City Council · 2018-02-13

CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street Orem, Utah
February 13, 2018
3:00 P.M.WORK SESSION-PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
CONDUCTING Mayor Richard F. Brunst
Councilmembers Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom
ELECTEDOFFICIALS
Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent
Sumner
Jamie Davidson, City Manager; Brenn Bybee, Assistant
APPOINTEDSTAFF
City Manager; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
DISCUSSION - Business License Philosophy
Mr. Manning gave a presentation about Orem's previous and updated business licensing
philosophy. He said they had worked with Zions Bank Public Finance (ZBPF) to complete a
study on business licensing fees. Suzy Becker and Scott Aylett with ZBPF were present at the
meeting.
Mr. Manning first explained that businesses had unique service demands and there was an
element of public duty to have minimum safety standards met through inspections. The City had
oversight on ensuring that the public could safely visit a business. He said the old model for
determining a business's licensing fee was a standard base fee of $150 for new businesses and
$100 for renewing businesses, plus a $10 fee per employee of that business. One issue with this
approach was that it somewhat incentivized business owners to give inaccurate employee counts;
another was that number of employees typically had no correlation with the number of calls to
911 or other city services. He added that under the old model home occupation businesses were
not typically charged a licensing fee unless that business had an impact on the neighborhood
beyond the regular traffic one household would have, i.e. a home salon or a private music teacher
that had clients/students coming and going through the neighborhood during business hours.
Mr. Manning said the State seemed to be steering away from that way of figuring licensing fees,
and was moving toward a model where the fees charged were based on impact. He said they
needed to be sure they were complying with Utah Code 10-1-203, which included the stipulation
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.1)


that the licensing fee could not exceed the cost of services provided by the City, but that
businesses that created a greater than normal impact should be assessed a higher fee. This
philosophy was generally called a disproportionate service level philosophy, where fees beyond
a base fee covering administrative costs were assessed based on the demand to City services like
police, fire, inspections, and so on. Several other cities followed this philosophy when assessing
their business licensing fees.
Mr. Manning said there were broad business categories that businesses were placed in, based on
this proposed new model. If business had disproportionate regulatory costs, or disproportionate
service call costs, they should pay accordingly. For example, a restaurant that served alcohol had
different inspection and licensing requirements than others, and so their fees should reflect that.
A convenience store often had more calls to 911 than would a small office building, so the
convenience store's burden on the City was greater. Mr. Manning said in theory, property tax
covered the costs of police and fire but that was certainly not the case in Orem. He said the
business categories were made to help avoid the subsidizing of other businesses, but there were
some exceptions to that as well. Businesses like care facilities could place a disproportionate
burden on city services, but they were community needs so they tried not to price them out. Mr.
Manning continued that the category type of a business would determine renewal amounts and
with the proposed model certain groups would see those amounts increase significantly.
Mr. Macdonald said sales tax needed to be considered as part of the formula for what businesses
were charged. Mr. Davidson said sales tax had already been considered in their formulations. In
evaluation businesses they had had to be “agnostic" to a degree and try not to be too invested in
any one category; they wanted to avoid anecdotally assigning fees. Mr. Davidson said the whole
premise was that businesses would be paying for what they were using; if they did not draw on
city services then their fees would be less. This was the direction the State was moving, and they
wanted to stay in line with State guidelines.
Mr. Manning said they were still examining the formula and were open to suggestions from the
City Council. He said though it was somewhat easier to focus on services like fire and police,
there were other city services that added to disproportionate costs.
There was further discussion regarding the following:
· Business categories
·Minimum and maximum rates
Costs or losses from home occupation businesses
Options for online payments and other potential discounts for being “self-serving'
?
Aligning business licensing fees with other cities fees
?
Staying within State Code guidelines while still serving the needs of the City
Potential ways to educate business owners on changes
When asked about the specific costs of sending police and fire out on a call, Chief Giles said
there were many factors to consider for cost because the services varied so widely. The rough
estimate had been calculated to approximately $126 per police response, and approximately $487
for fire response.
City Council Minutes-February13,2018(p.2)


Mr. Spencer expressed some concern about “leaving money on the table" and said large
companies were used to paying larger fees for renewing their business licenses. Those higher
fees from larger companies could help offset the disproportionate costs for businesses like care
centers.
Mr. Davidson said there was a desire to be sensitive to the business community and encourage
growth while trying to make sure the city was being made whole from documents calls for
service. Net zero or above was ideal, but not likely to happen. He said these proposed changes
required a shift in philosophy.
Mayor Brunst said he would like to see an option with a net zero. He said Orem was known for
being business friendly and he just wanted to consider all options. Mr. Bybee said a phased
approach could be considered when making these changes.
Mr. Manning said they would continue to discuss and shape the final proposed changes and
appreciated input from the Council.
DISCUSSION-NeighborhoodPreservation
Mr. Bybee explained that there would be two components to this presentation. First, Chief Giles
and Sgt. John Savage would discuss the Neighborhood Preservation Unit (NPU) that was a
division in the Orem Police Department. Second, Mr. Stephens and Orem Prosecutor D. Jacob
Summers would discuss the options for dealing with violations to the City's nuisance codes.
Chief Giles gave a brief history of the NPU in Orem, and said he was among the very first
offices assigned to that division in the City. NPU was started in 2000 as a means of getting rid of
a variety of nuisances in the City, including:
Illegal apartments (illegal accessory & too many occupants)
Junky yards
Abandoned vehicles
 Drug and party houses
Until the year 20oo, there had not been a dedicated unit to address these nuisance issues
identified in Chapter 11 of the Orem City Code. Before the formation of NPU it was up to the
Zoning Division staff of the City to try to deal with these things until it became necessary to
involve the police. Chief Giles said many of the problems then were still problems now, but the
NPU had made some vast improvements in most areas.
Often houses with junky yards or party houses were not owner-occupied, and NPU officers were
able to contact residents of the homes and get the information they needed to contact the home
owners. Once these absentee landlords learned that police officers were involved in the
happenings at their homes, they responded and usually the nuisance issues were resolved.
According to the City Code, “[a]ny person, whether as owner, agent, or occupant, who creates,
aids in creating, or contributes to a nuisance, or who supports, continues, or retains a nuisance, is
responsible for the nuisance."
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.3)


Chief Giles said there were currently three (3) officers assigned to NPU and they were all
officers with excellent interpersonal skills that were invaluable resources to the City. He said
there was usually a simple way to fix and issue, or the more heavy handed way involving
criminal citations. More often than not, NPU officers were contacting the same individuals over
and over for habitual nuisance violations and so they wanted to get some input from the Council
about the direction the Council would like NPU to go in terms of enforcement. He turned time
over to Sgt. Savage.
Sgt. Savage introduced NPU's newest employee, Darryl Sheley. Mr. Sheley said he had
previously lived in Orem and had worked as an Orem dispatcher before moving to Virginia to
enforcement once more. Sgt. Savage said Mr. Sheley was not a sworn police officer, but was part
of a pilot program for NPU to help with code enforcement. His responsibilities would include
sending notification letters, approaching homes and conducting follow-up, etc.
Sgt. Savage said the tried to use the Three E's when working with residents on nuisance calls -
Educate, Encourage, and Enforce. Sometimes residents did not know they were guilty of a
nuisance code violation, and a high percentage of residents would voluntarily correct the issue
once they were contacted by NPU. Some needed more encouragement, and the tools NPU had at
their disposal were criminal citations, administrative citations, and abatement.
In response to a question about percentages for different kinds of calls, Sgt. Savage said there
was a swinging pendulum and things never seemed to stay static. The time of year was also a
factor, because people were less likely to call about junky or weed-filled yards in the winter.
They did not want to be heavy-handed but they wanted mechanisms in place to deal with
habitual nuisances and folks who refused to come into compliance. Years ago the City had
gained national attention when officers were trying to work with a habitual offender over her
dead lawn and she became hostile and belligerent. The exchanged ended with the woman in
handcuffs being taken to jail. Sgt. Savage said that was far from the ideal scenario, and the key
was finding a balance between encouragement and enforcement. He said Mr. Stephens and Mr.
Summers would explain more on the enforcement side.
Mr. Summers said the attorney's options for processing a nuisance case were:
1. Prosecution of nuisance in the criminal justice system (Orem Code 11-1-10(D))
2. Administrative Citation Process (Orem Code 11-1-9)
3. File an injunctive lawsuit for abatement
He said prosecuting a case through the criminal justice system averaged around 7 months to
resolve. Administrative citations had mechanisms in place and resolving a case that way
averaged around 6 weeks to resolve. The hardest by far was to go through an injunctive lawsuit
for abatement, which averaged around 2 years to resolve.
Mr. Summers said he had personally been through each of these scenarios, and one particular
source of frustration was that the nuisance would persist while these options were pursued. There
were also fines that were associated with nuisance citations. Some of those fines were hefty to
start with, and had additional fines that accrued daily until the issue was resolved. Sometimes
these fines reached amounts in the tens of thousands, but the City was hesitant to put a lien on a
property because of a weed-filled yard with a dead lawn.
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.4)


