and concept plan to conform to the type of units that DR Horton
wouldliketobuild.
Most homebuilders had their own product which they had built in the past or designed
specifically for a certain project. The approved building elevations contained two products and
each has only one facade treatment. The applicant did not want to build units that conformed to
the approved concept plan and proposed a different style of units with a different design and
architecture. DR Horton proposed two different buildings (a two-story and a three-story) each
with two finish styles and different color schemes. The proposal provided a greater variety of
styles/colors than the current approved elevations.
DR Horton also proposed to modify the concept plan by removing a parcel adjacent to Sandhill
Road, straightening a common property line, and reducing the amount of asphalt on-site. Overall,
the concept plan did not have major changes and remained very similar to the approved concept
plan. With the loss of the Sandhill Road property, the applicant requested the maximum density
be increased from fourteen units per acre to 14.5 units per acre. The proposed density of 146
units on 10.15 acres was 14.38 units per acre. That compared with the currently approved
concept plan which contained 149 units on 14.65 acres or 13.99 units per acre. The Sandhill
Road property loss was approximately .50 acre and did not contain units on the approved concept
plan.
The proposed changes also included several minor text amendments. Changes were proposed to
the setbacks with the notable change being the setback on the south property line. The adjacent
property owner to the south had a barn that shifted the property line which was not shown on the
original concept plan. The applicant asked for a reduced setback of twenty feet as opposed to
twenty-five feet for the setback of only one unit to accommodate the encroachment of the barn.
Staff's only concern with the proposed amendments related to the proposed building elevations.
Staff would like to see the materials upgraded, especially on the rear of the units that were
completely  stucco. The Planning  Commission recommended approval of  the proposed
amendments on the condition that the applicant submit revised elevations for the residential units
that upgrade the design and materials in accordance with the recommendations that were made
by staff.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-
23(B) and Appendix X of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-11
Zoneat1430SouthSandhillRoad.
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.11)

Ms. Travis, applicant representative, said the stone did wrap around to some of the building
backs. In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, she said they had constructed a building like
those proposed in Bluffdale and in Pleasant Grove. She gave a short presentation about DR
Horton and then reviewed amenities, including a clubhouse, a fire pit and community gathering
place, play field, and sports fields. She said the pricing was still tentative but would range from
a  s  s q  n  q 1  o o oss
from 1,700 square feet to 2,100 square feet. There were two or three different floor plans
available.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the parking, and Mr. Bench said the parking standards would not
change. The style of the buildings was the most significant change. Mr. Seastrand asked if it was
contingent on connecting to Sandhill Road, and Mr. Bench said they would dead-end unless they
purchased the additional property.
Mr. Sumner said that Mr. Petersen had several questions in the Planning Commission meeting.
The developer said he would meet with him and answer those questions. Ms. Travis said that was
with a previous developer, and DR Horton had addressed Mr. Petersen's concerns, including
deeding property to him that would give him access.
Mrs. Lauret said she was not fond of the boxy look of the buildings. She wondered if there could
be more stone. Ms. Travis said the height of the buildings did not lend themselves to the use of
more stone. They used different sizes of siding that would give a varied appearance.
Mr. Macdonald said that different phases of this project had been approved several years ago.
Mr. Bench clarified that the ordinance was approved several years ago. Mr. Macdonald said
there had been a number of reiterations of this project since that time. He asked why the
applicant was requesting to increase the density. Mr. Bench said they were also proposing to
change to concept plan and the elevations that went along with the ordinance. He also said they
had lost a portion of the parcel, which was why they were requesting an increased density. They
would lose about six units if they built to the current density. Ms. Travis indicated that they
hoped to expand in a third phase at some point in the future, which would drop the overall
density of the development.
Mayor Brunst asked if DR Horton owned the land, and Ms. Travis said they were under contract
and slated to close in July, if the City Council approved the request. It would take approximately
two to three years in the construction phases for phases one and two.
Mayor Brunst asked Ms. Travis what attracted DR Horton to this project. Ms. Travis said they
liked the location and believed they could add a new vibe to the area. Mayor Brunst asked about
the ability to add stone, and Ms. Travis said there was stone on the two-story product. It would
increase the cost of the units.
Mr. Lentz asked if there was any benefit in the present proposal as opposed to how the original
ordinance was written. Mr. Bench said materials would stay the same; it was just a matter of
whatever was approved by the Council that would bind them. Mr. Lentz asked if they would
have to come back to the Council if they acquired the property. Mr. Bench answered
affirmatively and said they would need to rezone that property.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.12)