Mr. Summers said the administrative citation process, which had the shortest timeline, required
that the City have a Hearing Officer to essentially rule on the case. The City would go through an
RFP process to find a third party individual with experience in municipal law to act as an
impartial officer for these hearings. It was noted that such an individual may be somewhat
difficult to find.
Mr. Stephens said the will of the Council would ultimately shape the way nuisance cases were
handled. His perspective was that compliance, rather than enforcing the penalty, was the
preference. When Mr. Lentz asked what kind of “teeth" they were looking for, Mr. Stephens said
a quicker way to abatement. To enforce a fine, a judge's order needed to be obtained and this
way the City could move forward enforcing in a more legally defensible way.
Mr. Lentz asked about the costs of each option, and whether offender's fines or court fees
covered those costs. Mr. Summers said the costs were hard to calculate because it was the
individual time staff had to dedicate to each case, and each case varied. The typical fine for a
nuisance citation was around $150, and more often than not the judge would suspend the court
fee. $150 did not cover the costs of staff's time to handle the case. Chief Giles added that
sometimes someone was charged criminally and found guilty of the nuisance violation, but the
judge would suspend the sentence and much of the fine. Again, it did not cover the cost to the
City.
In response to Mr. Sumner's question, Sgt. Savage said that only a small percentage of nuisance
cases got to the point where enforcement was needed, but they needed to know where the
Council was in terms of how aggressively to enforce, or not. Mr. Sumner asked if there was
enough man power in NPU to serve the City's needs. Chief Giles said that was a tricky question
but they would continue doing what they could with the resources they had. Having the
Council's support was important.
Mr. Macdonald said he was all for compliance over enforcement but had concerns about how
long each process might take, and the issue of what to do with the small percentage of those that
ignored NPU's warnings and refused to pay fines or come in to compliance.
Chief Giles commented that some of the habitual nuisance offenders were individuals struggling
with mental health issues, but to Mr. Macdonald's point certainly not all of them - some people
were just difficult. All of the NPU officers had training in working with individuals with mental
health issues, and there was now a separate mental health unit within the OPD. They worked
hand in hand with adult protective services and other organizations to try to help these people
and resolve the nuisance issues because sometimes individual offenders were not able to resolve
theissuesthemselves.
Mayor Brunst said he personally preferred the process of administrative citation. It seemed less
heavy-handed and had a quicker timeline for results.
Mr. Bybee said people were able to contact NPU through the City's website, as well as the new
311 system. The 311 system would help residents make requests and track those requests as they
were directed to the right parties and hopefully resolved. This included new programming online
as well as changes at the City Center. They were utilizing software with a knowledge base,
which allowed staff to help resolve or redirect cases as needed. There had been a soft opening of
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.5)


this new system, and personnel had been rearranged to direct patrons to a kind of “one-stop-
shop" in the new 311 Help Center. Mr. Bybee said it was anticipated that through these changes
customer service could be improved and residents would have more involvement in seeing their
questions/concerns addressed. Once all the pieces were in place they would have a big marketing
campaign to make residents aware of the 311 system. He asked the Council to let him know if
they came upon any bugs in the system so they could address those.
DISCUSSION-Eric Dowdle Centennial Painting&Puzzle
Mr. Clark, head of the Centennial Celebration Committee, said he had reached out to local artist
Folk Art, and Mr. Clark turned the presentation over to them.
Mrs. Hemingway said she had worked with Eric Dowdle for nearly 20 years, and he was well-
known not only locally but nationally and even internationally. She said the purpose of their visit
with the City Council today was to discuss some of the elements that should be included in the
painting to help Eric tell the story of Orem. She said they also had a wide variety of products that
could be purchased with the painting, including the ever-popular puzzle option. Mrs.
Hemingway said that many organizations had worked with Dowdle Folk Art for these kinds of
things and not only was it successful, but it was meaningful as well.
Mr. Hemingway said the products could be used to help generate revenue through sales or could
be given as gifts or giveaways - they were many possibilities. He added that the image would
become property of the entity that commissioned it, so the City could go on using the art into the
future. When asked about the timeline, Mr. Hemingway said that Mr. Dowdle typically required
six months lead time to begin working on a project. The sizing options were 16 x 20 or 19 x 26.
He said that the larger size worked better for trying to fit more visuals in, and the cost was
estimatedaround$60,000.
Mr. Clark said they anticipated executing a contract with the company by the end of the month,
with the go ahead from the Council.
Mrs. Lauret said she had previously been involved in a Dowdle project and thought it was great
fun, and perfect to use as a gift. She thought the Orem Centennial was a great time to pursue this
kind of project.
Mr. Macdonald asked if they intended contact businesses and use the puzzle as a marketing tool.
Mr. Clark said no, the thought was to keep the puzzle non-commercial. They could sell the
puzzle to help offset costs. Mr. Macdonald said the cost seemed high. He knew UVU had done a
Dowdle puzzle project in the past, and based on what he had seen with that he was not sure how
successful selling the puzzle to offset costs would be.
Mr. Bybee said a book was being worked on for the centennial that would have more
In response to a question about other projects being considered for the Centennial Celebration,
Mr. Clark reviewed some of the proposed projects including:
City Council Minutcs -Fcbruary 13, 2018 (p.6)


Commemorative collector's pins
Modifying City logo to reflect centennial
Photo contests/videography contests
Commissioned art
Portrait and puzzle
Song or jingle for the City
Kickoff party
Mayor's Centennial Gala with dignitaries and honorees
Birthday party for the City
Concerts and special performances
100 acts of kindness
Plant 100 centennial trees
Socialmediaoutreach
Mr. Clark said that was just a sampling of the list the Centennial Committee had discussed. The
tentative budget for the Centennial Celebration was around $212,000.
Mayor Brunst said he had discussed with the Miss Orem Board the idea of entering the Miss
Orem float in the Days of 47 Parade; Mr. Clark said that was an excellent idea. Mayor Brunst
asked the Council's opinion on moving forward with the Dowdle art project.
The general consensus of the Council was that this was a good project. Mr. Macdonald noted that
he wanted to ask UVU about their experience doing this before signing off. Mayor Brunst said
this may not be a money maker per se, but would be more for the experience. Mr. Lentz pointed
out that commissioning art was something the Council had discussed in the past, and this seemed
like a great opportunity.
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; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works
Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney; Jason Bench,
Planning Division Manager; and Jackie Lambert, Deputy
City Recorder
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.7)


PreviewUpcomingAgendaItems
Staff presented a preview of upcoming agenda items.
Agenda Review
The City Council and staff reviewed the items on the agenda.
Mr. Davidson informed the Council that Planning Commissioner David Moulton would be in
attendance, and he was intending to share his opinion on the Palos Verdes Student Housing
Development being considered during the regular meeting.
Mayor Brunst said he anticipated a larger than usual crowd at the meeting for that very agenda
item. He wanted to converse with the Council on how best to manage the time on that item. His
hope was that those on either side of the issue would have the chance to speak, and that they
limit repetitive comments. Mayor Brunst said it was important for all to have their voice heard,
but there was little point in belaboring the same points over and over. He had prepared a
statement with the help of Mr. Stephens that he intended to read at the beginning of the regular
meeting so those waiting for the agenda item to be called could discuss amongst themselves the
best way to conduct the conversation.
There was subsequent discussion about what length of time would be appropriate for public
comment. All acknowledged that this was a sensitive item and they did not want anyone feeling
that their side was underrepresented or that their time was unfairly cut short. The final consensus
was for 90 minutes of public comment, with each side taking turns for comment until that time
was met.
City Council New Business
There was no new City Council business.
The Council adjourned at 5:50 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00P.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; Steven Downs, Assistant City Manager;
Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Karl Hirst, Recreation
Department Director; Richard Manning, Administrative
Services Director; Bill Bell, Development Services
Director; Scott Gurney, Fire Department Director; Gary
Giles, Police Department Director; Charlene Crozier,
City Council Minutes -February 13,2018(p.8)