Mayor Brunst said he would like to see the property developed.
Mayor Brunst then opened the public hearing.
Nancy Parker asked if any of the units were wheelchair accessible. Ms. Travis said they were not
but could be modified, as needed. She asked about the access and was informed there were two.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst then said he would like to see twenty percent stone on the first floor exterior. He
said he liked the modern architectural look.
Mr. Macdonald said since there was no guarantee on phase three, he would like to keep the
density as it was until the additional property was acquired in order to finalize phase three. He
said that as a City this would allow them keep their commitments to the citizens to not increase
the density. Mr. Bench said they would have to keep it at fourteen units. Mr. Macdonald said
they could not build one of the structures until they purchased the additional property.
Mr. Lentz asked, if the item were continued until the next meeting, the developer would have
enough time to adjust their plans to accommodate the decreased density. Ms. Travis said they
could. Mr. Lentz asked the Council what direction they could give DR Horton in terms of design
or layout, in order to better meet their expectations.
Mrs. Lauret said she would like to see some units that looked less boxy.
Mr. Seastrand said he voted against this proposal when it first came before the Council seven or
eight years ago because he was opposed to the density. He felt they were at the high end of the
density back then. He wondered who the target demographic was for these properties. Ms. Travis
said they were looking at first-time homeowners. Mr. Seastrand asked how many of those had
turned into rentals, and she said they did not track that once they left their control. She noted that
there would be a homeowners association.
In response to a question from Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Bench said the homeowners association would
be a private association. Mr. Macdonald said the City would therefore have no control from the
standpoint of requirements set forth by a homeowners association, and Mr. Bench said that was
correct. Mr. Seastrand asked Mr. Bench if he felt they would need more control as a City. Mr.
Bench explained that the City would control singles; as per City Code they could not rent more
than three unrelated singles.
Images of the proposed landscape plans were briefly reviewed.
Mayor Brunst asked how quickly the units to the north had sold. Ms. Travis said they had picked
up a distressed project of about fifty units and sold them in six months. Mayor Brunst said
affordable housing was a concern in the community. Ms. Travis said that most of their affordable
products were townhomes. She said the proposed project had three-bedroom units with
unfinished basements, so they could accommodate young families and older couples looking to
downsize.
City Council Minutes  May 23, 2017 (p.13)

Mayor Brunst again stated that he would be in favor of the project with the addition of twenty
units did not include stone, whereas the craftsman style did have stone. The third style was a
market style that had sold very well without stone. She said Mr. Petersen's barn was slated to be
torn down in the original zone, but DR Horton had agreed to leave the barn for his use.
Mr. Lentz asked whether or not they could limit the amount of stucco, in order to facilitate more
of a variety. Mr. Bench said a specific percentage of stucco had not been set; however, staff had
encouraged the applicant to look at adding additional types of stone, brick or rock along the
elevation. A specific percentage of certain materials would have to be approved by the Council.
Mr. Lentz asked Ms. Travis if there was any portion of the buildings that was entirely stucco or a
majority of stucco. Ms. Travis said none of the elevations were solely made of stucco.
Mr. Macdonald asked for the addresses of other units built with these standards.
Mr. Davidson said he understood the Council to be asking the applicant to come back with some
changes to the elevations. Mayor Brunst said that was correct. He said he liked what he saw in
the presentation, but he was wondering if there could be slightly higher elevations. Ms. Travis
              s 
options aswell as affordability.
Mr. Seastrand said he was not a designer but staff reviewed these types of proposals every day,
and so he wanted to rely on their professional opinions. He asked staff if they were comfortable
with the proposal. Mr. Bench said that they needed more enhancements with better materials on
the back sides. However, as staff they did not want to design the project for the developers. Mr.
Seastrand said the overall conclusion would be to reduce the amount of stucco.
Ms. Travis said the proposal met the current construction materials as outlined in the City's
ordinance, and she found the process to be frustrating due to mixed communications from the
City.
Mr. Davidson said they were not in compliance with the zone. The proposed project had a higher
density. While the spirit of what they were trying to portray was consistent, they were not in
compliance with the zone in terms of density and approval of a concept plan.
Mayor Brunst moved to continue to June 13, 2017. 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.
Mr. Macdonald noted he voted positively for this item because of the density.
6:00  P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - University Parkway  Landscaping Amendments
ORDINANCE - Sections 22-8-9(A), 22-11-17(R), 22-11-24(E)(16), 22-11-47(H)(4) and
enact Appendix TT of the Orem City Code pertaining to landscaping requirements along
theUniversityParkwaycorridor
CityCouncil Minutes-May23,2017(p.14)

Mr. Bench presented a request from the Development Services Department that the City Council
amend Sections 22-8-9(A), 22-11-17(R), 22-11-24(E)(16), 22-11-47(H)(4) and enact Appendix
TT of the Orem City Code pertaining to landscaping requirements along the University Parkway
corridor.
The Development Services Department requested the City Council modify the landscaping
widened as part of the Provo/Orem Transportation Improvement Project (PROTRIP). In order to
make the widening possible, UTA was acquiring portions of many of the lots fronting University
Parkway. UTA would also be installing landscaping along a significant portion of University
Parkway.
The amount of landscaping that would be installed on each parcel along University Parkway
would vary somewhat as UTA must acquire enough property to complete the project, but was
also attempting to minimize the damage that was caused to each parcel. On some parcels, less
landscaping would be provided in order to prevent the loss of additional parking stalls or
buildings. Due to the unique configuration of each parcel, some properties would have more
landscaping and some would have less.
Because of the variation in the amount of landscaping that could reasonably be provided for each
parcel after the widening, it was not reasonable to have a uniform landscaping requirement for
properties along University Parkway that were impacted by the widening. Staff therefore
  s   s a     s   x s a
PROTRIP and represented the maximum amount of landscaping that could be installed on each
parcel without causing substantial additional damage to the parcels through the taking of
additional parking stalls, buildings or other improvements.
If the proposed amendments were adopted, each of the parcels shown in Appendix TT would be
conforming as tolandscaping requirements.
In addition, the proposed amendments would require property owners to be responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping located between the back of curb and lot line as well as for the
removal of snow, ice, weeds, dirt, and debris from the public sidewalk located on the property or
between thebackof curb and thepropertyline.
A neighborhood meeting was held by the City on May 2, 2017. Three business owners were in
attendance. Those in attendance were supportive of the proposed amendments.
The proposed ordinance amendments are outlined below. Appendix TT is also part of the agenda
summary but is shown in a separate document. The widening project includes a narrowing of the
landscaped park strips along the corridor and uniform tree plantings to be installed as part of the
improvement project.
22-8-9(A).Landscaping.
4.Notwithstandinganythinghereintothecontrary,landscapingfortheareasshowninAppendixTTof the
OremCityCodealong theUniversityParkwayfrontageshallbeprovidedandmaintainedasshownin
AppendixTT.Thissubsection4shallnotaffect therequirementsfor anyareanotincludedinAppendix
TT.
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.15)

5.Theownerofeachpropertyinacommercialzone(includingPDzonesthatallowcommercialuses)shall
be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping located between the back of street curb and the lot
line and for the removal of snow. ice. weeds, dirt and debris from any public sidewalk located on the
property orbetween theback of street curb and theproperty line.
CityCouncilMinutes-May23,2017(p.16)