Library Department Director; Chris Tschirki, Public
Works Director; Steve Earl, Deputy City Attorney;
Jason Bench, Planning Division Manager; Peter
Wolfley, Communications Specialist; and Jackie
Lambert, Deputy City Recorder
INVOCATION/
INSPIRATIONALTHOUGHT Darryl J. Root
William Greer
PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE
APPROVALOFMINUTES
Mr. Spencer moved to approve the January 17, 2018 Joint City Council/ASD meeting minutes,
and the January 23, 2018 City Council meeting minutes. Mrs. Lauret seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark
Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR'SREPORT/ITEMSREFERREDBYCOUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments toBoards and Commissions
Mr. Seastrand moved to make the following appointments:
 Reappointment of Richard Clark to the Recreation Advisory Commission
·
First-time appointment of Heather Karns, Robert Knight, and Sara Steckbauer to the
Recreation Allocation Advisory Commission
First-time appointment of Sallie Matthews and John Whittaker to the Summerfest
Advisory Committee; and
First-time appointment of Teresa Horn and Steve Shallenberger to the Summerfest
Partnership Subcommittee.
Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard F. Brunst, Debby Lauret, Sam
Lentz, Tom Macdonald, Mark Seastrand, David Spencer, and Brent Sumner. The motion passed
unanimously.
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not
scheduled as public hearings on the agenda. Those wishing to speak should have signed in prior
to the meeting, and comments were limited to three minutes or less.
Mayor Brunst read a statement regarding the proposed student housing development. It was
noted that those who had signed up to make public comments were going to be speaking during
the SLU code discussion, Item #14.
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.9)


CONSENTITEMS
There were no Consent Items.
SCHEDULEDITEMS
RESOLUTION - Designating a portion of 1150 South between 800 East Street and State
Street in Orem as Park Avenue
Mr. Bench presented a request from the City Manager recommending that the City Council, by
resolution, designate 1100 South and 1150 South between 800 East and State Street in Orem as
"Park Avenue".
1100 South and 1150 South Street runs through University Place from 800 East to State Street.
This is currently a private street which has been newly improved as an east/west connection for
University Place. University Place requests that this section of 1100 South and 1150 South be
renamed“Park Avenue".
To avoid confusion for the traveling public, all street signs will continue to include the 1100
South and 1150 South designations underneath the Park Avenue designation. The proposed
resolution directs City staff to work with University Place to implement this change. All costs
associated with the sign changes will be the responsibility of University Place.
Mr. Bench presented the staff report as well as an aerial view of the subject property. He
explained the request was to change the name of the street in front of the new park built adjacent
to the University Place Mall. The City would require the applicant to maintain the coordinates
underneath the name. Staff recommended approval of this request.
Mayor Brunst asked if this was being used as public road. Mr. Bench said it was a private road
with public access.
Mr. Seastrand asked if any addresses would be affected. Mr. Bench said the private addresses
could be affected; however, other addresses would not be affected.
Mr. Lentz moved, by resolution, to designate a portion of 1150 South between 800 East Street
and State Street in Orem as Park Avenue. 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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED ITEM - SLU Codes in M1 and M2
zones
ORDINANCE - Amending Appendix ^A' of the Orem City Code by changing Standard
Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and waste materials) from
"Permitted" to “Not-Permitted" uses in the M1 and M2 zones
CityCouncil Minutcs-February13,2018(p.10)


Mr. Bench explained that this request was continued from a December 12, 2017 City Council
meeting to give the Council additional time to study and consider the item. Mr. Bench presented
a request from the Development Services Department that the City Council amend Appendix ^A'
of the Orem City Code by changing Standard Land Use Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and
  i  ssn eon, o e,  (s sm p ds) i
zones.
Currently, solid waste disposal (SLU 4850) was permitted in the M1 and M2 zones and scrap
and waste materials (SLU 5193) was permitted in the M2 zone. Both these uses by their nature
carried with them negative externalities associated with the disposal and transfer of waste. Such
externalities included offensive sights and smells, noise, pollution, dust, attraction of fowls and
rodents, and traffic generation of heavy vehicles.
Such negative externalities had previously not posed as significant of an impact on Orem due to
lack of nearby development, a lower intensity of use, or more effective efforts by facility owners
to suppress negative impacts.
In recent years, the City of Orem and neighboring Vineyard City have both experienced a large
amount of commercial, industrial, and residential redevelopment around Geneva Road (adjacent
to the industrial areas that permit waste-related uses). Furthermore, the City of Orem was in the
process of conducting a Geneva Road Area Master Plan and Brownfield Study, which would
identify areas around the current Ml, M2, and CM zones that showed potential for
redevelopment. Due to the changing nature of development in this area, and due to the nuisance
that existing solid-waste uses presented for neighboring properties, Staff believed it was not in
the best interest of the City and the general public to allow such uses to remain permitted in the
M1 andM2zones.
Waste disposal and recycling were services that were needed in the area. However, such
facilities were best located on land where there was a separation from residential, commercial
and other industrial uses sufficient to protect such uses from the noise, dust, smell and other
negative impacts that waste disposal and recycling uses were likely to create. With the changing
nature of development in the City's M1 and M2 zones as well as the properties adjacent to those
zones, and the ongoing development of land that had heretofore been vacant and might have
previously supplied an adequate buffer for waste disposal and recycling uses, it was no longer
reasonable or in the best interest of the City to allow waste disposal and recycling uses in the M1
andM2zones.
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council, by ordinance, amend Appendix ^A'
of the Orem City Code by changing SLU Codes 4850 (solid waste disposal) and 5193 (scrap and
supported thePlanning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Bench presented the staff report as listed above. Mayor Brunst asked if the facilities in these
areas would be allowed to expand. Mr. Bench responded in the negative, but noted that existing
business owners could sell their businesses. Mayor Brunst asked if there would be a financing
issue if these businesses were sold due to their status. Mr. Bench said in speaking with four or
five banks he was informed that this was a consideration; however, this was not the main
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.11)


concern when it came to financing a developer. Mayor Brunst said these were long-standing
businesses in the City that provided valuable recycling services.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the difference between solid waste disposal versus scrap and waste
aluminum materials such as hot water heaters that could be recycled and sold. Mr. Bench stated
the two businesses in question were Mike Dunn Recycling and MCR Recycling. They were
located next to each other on Geneva Road.
In response to a question from Mr. Spencer regarding UPS's concerns, Mr. Bench said their main
issue was the dust.
Mr. Lentz said as legal non-conforming businesses they could address issues with pests and dust
even though they could not expand. Mr. Bench said Dunn Recycling wanted to enclose their
building but this action would prohibit them from building the enclosure.
Mayor Brunst said the public hearing for this item was continued.
Bruce Baird, resident of Salt Lake City and legal counsel for Mike Dunn, said they were trying
to make the project better by building the enclosure. They had submitted an application to make
changes to the building before this item came before the Council. He said this action would
prohibit Dunn Recycling from making improvements to their property by constructing a new
facility. He stated they were in agreement of the zone change as long as they could build the
building. Mr. Baird said he had pictures of the enclosure to show the Council, and suggested
they delay the effective date of the ordinance by one or two months in order to finalize the
building issue with the Planning Commission. He noted they were on the fourth submittal and
had resolved all of the zoning issues. Mr. Bench said the application was incomplete at this time.
Mr. Baird said he was familiar with the situation in regards to the law. He continued that if the
City allowed his client to construct this facility, it would be a win for everyone. They would
have the waste services covered as well as a new zone. He said there was a provision that
allowed for buildings to be legally non-conforming.
Mr. Seastrand asked about the two land use codes 5193 and 5850 for scrap and solid waste,
respectively. He wanted to know which code Dunn Recycling was permitted to use. Mr. Baird
said he was not certain. Mr. Bench said the sites were approved as construction waste, which
a       s   s    s
Recycling would be able to complete their new facility under code 5193. Mr. Bench answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Earl said the ability to build onto the structure would diminish some of the complaints with
noise, smell, and dust. He said the Council could direct the applicant to build this structure while
still making it a non-permitted use in the zone.Mayor Brunst asked if this task could be
accomplished if an effective date was set for sixty days from today. Mr. Earl advised the Mayor
and Council to take time to consider their approach. Mayor Brunst asked how the waste was
presently being handled. Mr. Bench explained that the waste was hauled to the site where it was
then separated and transferred for further processing; this was what created the issues with dust
and seagulls. Mayor Brunst asked if by putting the materials in an enclosed building the
business would still be handling non-permitted waste. Mr. Bench said solid waste would be part
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.12)