22-11-17(R) Landscaping. - PD-5
9. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. landscaping for the areas shown in Appendix 'IT of the
Orem City C'ode along the University Parkway frontage shall be provided and maintained as shown in
Appendix T'T.
10. The owner of cach property in the PD-5 zone shall be responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping located between the back of street curb and the lot line and for the removal of snow, ice.
weeds, dirt and debris from any public sidewalk located on the property or between the back of street curb
and the property line.
22-11-24(E)(16)-PD-12
16. Landscaping and Lighting Plans. Landscaping and lighting plans shall be submitted to the City for
approval as a part of the site plan.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. landscaping for the
areas shown in Appendix TT of the Orem City Code along the University Parkway frontage shall be
provided and maintained as shown in Appendix TT. The owner of each property in the PD-12 zone shall be
responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping located between the back of street curb and the lot line
and for the removal of snow. ice. weeds, dirt and debris from any public sidewalk located on the property
or between the back of street curb and the property line.
22-11-47(H)(4) -PD-34
f.Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,landscapingfor the areas shown inAppendixTT of the
OremCityC'odealongtheUniversityParkwayfrontageshallbeprovidedandmaintainedasshownin
AppendixTT.The owner ofeachpropertyinthePD-34zoneshall beresponsibleforthemaintenanceofall
landscaping locatedbetween thebackof street curband thelotlineandfor theremoval of snow,ice,
weeds, dirt and debris from any public sidewalk located on the property or between the back of street curb
and the property line.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Sections 22-8-
9(A), 22-11-17(R), 22-11-24(E)(16), 22-11-47(H)(4) and enact Appendix TT of the Orem City
Code pertaining to landscaping requirements along the University Parkway corridor. Staff
supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Greg Brown said he was the landscape architect. He explained that they had to find trees that
would be good street trees that could handle seasonal changes and the salt from the road. The
goal was to have a nice cathedral effect with the trees and some nice, flowering plants. He said
this would create a good driving and pedestrian environment. It would be a signature landscape
in the City as the area developed.
Mr. Bench said the landscaping plan had been given a great deal of thought.
Mayor Brunst said he had reviewed the plan and thought it would be a beautification of the
parkway.
Mr. Macdonald concurred with the Mayor and said he was not an expert in horticulture and
appreciated thosewhowere.
Mr. Lentz asked if the trees would impact the sidewalks, and Mr. Bench said the trees were
Mr. Davidson said the soil underneath would be engineered to make sure they were receiving an
adequate amount of moisture as they matured.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.17)

Mr. Sumner said he was concerned about the business owners who would have responsibility to
maintain them. Mr. Bench said many of the businesses were looking forward to maintaining the
trees. Staff had also indicated that the business owners would not be allowed to cut the trees
down. Mr. Sumner asked how the landscape maintenance would be monitored, and Mr. Bench
said staff would be assigned to oversee that responsibility.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. When no one came forward to speak so he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Lentz asked how property owners, both current and future, would be educated on how to
maintain the landscaping. Mr. Bench said they would have to handle situations on a case-by-case
basis. Currently there weren't any specific protocols in place.
Mr. Spencer asked if the property owners would be responsible for replacing dead trees, and Mr.
Bench answered affirmatively.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Sections 22-8-9(A), 22-11-17(R), 22-11-
24(E)(16), 22-11-47(H)(4) and enact Appendix TT of the Orem City Code pertaining to
landscaping requirements along the University Parkway corridor. Mr. Sumner seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
6:00 P.M.PUBLIC HEARING - Street Vacation- 0.15 acres of 325 West Street
ORDINANCE -Vacation of a portion of 325 West Street locatedbetween1425 and
1437North
Mr. Bench presented a request from the Department of Development Services and the property
owners at 325 West and 1425,1437 and 1440North requested that the City Council vacate a
portion of 325 West Street located between 1425 and 1437 North, with the City retaining a
public utility easement for sewer, water, and storm drain.
The property owners at 325 West and 1425, 1437 and 1440 North made a request to vacate a
portion of 325 West Street directly in front of their homes.
If the City Council wished to vacate the portion of 325 West Street between 1425 and 1437
North, State law required that it must first determine (1) there was good cause for the vacation
and (2) the vacation would not be detrimental to the public interest.
Although not required by State law, the owners should also be required to record a new
subdivision plat that incorporated the area of the vacated street into the rest of their property.
Development Services recommended that the City Council, by ordinance, vacate approximately
      e  h       s s
public utility easement and an easement in favor of the City of Orem for sewer, water, and storm
drain.
City CouncilMinutes-May23,2017(p.18)