of a separate land use. He explained that if they eliminated code 4850, Dunn Recycling could
only handle construction waste and not municipal waste. Mayor Brunst asked if they were
presently operating under both codes, to which Mr. Bench answered affirmatively.
Mike Dunn, Dunn Recycling, explained that his business took in materials from construction and
demolition; they did not accept municipal waste. He noted that recycling had changed in the last
few years and two permits were now required for these operations. He said they had been
working on constructing the new facility in order to accommodate the developing area. The
issues pertaining to dust and seagulls would be addressed.
Mr. Davidson said he had pictures of what was being disposed of at the site. Mayor Brunst said
they would review the images later.
Mrs. Lauret asked if the new facility would be considered an expansion if they were only putting
in an enclosure. Mr. Bench answered affirmatively, and said the Council would make the final
decision on the matter.
Mr. Bell said when this was originally brought forward two or three years ago, Dunn Recycling
had promised this same expansion. He said there had been no movement on the expansion since
that time. Mayor Brunst said there could be several reasons why this was the case.
Mr. Spencer asked if they determined the building enclosure was not an expansion, would Mr.
Dunn be able to handle solid waste and scrap. Mr. Bench answered affirmatively, and said this
would be a legal non-conforming use.
Mr. Davidson said Dunn Recycling was not permitted for code 4850 with regards to solid waste
disposal; they were permitted for scrap and waste materials. If they were granted a legal non-
conforming use they would have a continued right for scrap and waste, but not the solid waste.
Matt Salzburg, resident, said he was in partnership with Mr. Dunn to expand the facility. He said
the funding mechanism was in place and they wanted to move forward quickly. He said his
company operated a transfer station in Salt Lake City in a high traffic area, and they did not
experience any of the complaints that were listed for Mr. Dunn's facility. He explained that they
wanted to keep business costs low by having competition. Mr. Dunn's facility could dissolve if
improvements were not made and North Pointe did not provide the same recycling options. He
asked the Council to consider the benefits the facility provided.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Reese DeMille said he worked with a garbage and recycling company that transferred materials
to North Pointe, South Utah Valley and Dunn Recycling. He explained that this facility was
needed in order to preserve competition and keep prices low.
Rob Richards said he was in the local waste business for landfills. He asked the Council to
consider that Orem City was a stakeholder in North Pointe. Recently, North Pointe decided to
purchase part of the Bay View Landfill. The City agreed and the stakeholders moved forward
with the purchase. Had this purchase not taken place, there would not have been a public option
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.13)


for waste disposal. He said if private companies controlled the waste, the prices would become
monopolized.
Lisa Hancock said she was with Jeffs & Jeffs, P.C., representing MCR Recycling (MCR). She
emphasized that MCR's claims dealt with scrap and waste materials. The nuisances and noxious
elements were not associated with MCR and they had not received any complaints. She noted
that MCR was focused on being safe, clean, and health conscious. They provided community
outreach programs and services for recyclers. MCR was a close and convenient location that
collected aluminum, copper, and steel. She said there was no smelting or melting occurring on
the property, and they operated at hours that did not disturb the surrounding area.
Michael Wonderly, representing Jeffs & Jeffs, P.C., said this was recycling week in Orem and
they should be celebrating. He said he did not want the Council to inhibit or punish MCR and
Dunn Recycling for providing recycling services to the community. They had been good
neighbors in having partnered with Habitat for Humanity, as well as donating resources to local
public safety departments. He said they were legally permitted to operate under code 5193. He
In response to a question from Mayor Brunst, Mr. Wonderly said improvements included any
changes that happened over time, either aesthetically or functionally.  He explained that
implementing the amendment to restrict improvements prevented the businesses from making
changes that could help raise property values or reduce nuisances. He stated that MCR was a
thriving business; however, this amendment would only inhibit their ability to make
improvements.
Jeremy McRoberts, Vice President of Finance for Western Metal Recycling, stated that their
Provo facility recycled eighty-two million pounds of scrap metal per year. He said ninety-one
percent of their patrons lived within five miles of the facility or less. He was supportive of MCR
and was against the proposed change. He said they operated facilities in Utah and out of State as
legal non-conforming uses. This made it hard to make things more efficient, safe or attractive.
He would like to hear more alternative options that were not discussed in tonight's meeting. He
noted there would be a larger demand in the future for recycling.
Carlos (no last name provided), Manager of the MCR facility, said he had worked for MCR for
12 years.  When he started working for the company they were servicing thirty to forty
customers a day, and now they could see up to 300 customers a day. He noted that Utah County
was projected to grow so they needed the ability to expand. They currently had issues with
traffic flow through their facility, and permits were needed in order to make necessary upgrades
to infrastructure.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
Mayor Brunst commented that they supported both these businesses because they benefited the
community. While the City wanted these businesses to continue operating, they did not want to
allow for further expansion. He turned the time over to Mr. Earl.
Mr. Earl requested the Council allow staff to take more time to consider all possible options.
City Council Minutcs -Fcbruary 13, 2018 (p.14)


Mayor Brunst asked how much time was needed, to which Mr. Earl responded a month's time
would be adequate.
Mr. Lentz said he would like to find a way to satisfy all parties; however, the City would be
allowing a use that was not permitted which he felt was a step in the wrong direction. He did not
Mr. Seastrand expressed concerns that if the current solid waste code continued in the City, more
solid waste disposal and transfer stations were possible in the area. He did not think this was an
appropriate type of business for the area. He said he was in favor of the current code under
which both businesses presently operated; however, he did not support the continuation of solid
wastecode4850.
Mr. Spencer asked if they could limit the two businesses to the codes listed in the presentation.
Mayor Brunst said this discussion pertained to existing businesses operating under the right code.
Mr. Spencer said the purchase of additional property meant expansion, which was different than
simply building an enclosure. He said he did not like what was being done.
Mr. Seastrand said he was uncomfortable with Orem becoming a waste transfer station. He felt
like the push on this item was coming from cities other than Orem. He said people knew when
they were near a transfer station, and he did not feel that a solid waste transfer station was an
appropriate use within the city. Mr. Sumner agreed and asked that staff meet with the business
owners to reach a compromise.
Mr. Bybee wanted to make the Council aware of an indication given by officials from Republic
Waste Services at a North Pointe Transfer Station public meeting wherein those officials said
they were hauling curbside municipal waste from Alpine City down through the Dunn Transfer
Station on Geneva Road in Orem.
Mr. Davidson explained two ways in which this item could be addressed. First, the two
businesses could resolve their relationship to the 5193 code with a continuance. Second, neither
business was allowed to operate under the 4850 code and the Council could vote to prohibit its
use. Mr. Davidson said they were not currently permitted to operate under the 4850 code. Mr.
Earl said to the best of his knowledge that was correct.
Mr. Lentz asked to see the proposed site plan. He asked when it was submitted and noted that
the site plan was dated in 2014. Mr. Lentz said this project had been ongoing for at least four
years and he was not sure more time would accomplish anything. He said he was ready to move
forward with voting.
Mr. Macdonald asked staff that if the Council prohibited code 4850 and was silent on code 5193,
could changes be made at a later date. Mr. Earl answered affirmatively.
Mayor Brunst said while these were excellent businesses he did not want them growing in this
area. He said he preferred to continue this item for a month in order to get further direction from
Mr. Earl. Mr. Earl asked the Council if they would allow Dunn Recycling to handle solid waste
on the property. Mayor Brunst said he wanted more information on the facility's procedures and
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.15)