Mr. Bench said they had worked with the neighbors for a year. Staff felt there needed to be some
kind of demarcation designating it as a private street.
Mr. Lentz wondered how much traffic would be traveling on the road on any given day. Mr.
Goodrich said it would depend upon the number of trips made each day. Orem's average trip rate
was higher than the national average. He said that, to him, it was not an issue of street volume. It
would continue to look like a public road. In his thirty years of experience, when people owned
streets, they didn't like the maintenance responsibilities. Staff also made the recommendation to
have a median in the center of the road, where a sign could be placed indicating it was a private
street. Alternatively, there could be a side bulb-out. Placing a sign indicating that the road was
private would reduce traffic from the general public throughout the neighborhood.
Mr. Lentz asked what would happen in the future if the property owners decided they no longer
wanted to continue paying for maintenance treatments. Mr. Goodrich said the City could take the
street back and keep the bulb-out if it was built. The difference would be that the sign
designating it as a private street would be removed. He noted that they were given other options
as well, such as painting white lines on the private road indicating where it started and ended.
The benefit of the bulb-out was that it made it clear to everyone, including street sweepers,
snowplows, crack sealers, etc. that they did not need to work on that street.
Mr. Spencer asked if the resident could be required to paint the white lines every year. Mr.
Bench said once the City did not own it they could not mandate that they paint it. Mr. Spencer
wondered if the neighbors could contract with the City to do the maintenance. Mr. Goodrich said
there was a program where the City could participate for up to thirty percent cost reimbursement.
They would have to obtain three bids and choose a contractor that was preapproved by the City.
Mr. Goodrich's concern was whether or not they could afford to maintain the street.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
LaNae Millet reviewed the history of the strip of property to give them control over access. Last
spring they had received an email requesting that the residents in that area construct curb, gutter,
and sidewalk, and to design an extensive storm drainage plan to remove storm water from the
area. They expressed their dissatisfaction to the City and were then given a less expensivebut
still expensive-option. She worked with Mr. Bench and asked for other options which they sent
to the Council. She said the residents requested that the City approve option three.
Pat Conrad said they bought their home because it was on a dead-end street. With the
designation of a private drive, they preferred option three because it was the less obstructive and
theleast expensiveoption.
Jody Moss said the only people who came on her street were the people who lived there or were
visiting. She did not believe there was a need for a big sign since it was not a thru street.
Shiree Thurston expressed appreciation to the City Council for their service. She said she saw
she did not think there would be a lot of traffic. She said she thought a simple sign would be
sufficient.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017(p.19)

Mrs. Lauret asked if a bulb-out gave more visibility. Mr. Goodrich said the issue was not the
amount of traffic on the street; rather, it was to draw attention to people that it was no longer a
public street.
Georgia Omer said she requested option three which was used on 1600 North and 400 West.
Signs on the street and painting on the road were effective in notifying the public that the road
was private. She said she saw the pop-outs being hit by drivers all the time near Orchard
Elementary. Furthermore, it would take out space on the road, thereby making it difficult for
school busses and large City vehicles to navigate through the neighborhood. Lastly, she said
three of the residents on that street had large RVs and did not want thepop-out.
Mayor Brunst said there was a third homeowner who contacted him to express support for option
three.
Mr. Macdonald asked if it was possible to simply vacate five feet on the far south end of the
street. Mr. Goodrich said that if he remembered correctly, Mr. Earl recommended against a
partial vacation because it would create a nuisance strip which was against City policy.
Mr. Bell added that the dead-end road did not have a proper turnaround.
Mr. Lentz said he might be in favor of option three, but he was not sure if the next homeowners
would be as willing as the current homeowners to maintain the street in question.At some point
in time the residents might want to give the street back to the City. If that were the case, it would
be simpler to remove some paint than a concrete bulb-out.
staff did not receive the other options until today. The bulb-out was agreed on a year ago, but the
neighbors had since changed their minds.
Mr. Spencer asked if it would be possible to simply connect the two sidewalks at the dead-end
and make the sidewalk private rather than the street.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-23(B) and Appendix X of the Orem
City Code pertaining to development standards of the PD-11 zone at 1430 South Sandhill Road
and that a sign be put up that states “"Private Drive, Residents Only" on one side and that the
street be painted from home to the other, and that the City retain a public utility easement. 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.
RESOLUTION - Approving a 30 mph speed limit on 400 East from 1600 North to
Center Street, and on 400 South from 1200 West to 1830 West (City of Vineyard limits)
City Council Minutes-May 23,2017(p.20)

Mr. Goodrich presented a request to modify the speed limit on 400 East from 1600 North to
Center Street, and on 400 South from 1200 West to 1830 West (City of Vineyard limits) to thirty
miles per hour (mph).
The residents involved with the Orem North and Sharon Park Neighborhood Plans requested that
the speed limit be raised on 400 East.
The City of Vineyard, and the Vineyard Elementary school, had requested that the speed limit be
raised on 400 South. With 40o South posted as twenty-five mph it did not meet State
requirements for a twenty mph school zone speed limit with flashing lights. With 400 South
posted at thirty mph it would meet State requirements for the twenty mph school zone speed
limit.
The City Engineer, Transportation Engineer, and Traffic Operations Engineer had completed an
analysis for the specified sections of 400 East and 400 South that considered the design speed of
the roads, prevailing vehicle speeds, traffic and roadside conditions, and other safety factors.
They recommended a thirty mph speed limit.
The City Transportation Advisory Commission reviewed the recommendation of the Engineers
and supported the recommendation for a thirty mph speed limit on the specified sections of
400 East and 400 South.
It was recommended that the speed limit for 400 East from 1600 North to Center Street, and for
400 South from 1200 West to 1830 West, be changed to thirty mph.
The Department of Development Services recommended that the City Council, by ordinance,
raise the posted speed limit from twenty-five mph to thirty mph on 400 East from 1600 North to
Center Street, and on 400 South from 1200 West to 1830 West (City of Vineyard limits).
Mr. Seastrand said that thirty mph seemed a random number since most streets in Orem were
either twenty-five mph or thirty-five mph. Mr. Goodrich said there had been multiple requests in
the past from residents and the City of Lindon to raise the speed limit on that stretch of 40o East
because it was a wider road and had a higher functional classification. Mr. Seastrand asked why
the speed limit could not be raised on other similar streets throughout the City. Mr. Goodrich
said it was important to look at each street's width and functional classification. Staff
recommended keeping north of 1600 North at twenty-five mph because of the characteristics of
the road.
input.
Mrs. Lauret then moved, by resolution, to approve a thirty mph speed limit on 400 East from
1600 North to Center Street, and on 400 South from 1200 West to 1830 West (City of Vineyard
limits). Mayor Brunst seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret,
Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion
passed unanimously.
City CouncilMinutes-May 23,2017(p.21)