how it would affect the community. Mr. Earl said he could confirm they were handling solid
waste.
Mayor Brunst asked Mr. Dunn to make a comment. Mr. Dunn said when he built the facility in
2000 he was under the solid waste disposal and incineration zone. In 2005, the recycling zone
was added and he expanded the property. Mr. Bench said he did not believe this to be accurate
information and said he needed to confirm these details. There was further deliberation on the
matter.
Mr. Sumner asked how many times the City had issued violations to these businesses. Mr. Bell
said they issued a violation in 2014 and the case had been in the attorney's office for over a year.
In 2014, there was an investigation that showed nothing allowing solid waste, only construction
waste material. Mr. Earl said there was never a site plan approved for solid waste. Solid waste
was a permitted use in the zone. He said citations for nuisance violations were issued in
response to complaints of the odors and the trash.
Mr. Lentz asked for clarification on the improvements MCR may implement. Mr. Bench said
they could landscape or paint but could not build any new buildings on the property.
Mayor Brunst moved to continue this item to the March 13, 2018 City Council meeting. Mr.
Spencer 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.
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED ITEM - City Purchasing Policies &
Procedures
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 2-7 of the City Code regarding purchasing policies
and procedures by making adjustments for inflation, allowing for new technologies and
purchasing methods, clarifying and adding requirements, and making other technical
changes
Mr. Manning said this item was continued from the January 23, 2018 City Council meeting at the
request of staff. The City Manager recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to
discuss amending the current Purchasing Policies & Procedures and, by ordinance, amend
Article 2-7 of the City Code regarding purchasing policies and procedures by making
adjustments for inflation, allowing for new technologies and purchasing methods, clarifying and
adding requirements, and making other technical changes.
The current purchasing policies and procedures were reviewed by City staff and several changes
were being proposed. The proposed changes included the permission to use “reverse auctions";
clarifying certain aspects of the “Request for Proposal (RFP)" process; permitting the use of bids
received by State of Utah agencies; and amending dollar thresholds/limits.
Mr. Manning said all bids would be made public and posted online. Mayor Brunst asked if the
names would be made public, to which Mr. Manning responded in the affirmative. He said as
long as the bids were open they could reverse auction. The City Manager would authorize every
instance because the process was new.
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.16)


Mr. Manning said the RFP process would be changed to be compliant with State law. This
would align the City to the State code. He said that State agency bids had vetted firms and they
could use their expertise to find the cheapest and best supplies and services.
Mr. Manning explained the amending of the dollar limits and said there would be four levels for
purchasing. Number one was everything up to $3500; they could make their best judgment to
purchase the item. Number two was $3500 to $10,000; they asked that personnel keep record of
the purchase. Number three was $10,000 to $25,000; they would ask for a written bid. Number
four was anything above $25,000; they would ask for an RFP.
Mayor Brunst asked if many cities and businesses used this process. Mr. Manning said reverse
bidding was an up and coming process.
Mr. Lentz asked if a purchase went from $9000 to over $10,000 would they have to change the
process. Mr. Manning answered affirmatively.
Mr. Sumner asked if they would accept all bids, or if there would be a bid list. Mr. Manning said
when going through the State, they had prequalified vendors and the price was already known.
Typically they could not beat the prices through the State. Mr. Sumner said they would have to
work through the State to be a City they recommended.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand said he appreciated the City's effort to find the best value from a fairness and legal
standpoint.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Article 2-7 of the City Code regarding purchasing
policies and procedures by making adjustments for inflation, allowing for new technologies and
purchasing methods, clarifying and adding requirements, and making other technical changes.
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 Palos Verdes Student Housing Development
ORDINANCE - Amending Article 2-7 of the City Code regarding purchasing policies
and procedures by making adjustments for inflation, allowing for new technologies and
purchasing methods, clarifying and adding requirements, and making other technical
changes:
ORDINANCE - Vacating those portions of 1000 South Street, Palos Verdes Drive, and a
portionof50oWest Street that wereincludedwithin thePalosVerdesEstates
Subdivision, Plat“A"and Plat“B"
Mr. Bench presented a request from Kyle Jardine that the City amend 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 “UU', and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the
Orem City Code by changing the zone at approximately 1000 South 400 West from the R8 zone
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.17)


to the PD-48 zone. In addition, the applicant requested the City vacate those portions of 1000
South Street, Palos Verdes Drive, and a portion of 500 West Street that were included within the
Palos Verdes Estates Subdivision, Plat “A" and Plat "B".
The applicant proposed to develop a student housing project adjacent to the east side of the Utah
Valley University campus. The area was referred to as the Palos Verdes neighborhood. To
develop such a project, a Planned Development zone was required. A PD zone allowed the
applicant, with input from the City, to draft an ordinance on how the project would develop. The
applicant was requesting the PD zone instead of the Student Housing overlay zone to increase
the density and building height, among other requirements.
The proposed density was 450 apartments with a total of 1,605 occupancy units or beds. This
was a density of 52.1 apartments per acre and 185.9 beds per acre. Parking provided onsite was
1,285 spaces with a ratio of 0.80 per bed.
A neighborhood meeting was held on July 31, 2017, with 24 neighbors, UVU professionals, and
City Council members in attendance. The applicant did not offer a set of minutes from the
neighborhood meeting, but did provide a map with some comments.  The sign-in sheet,
additional neighborhood comments, and map were included as part of the attachments.
Wolverine Way, reducing the parking ratio from 0.8 to 0.25, and changing/adding driveway
entrances and exits to the property.
The following is a summary of the development standards included in the proposed PD-48 zone:
Maximum height of 70feet
Setback of 35 feet from 960 South and Campus Drive
Setbackof25feetfrom400West
Setback 10 feet from any private street
No required setback from the southern boundary
Landscaping as shown on the proposed concept plan and approved as part of
Appendix"UU"
Exterior finish materials of brick, stone, fluted block, EIFS, cementitious fiberboard,
glass, stucco, metal (20% or less per elevation and not including sheet metal or
corrugated metal), wood and other materials of comparable quality. Elevations will be
approved as part of Appendix UU
Parking at 0.8 stalls/occupancy unit
An additional twenty parking stalls dedicated to visitor parking will be provided on
site over and above the .8 requirement
There were five (5) proposed buildings on this site. Three buildings were five stories, one was
three stories, and the largest building was six stories including a basement. Retail space would
be included in one of the five-story buildings, located on the northwest corner of the project.
The gym and pool were included in another five-story building, located in the north-center of the
project, while bike storage was included in all buildings. Elevations and building layout were
included in Appendix UU.
The project required 1,284 parking stalls based on the requirement of 0.8 parking spaces per bed.
    1     (  1 =  * )
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.18)


available to residents without additional charge. There would be twenty dedicated visitor
parking stalls on-site in addition to the required parking referred to above. There would be a
total of 1,441 bedrooms that housed a total of 1,605 students. A bike share program would also
be included with at least twenty bikes.
The dumpsters were located next to each building and were enclosed as required by code.
The Transportation Engineer, Paul Goodrich, provided a full transportation analysis for the
project and current conditions of the surrounding area. The full analysis was part of the agenda
summary.
The proposed project required that a portion of 1000 South Street, Palos Verdes Drive, and a
portion of 5oo West Street that were included within the Palos Verdes Estates Subdivision, Plats
"A" and "B" be vacated. The area of the streets proposed to be vacated was 1.9 acres. As part of
the rezone, the City Council needed to vacate the public streets located within the proposed PD-
48 zone. Pending Council approval, these streets and the utilities below would become private
and therefore become the responsibility of the developer. The maps associated with the street
The applicant worked with the City, UVU and Alpine School District to secure agreements
necessary for construction of the Project. These agreements included the following:
1. Agreement between Palos Verdes, Alpine School District and the City. This agreement
provides that Palos Verdes will reconfigure the access to Lakeridge Junior High to better align
with 960 South and will also reconfigure some of the parking for Lakeridge Junior High. Alpine
School District will grant the City easements necessary for the installation of future traffic signal
poles on the school property.
2. Agreement between Palos Verdes and UVU. This agreement provides that Palos Verdes will
construct a pedestrian underpass under Campus Drive. It also provides that UVU will grant an
easement to Palos Verdes for access over UVU property to access 960 South and Wolverine
Way.
3. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants by UVU. In this document, UVU essentially established
s  s     o ds -    ou, e
boundaries of the Palos Verdes property. These no-build zones prohibit UVU from constructing
any structures in these areas without the City's consent. The no-build zones will essentially
function as the setbacks for the Project on the north, west and south of the Project.
4. Development Agreement between Palos Verdes and City of Orem. This agreement provides
that Palos Verdes will widen and improve 960 South and 400 West; install a traffic signal at the
intersection of 960 South and 400 West; construct a pedestrian tunnel under Campus Drive; work
with the City to resolve any neighborhood parking problems that may arise; provide parking at a
minimum of 0.8 stalls per bed; not charge an extra fee for parking; and cap total occupancy of
the project at 1,605 residents. At the time of this report, the agreement had not yet been signed
pending resolution of a few additional details, but it is expected to be signed by the time of the
hearing before the City Council.
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.19)


The Planning Commission considered the request at a public hearing on January 17, 2018, and
voted 5-0 tosend a negative recommendation to the City Council.
However, following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had resolved essentially all
of the concerns that Staff had prior to the Planning Commission meeting. For example, prior to
the Planning Commission meeting, Staff was not satisfied with the proposed building elevations.
The applicant had since made changes to make the buildings more aesthetically appealing which
resolved those concerns. The applicant also made a significant concession in agreeing not to
Provisions had also been made to address visitor parking which was a significant concern at the
Planning Commission meeting. The applicant believed that visitor parking would be adequately
covered by the required 0.8 parking stall per occupant requirement. However, Staff would like
to see additional visitor parking at the rate of 0.25 stalls per unit which equated to 113 additional
stalls over and above the .8 parking ratio.
In order to address Staff concerns, the applicant agreed to provide an additional twenty parking
stalls on-site which would be dedicated for the use of visitors to the project.
The applicant also represented that UVU verbally agreed to allow the UVU property directly to
the south of the project to be used for additional visitor parking after 5:00 p.m. UVU provided a
letter to the City indicating that as a general policy, UVU allowed unpermitted parking in regular
student and employee stalls on Saturdays and Sundays and after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Staff believed that the need for visitor parking would be adequately addressed as long as UVU
parking remained available to the public under its current policies. To address the possibility
that UVU's parking policies might change in a way that made UVU parking unavailable for
visitor parking, a provision was added to the development agreement that would require the
applicant to purchase up to ninety-three parking passes from UVU which it would then make
available to visitors of the project. This should ensure that there would always be at least 113
stalls available for visitors to the Project.
Because the applicant resolved all the concerns that Staff had prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, Staff now recommended that the City Council approve the request to amend 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 “UU', and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the
zoning map of the Orem City Code by changing the zone at approximately 1000 South 400 West
from the R8 zone to the PD-48 zone.
In addition, Staff recommended the City Council vacate those portions of 1ooo South Street,
Palos Verdes Drive, and a portion of 5oo West Street that were included within the Palos Verdes
Mr. Bench presented the staff report listed above. Mr. Macdonald asked who owned the grass to
the north of the property. Mr. Bench said UVU would purchase part of the subject property for
the development. Mayor Brunst asked if there was a twenty foot easement around the complex
UVU agreed not to develop. Mr. Bench answered affirmatively, and said this was part of the
building code requirements with the City.
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.20)


Mr. Bench said the proposal was for 450 apartment units, with 16,000+ beds. Some of the units
would be single occupant bedrooms and others double occupant. There would be 1,284 parking
spaces. He said there were five buildings with one building being three stories high, and the
other buildings being five stories high. Mayor Brunst asked if building five faced south. Mr.
Bench answered affirmatively, and explained that a small portion faced 40o West.
Mayor Brunst asked if there would be a grocery store and a café in the commercial area. Mr.
Bench said yes, and noted those would be permitted uses. He said the parking structure was
proposed to be wrapped. He said there were three major issues, one of which was visitor
parking.  The developer had since agreed to provide more visitor parking. Another issue
pertained to building elevations; the developer had made significant progress in this area and
staff was comfortable with the changes. The developer also had eliminated the parking charge
and any student with a pass could now park there for free.
Mr. David Moulton was a past chairman and member of the Planning Commission. He said he
was surprised by the unanimous recommendation of denial. He thought there would be more
diversity of opinion on this issue. He said two members were not present at the meeting, and he
did not know how they would have voted. He said he was satisfied with these concessions and
negotiations; however, he was concerned with the neighborhood and said there was probably still
a lot of negative feeling toward this project. He stated that if this was the Planning Commission
tonight and he was voting, he would send a positive recommendation.
Mr. Seastrand asked if there was not a positive recommendation because of the outstanding
issues. Mr. Moulton said most of the members were concerned about parking.
Taylor Woodbury came forward as the applicant. Mr. Bench showed elevations and some of the
proposed changes. He discussed the details of the buildings such as the materials and the colors.
Mr. Bench said he wanted to talk about the development agreement. He explained that the
developer would be widening and improving 960 South and 400 West as a part of the project. In
addition, they would also install a traffic signal. Mayor Brunst said this would affect Lakeridge
Junior High. Mr. Bench said they had worked with the school district, the City, and the
developer to improve the traffic flow. There would be additional crosswalks and sidewalks.
Mayor Brunst said there had been seven accidents leaving the junior high school and a stop light
would benefit the area. Mr. Bench said the City would decide the location and design of the
traffic light, and the developer would pay for the installation. Mr. Spencer asked about widening
the road for a turn lane into the junior high school.
Mr. Woodbury said this was a satisfactory engineering plan to meet the traffic demands. Mr.
Goodrich said part of the negotiations with the university was for developer to widen 960 South,
thereby increasing the capacity of the street. He said this was a good decision because they had
talked about closing their access to the north. He stated that this was not in the development
agreement but a separate negotiation. There was a recent accident in the area where a parent
accidentally hit a student in the crosswalk so they wanted to manage the access to prevent future
accidents.
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.21)


Mr. Spencer said his concern was the traffic on 40o West heading north. He said a right turn
lane could alleviate some congestion.
Mr. Macdonald asked if they were buying a triangle off of 960 South from UVU. Mr. Bench
answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bench said the development agreement included an underpass for students to avoid crossing
the street. Improvements to the access points were also as a part of the development agreement.
Mayor Brunst said there were proposed speed bumps coming out from that road approaching 960
South. Mr. Goodrich said there needed to be crosswalks going east-west across the roads. He
suggested they incorporate a speed table on the site plan to assist with crossing pedestrians.
Mr. Bench said the building's access would force the traffic south. Mayor Brunst added that
there would be barriers to force traffic flow on to Wolverine Way. He said it would not be an
open parking lot; cars parked there would not interfere with traffic leaving the parking lot.
Mr. Bench said the development agreement also contained the occupancy limit of each unit.
Each unit had a bathroom for every bedroom. This was not typical for other units in the same
area. Mr. Seastrand asked if each unit had a kitchen. Mr. Woodbury answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bench said the developers agreed that if there was a parking issue, they would work with the
City to solve that issue.
In response to a question from Mr. Seastrand, Mr. Woodbury identified areas where restricted
parking signs would be installed. Mayor Brunst said the signs would encourage students to park
in the development. It was noted that the cost of parking would be included in the rent, and
illegal parking would be strictly monitored.
Mr. Bench said the developer would provide an annual audit, and the City had the right to
request an independent audit.
Mr. Goodrich said a traffic study was conducted as part of the 2015 Transportation Master Plan.
He said UVU had done their own traffic analysis in 2016 to assist in their growth. He reviewed
the Level of Service (LOS) for the roads, and noted that roads rated A, B and C had room for
capacity. Roads rated D were not ideal. Mr. Goodrich said this plan was helping UDOT identify
some of the problems happening along the parkway. They were now widening and improving
every intersection as the project was completed.
Mr. Lentz asked if the peak hour study assessed a typical week day or the worst day of the year.
Mr. Goodrich said it assessed a typical weekday. The university did not just do a peak hour
study; rather, they wanted to show intersections with queuing problems as well.
Mayor Brunst stated that the roundabout would be expanded and improved. Mr. Goodrich the
money they received for the roundabout was not for dual lanes but to increase the size, which
would help reducing accidents. They hoped to design and improve the roundabout by next year.
City Council Minutes -February 13,2018(p.22)