Mr. Seastrand noted that the signs at the intersection at 400 North and 400 East were difficult to
see.
ORDINANCE - Approving the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant recipients for
the2017CAREgrantinground
Mr. Downs presented a recommendation for the CARE 2017 granting round.
On November 8, 2005, a majority of City of Orem voters voted in favor of enacting a local sales
and use tax of 0.1 percent as a means of enhancing financial support for recreational and cultural
facilities, and cultural organizations within the City of Orem. Known as the Cultural Arts and
Recreation Enrichment tax (CARE), the Orem City Council enacted the tax by ordinance on
November 22, 2005. The tax went into effect April 1, 2006, and was authorized for a period of
eight years. On November 5, 2013, a majority of City of Orem voters voted to continue
collectingtheCAREtaxfor anadditional tenyears.
On February 9, 2016, the City Council amended the CARE Program policies and procedures,
establishing eligibility requirements and an application process for this competitive granting
program. Three categories of grants were established, including Recreational and Cultural
Facilities, available for publicly-owned or operated facilities; Cultural Arts Major Grants, of
$10,0o0 or more for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts organizations, Cultural Arts Mid-
Major Grants, of between $5,000 to $9,999 or more for operating costs of nonprofit cultural arts
organizations and, Cultural Arts Mini Grants, of up to $4,999 for operating costs of nonprofit
cultural arts organizations.
Applications for this CARE granting round were due on March 9, 2017. As a group and with
members serving as a smaller review panel, the City Council, along with the CARE Tax
Advisory Commission, met in a series of public meetings in March and April to hear from
Utah law required that the entire amount of revenues and interest collected as a result of the
imposition of the tax be distributed in a manner consistent with Utah Code Ann. 59-12-1403,
which allows for granting to one or more facilities or organizations. Utah law also required the
City to provide for that distribution by ordinance.
The City Manager recommended the City Council, by ordinance, approve the amounts to be
awarded to CAREgrant recipientsfor the 2017granting round.
Mr. Downs reviewed the recommendations.
Mr. Seastrand asked if the motion could include designating the money to rework the drawings
for the library auditorium, but that they funds not be spent until they had clearer directions for
the project. He also said that funding Permanent Public Art at S5,0o0 might be limiting. He
suggested that the Arts Council combine efforts with the Permanent Public Art project, and that
the amounts allocated for each group be combined for a total of $10,000.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017 (p.22)

Theater Orem (HCTO), and the Utah Regional Ballet (URB).
Mr. Lentz said he liked some of recommendations in proposals A and D. Last year everyone took
a “"haircut." The challenge was that there were limited funds. He pointed out that it appeared that
the SCERA, if the Shell improvements funding were included, would receive an increase of
about $40,000. He reviewed the survey results that asked Orem residents how they would prefer
to use CARE tax dollars. The whole process of allocating funds came down to seven people and
was a very emotional one rather than one a decision based on numbers. The survey showed that
Orem residents strongly preferred to put the money toward the library auditorium and improving
theSCERAShell.
Mr. Sumner said he did have an emotional connection to SCERA and the HCTO, but they were
be achieved through people.
Mr.Spencer said he could get behind a combination of options C and D.
Mr. Seastrand said he liked option D because it provided an opportunity for the City to reallocate
funds later, if necessary. He said that besides getting as much funding to organizations as
possible, there was a need to figure out a solution to the library auditorium. The opportunity to
improve the SCERA Shell was also important, and he liked having some funding available to
look at it.
Mr. Davidson said he was not sure it was reasonable to look beyond six or seven years which
was the life of the tax. He said the CARE program was meant to be an enhancement program and
not a dependency program. He would like to see award amounts change that showed greater
independence and separation from the City, thereby allowing the City to allocate these resources
elsewhere. However, he was not sure that could be accomplished in one short year.
Mr. Lentz asked what could be accomplished if according to option D, all the facilities funding
was allocated towards the SCERA Shell. Mr. Davidson said he did not think the money set aside
could do more than to look at assessment of the Shell. He said he thought $50,000 was a good
starting point, but he did not know for sure. He said some studies could be quite expensive. Mr.
Lentz said his only concern with option D was they would be taking some money from the
SCERA and quite a bit more from HCTO; however, the SCERA could get the benefit from the
facility funding. He said that in looking at the survey results, it seemed residents valued the
quality of HCTO, and it therefore scored higher.
Mr. Macdonald said the residents trusted the Council with the distribution of the CARE tax
funds. A significant sample of residents did speak in the survey. He said he supported option A
with the understanding there could be additional funding
Mr. Spencer moved, by ordinance, to approve the amounts to be awarded to the CARE grant
recipients for the 2017 CARE granting round—modified option D. Mayor Brunst seconded the
motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner.
Those voting nay: Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, and Mark Seastrand. The motion passed 4-to-3.
City Council Minutes -May 23,2017(p.23)

RESOLUTION -Amending the policies andprocedures for city optionfunding of
recreational  and  cultural  facilities _ and   cultural  organizations  known  as  the  CARE
program
Mr. Downs presented a resolution amending the policies and procedures for City option funding
of recreational and cultural facilities and cultural organizations known as the CARE program.
The existing CARE policies and procedures were adopted on December 9, 2008, and most
recently updated on February 9, 2016, to reflect the addition of mid-major grant recipients.
This update to the CARE policies and procedures reflected changes to how the money was
dispersed to mini and mid-major grant recipients. Currently mini and mid-major grant recipients
received a lump-sum check at the beginning of the fiscal year. The update would allow
change would ensure that the CARE grant was being used for qualifying expenditures.
Mr. Downs recommended that the City Council, by resolution, approve the resolution updating
the CARE Policies and Procedures.
Mr. Macdonald moved, by resolution, to amend the policies and procedures for City option
funding of recreational and cultural facilities and cultural organizations known as the CARE
program. 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.
RESOLUTION - Adopting the Aspen and Timpview Neighborhood Plan and amending
the City of Orem General Plan to include the Aspen and Timpview Neighborhood Plan as
AppendixF
Mr. Snideman introduced Becky Buxton, who was a member of the Advisory Commission and
Planning Commission, Jenny Bradley, Manager of the Aston and Monteval apartment
complexes, and Nancy Parker who was a resident in the Aspen neighborhood.
He presented a request from the Department of Development Services that the City Council
approve, by resolution, the Aspen and Timpview Neighborhood Plan and amend the Orem City
This was the fourth neighborhood plan to be completed in the City of Orem's Neighborhood
Plan Program. The major goals of the plan include promoting community planning by working
with residents to identify local concerns and needs; improving communication with residents;
and applying citywide plans at the neighborhood level.
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 include an
City Council Minutes - May 23,2017 (p.24)

introduction, an inventory of existing conditions, future land uses, transportation, neighborhood
preservation, and implementation.
Some of the major objectives of the plan include:
·  Preserving the character of the neighborhoods while allowing for appropriate growth and
redevelopment;
Addressing current and future traffic congestion concerns;
Improving non-vehicular access throughout the community;
?
Maintaining and improving parks and recreational facilities;
Improving coordination and ordinance enforcement; and
Providing sufficient amenities throughout the neighborhoods.
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.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Aspen and Timpview
Neighborhood Plan and amend the City of Orem General Plan to include the Orem Aspen and
recommendation.
Mr. Snideman posed questions to members of the neighborhood group so they could share the
concerns they brought into the neighborhood planning meetings. He said the heart of the
neighborhood plan program was to engage with residents.
Mr. Lentz asked if the City could use technology tools better, such as Facebook Live for
residents who could not attend the meetings but still wanted to participate, even if after the fact.
Mr. Seastrand asked how much time the residents had invested in this process. Mr. Snideman
said if they attended all the meetings they would have put in at least twelve hours. He suggested
the Council review the neighborhood plans when considering proposals in those neighborhoods.
Mr. Lentz moved, by resolution, to adopt the Aspen and Timpview Neighborhood Plan and
amending the City of Orem General Plan to include the Aspen and Timpview Neighborhood
Plan as Appendix F. 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 April 2017 was provided to the Council.
City Council Minutes - May 23, 2017 (p.25)

CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 
There were no City Manager lnfonnation Items. 
ADJOURNMENT 
Mr. Spencer moved to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion. Those voting aye: 
Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, 
and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously. 
The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. 
{J)l'fYIU. e  
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder 
Approved: Jw1e 27, 2017 
City Council Minutes- May 23, 2017 (p.26)