Mayor Brunst said the traffic in the area was about thirty to forty percent lower now because of
the traffic roundabout. Mr. Goodrich showed a traffic volume map that had updated information
from the Public Works Department. He said the numbers might have been high because of the
construction projects. Mayor Brunst said the traffic was high in this area but had gone down in
otherareas.
Mr. Lentz said someone had reached out concerning equipment in the turning lane and inquired
as to whether or not this hindered data collecting on the road. Mr. Goodrich said data could not
be collected without the equipment in question.
Mayor Brunst said the traffic on 800 South had increased going east and west. Mr. Goodrich
said the campus had grown so increased traffic was expected.
Mr. Seastrand asked what the traffic would look like if the project was built. Mr. Goodrich said
that in 1995 and 1996 the traffic volume dissipated when Wolverine Way and the roundabout
were built. Mr. Goodrich discussed the vehicle trip rate history. He explained that they
estimated the trip rate for a twenty-four hour period; there were 3,372 trips per day with only
eighty trips happening during peak hours. He said that having students live on campus would
reduce the peak hour traffic.
In response to a question from Mr. Lentz, Mr. Goodrich said the worst conditions were in the
morning and the evening.
Mr. Goodrich said the students would have an underpass to avoid crossing Campus Drive. They
estimated that thirty to forty percent of traffic would go north and connect to 960 South. They
had worked out an agreement with the campus to focus parking lot access to Wolverine Way.
He said the traffic light should be installed with or without this project. He promised the
roundabout would be a better design.
Mr. Bench said since the Planning Commission had met with the applicant they felt they had
satisfied many of their concerms. He said they had changed their opinion to recommend
approval.
Mayor Brunst asked about the bike share program. Mr. Woodbury said they planned on
implementing a bike share program starting with twenty bikes to analyze demand. They would
like to encourage students to not take their cars to school. Mayor Brunst asked about having an
Uber/Lyft location available. Mr. Woodbury responded that they had designated a set spot for
ride share pickups.
Mr. Lentz asked about the roundabout. Mr. Goodrich explained that it was possible to drive
down Wolverine Way without entering the roundabout. Mr. Goodrich said while this design
Mr. Woodbury introduced Lynn Woodbury, Chairman Rick Woodbury, and Kyle Jardine with
PEG development. He said this was a combined effort of many people trying to find the best
design. They were introduced to this project at the beginning of 2016, and since that time the
project had gone through many changes. He explained that the housing options were limited at
UVU. He said that eighty-nine percent of the students were from Utah and fifty percent were
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.23)


from Utah County. This was a result of other universities capping enrollment and the growth of
Utah County. They felt like this was an appropriate site for student housing because it was close
to campus and did not intrude into neighborhoods.
Mayor Brunst asked Mr. Woodbury to verify the changes on the presentation. Mr. Woodbury
said they had arranged their plan to pull the project off 400 West and locate it as close to UVU as
     s      n s   
andtocampus.
Mr. Jardine reviewed the timeline of this project. He said when they withdrew the application
they received a lot of feedback from City staff, neighbors, UVU, and other interested parties. He
outlined the various details of the improvements to the site plan. They included on-site food and
essentials to encourage students to remain on campus.
Mayor Brunst said they had asked the developer to have a 0.8 parking ratio, which was higher
than the apartments on the west side of the freeway. He said they had asked them to have .25
percent for guest parking. They had twenty dedicated visitor parking stalls, and UVU would
supply ninety-three additional spaces if needed; the developer would pay for the spaces. The
goal was to have parking on campus and not into the neighborhoods; if there was a problem the
developer agreed to provide the solution. Mr. Jardine concurred and said the parking was now
Mr. Jardine said all of those changes had come from the proposed site plan. Mayor Brunst asked
if the vast majority of parking would be covered parking. Mr. Jardine answered affirmatively.
Mayor Brunst said this would be a great amenity, especially during winter months. There would
also be a wrapped parking garage with trees. He said the ninety-three guest parking spaces
would be set in the south parking lot where there were already 500 spaces. There was an
additional parking lot to the north with 500 spaces.
Mr. Lentz asked where the students could park with their assigned passes. Mr. Jardine said there
would be typical UVU parking passes which allowed parking anywhere on campus. He said
there were no assigned stalls; rather, there were specified areas. Mr. Woodbury said the
agreement stated they would have to park within 1,000 feet of the project.
Mr. Sumner asked how they would keep visitors and students from parking in neighborhoods.
Mr. Woodbury said students would list parents’ names as part of the leasing agreement. They
would be able to use the information to determine from parking citations which car owners were
illegally parking. He said if they got caught they would lose their security deposit. The next
offense would result in a $200 fine and a third offense could result in an eviction. Mr. Sumner
asked who would enforce the parking. Mr. Woodbury said they would educate where people
could park and they would have ample parking available. He stated if the resident was identified
as an offender they would go through the repercussions he previously described. They hoped to
deter any issues by providing free, convenient parking. Mr. Sumner asked why the university
would issue the ninety-three additional parking stalls. Mr. Woodbury said they felt the 0.8 ratio
was sufficient and they added twenty dedicated visitor stalls to address the City's concerns. He
said they were most concerned with peak time in the evening when guests would visit. They
would discourage overnight visitors, but primarily focus on peak times. They intended to have
an employee on site to issue temporary permits and direct people to the best parking spot.
City Council Minutes -Fcbruary 13, 2018(p.24)


Mr. Lentz asked that if there was instance where two siblings shared a car would both be
punished if one person parked illegally. Mr. Jardine answered affirmatively. Mr. Woodbury
said they had discussed this issue at length, and they hoped to find the right balance. Mayor
Brunst asked if each car would receive a permit. Mr. Woodbury said yes, and explained that
they wanted to keep non-residents parking in the garage. They would issue parking permits at no
charge and the parking sticker would go on the back bumper to check credentials. Mayor Brunst
said neighbors could report any parking violations, and he asked if the on-site manager would be
there twenty-four hours a day. Mr. Woodbury said there would be some type of personnel on-
site at all times. It was a large enough project to warrant that level of service.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury said they worked with the architects to provide complementary elevations.
He thanked the Staff for their suggestions to create a more aesthetically pleasing project. They
made material changes by adding siding in certain areas, brick on the base of all the buildings
and on corners, as well as additional colors.
Mayor Brunst asked where they would install the metal siding on the buildings. Mr. Jardine said
they would install it as accent features above the retail portions.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury said there would be portions of the buildings that would pop out. They
would add vinyl graphics on the open areas of the parking structure that would be printed with
greenery, and actual live trees to help screen the parking garage. Mayor Brunst said he had seen
that done before and it was a nice touch. Mr. Lynn Woodbury continued showing different
elevations from different directions. He said they would build a wall to screen the area and
provide landscaping with tall trees.
Mr. Jardine reviewed the traffic projections for each of the routes. He showed the proposed
intersection with Alpine School District for protected crosswalks on all four sides. He said it
was not in the development agreement but they would consider a car share program. He said
Uber and Lyft had decreased the need for this program. Mayor Brunst asked if they had bicycle
storage. Mr. Jardine said they had interior storage.
Mr. Lentz asked if there was anything in the lease that would prohibit a resident from being an
Uber or Lyft driver.
Mayor Brunst said the students would be required to show a connection to the school. He said it
would be beneficial to keep this as student housing. Mr. Taylor Woodbury said this was not the
case with other student housing projects but they intended to make this freshman housing. He
said they would police the complex and the design would not be conducive for multi-family
housing. They removed the word “condominiums" from the PD zone text for that purpose.
Mr. Sumner asked if they were legally allowed to market the housing only for younger college
students. Mr. Jardine said age was a protected class but they could encourage a particular group.
He said they wanted to maintain the reputation of the complex as being young student housing.
Mr. Sumner said University Towers had tried to do the same thing and the majority was young
people, but there were some older people there as well.
City Council Minutes -February13, 2018(p.25)


Mrs. Lauret asked why PEG and Woodbury purchased the homes before the rezone. Mr. Taylor
Woodbury said they had identified this site as more acceptable for the neighborhood; however,
this site was preferable to other options. He said they had worked with the residents and would
pay them a fair price regardless of the risk. He said they worked to find willing neighbors
without creating uncertainty. Mr. Jardine said it had been two years since the first home was
under contract which proved there was no malicious intent.
Mrs. Lauret asked why demolition took place before the rezone. Mr. Woodbury said some of the
outgoing residents prematurely started demolition on their own; however, it became a liability
and safety issue. They decided they could not adequately police the neighborhood as the
residents moved out.
Mr. Jardine said they would have a full time security staff and the area would be well-lit. They
would monitor the complex using cameras and secured access; all doors and gates would be
accessed using key fobs. They discussed hiring UVU security to patrol the area to ease the
burden to the City. He said they had also considered utilizing an LDS meeting space.
Mr. Woodbury said this project would potentially house 1,600 students.  Without this
development, many students would continue having to commute to the university. He said they
had worked with the neighborhood and the City to address all of the concerns, and they were
confident this would be a successful project for Orem.
In response to a question from Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Stephens said the standard procedure was if
the project had an individualized material effect on one's personal interest, then the individual
needed to recuse themselves. Mr. Seastrand asked if working for UVU was a conflict of interest.
Mr. Stephens said UVU was not the applicant; unless Mr. Seastrand had been directed to vote
one way or another then there was no conflict of interest.
**Note: There was a break from 8:45 pm to 8:52 pm.
Mayor Brunst opened the public hearing.
Allison Northcot said she was a student at UVU and was in favor of the project. She asked
everyone if they would want their children to have an education in their community. She said
there was a huge teacher shortage in Utah, but they were being asked to leave. She said she felt
villainized by this community; however, UVU was here to stay and students needed a place to
live. She said she was one voice of many who would personally benefit from the project. There
was no on-campus housing and it was daunting trying to compete with thousands of other
students. She said she had struggled with parking and the development would provide more than
enough. She briefly discussed a personal incident in which her safety was threatened late at
night while walking home in the dark.
Arlin Card said that this proposal would be a win for the developers and UVU, but the
homeowners would suffer. The high density and the traffic would drive the home values down.
He proposed that the homeowners be given the highest appraised value when 40o West and 800
South were widened. He said that the developers should take on the financial responsibility of
funding this proposal.
City Council Minutcs - February 13, 2018 (p.26)


AndreJonesstated thathewasastudentatUVUandwouldbegraduatingsoon.Hesaidhehad
spentover1oohoursworkingwiththeschoolandthecommunity.Hesaidhewantedfuture
studentstohaveaplacetolive,work,andplay.Hesaidhedidnothavethesetypes of
experiences due to complications trying to find housing.As a result he lived in Salt Lake,which
wasaforty-fiveminutecommuteeveryday.Heexplained thatitwasdifficultdealingwiththat
stresswhiletryingtobeasuccessfulstudent.
Kent Rowley, resident, said he was a former principal in the Alpine School District at Lakeridge
Junior High School. Mr. Rowley said he retired 25 years ago in 1983. He was concerned about
the traffic and parents dropping their children off on the eastside of the school.He said heloved
studentsanddidnotwantthetraffictoposeathreatto theirsafety.Mr.Rowleywasalso
concernedwithmaintainingthequalityoftheneighborhood.
MatthewBrysonstatedthathewasaresidentandstudentatUVU.Hesaidwhenhecamefrom
anLDSmissionandcouldnotfind anythinginthewayofhousing.Hestated thathisdadwas
notthrilledwhenhehadtomovebackhomeandusethecartocommutetoschool,thereby
forcing his dad to use the bus in order to get to work.Finally, after being on a waitlist for a
semester he was able to find housing, and he was not alone in this experience. Mr. Bryson stated
that thiswas perhaps due to larger families in the area.He stated that Orem wasknown as
"Family City USA”and he stated the following:“You raise us,you send us on missions,you
want us toget an affordable educationlocally,you’re eager tokick us out of thebasement,but
then you don't build housing for us. So, where do you want us to go?Mr. Bryson stated that
notallparentswereabletoaffordkeepingtheirkidsathome.Hereviewedthenatureofthe
comments that were shared during the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting.He
said many of the remarks given during the Planning Commission blamed and labeled students for
the theft and crime in their community.Mr.Bryson said the residentswereblaming the students
who would be the community's future teachers, nurses, police officers, engineers and the
economic stability of Utah County.He said crime was a societal ill that happened all over the
UnitedStates andyetthesespeakerschose toblame allof thoseproblemsonUVUstudents.Mr.
Bryson said he wished to humanize UVU students by discussing his personal aspirations, and
howhiseducationwould helphimfulfill thosegoals.
Richard Dewey stated that among all of the issues raised tonight,increased crime had not been
discussed at all.He said this discussion was larger than just this particular project; he said the
issue pertained to Orem's recent trend in authorizing a lot of high density housing.Mr.Dewey
presented acommunitycrimemapfromwww.communitycrimemap.comandstatedhewasa
retiredpoliceofficer.Hepresentedstatisticsfromtheyears2015and2017andstatedthatcrime
had increased between those two years,particularly in areas where there was high density
housing.He said his remarks were not geared toward students but toward high density housing.
MikePrestonsaid he andhiswifelivedin thePalosVerdessubdivisionfor37years.Hesaidhe
was told severalyears agoby a developer thatsomedayUVUwould grow toneed this property;
therefore, this proposal did not come as a surprise to him.He said the school had grown to the
pointtowherehewas100percent surrounded by the school,andwas essentiallyliving on
campus.HesaidUVUwasagoodneighborandthecurrentadministrationwassensitiveto
residents’needs.Mr.Prestonsaidheloved theideaofthewalkablestudenthousingcomplexfor
future students.He said he and his wife were in no way coerced or strong armed into selling
their property; theyknew it was the right thing to do.In regards to traffic,he said this was a
CityCouncilMinutes-February13,2018(p.27)


concern everywhere. Growth within the City and State was happening everywhere, and
developers included a plan to mitigate these concerns within their plans. He said the parents of
UVU students would also like to have the best and safest situation for their kids as well. The
exist at other universities. Mr. Preston concluded that he and his wife chose to sell their home
because the project would serve their children and the community.
John Gartner, resident, said he sent a letter to the Mayor and Council this past week. Mr. Gartner
indicated that he was opposed to this project. He said while this was a good location for UVU, it
                s
residential neighborhood for upwards of 1600+ students would set a bad precedent for creating
temporary, transient housing, whereas existing residents in that area had been in the City for a
long time. He asked what would happen if the project developer was unable to fill all of the
apartments with students. He said if this project was truly owned by UVU, then the university
would be able to monitor the project more closely. He requested that the Council reject this
proposal.
Grant Collard, owner of Redstone Residential, stated his company was a student housing
operator. Redstone Residential managed approximately 15,000 beds of student housing and
approximately half of those units were in Utah Valley. He said UVU was a unique market
because it had an enrollment of more than 30,0o0 students, and there were only approximately
3,500 beds available. There were only three projects dedicated to student housing in other parts
of the City, which provided an additional 750 beds. He said the proposed project was a great
because it was where it needed to be in order for students to be closer to campus. In their
experience, over ninety-four percent of residents were registered, ID-carrying students of the
local university. He said these residents were not deviants looking to move into student housing
for fun. Mr. Collard stated that they also found that about seventy-one percent of their residents
brought cars and this project would be really well-parked. He said UVU had historically been a
commuter school but this project would give students the opportunity to live and walk to
campus.
Shirley Robbins, resident, stated that when UVU was first built, residents were told that housing
would be on the west side of the freeway. She was concerned with traffic at the roundabout and
throughout theneighborhood, in general.
Nathan Hatch, resident, corroborated that UVU was kind and generous in every respect. He
wanted to add that as an LDS bishop of a YSA ward, he knew that the neighborhoods within his
area had apartments that were shared by four or five students. He said this was not conducive to
their educational, professional and social pursuits. Mr. Hatch was of the opinion that the
proposed project was the “right use in the right time and at the right place." He had two sons and
one had moved multiple times; he stated that the vacancy rate was non-existent. He said he
wholeheartedly supported this proposal and was willing to discuss the topic with anyone.
Elaine Ellis, resident, said she was concerned about the total impact of unbridled growth in
Orem. She said there was too much concrete and too little green space. She said this was
especially problematic for people who had lived in single-family neighborhoods for several
years. She said she had empathy for students and UVU was a wonderful university, but their
unbridled growth on a landlocked campus was their own problem. Ms. Ellis said she was
City Council Minutes -Fcbruary 13,2018(p.28)


worried about the precedent this project would set. She said the whole quality of life in Orem
hadbecomeunbearable.
Reed Miller said he was resident and the son-in-law of Keith Millville, who purchased a portion
of the subject property in 1960. He said Mr. Millville sold the land for the benefit of his children
and their spouses. He said if his father-in-law was still alive, he would be in favor of this project
and the benefit it would be to the students of UVU. Mr. Miller said education was the lifeblood
of a community. He said UVU's growth could not be controlled by the Mayor and Council;
rather, this was an aspect of the Board of Regents and the State Legislature. He said by rejecting
this proposal the City would be communicating an unwillingness to work out a reasonable
relationship with the university. He explained that because universities were sovereign entities,
it was a unique opportunity for citizens to be able to interact with this process.
Mark Tippets, resident, requested that a vote on this item be postponed. He stated that “all of the
ingredients" for a win-win-win situation were in place. He stated that developers of this project
had proven to be successful. UVU was one of Orem's gems and home to the largest university
in the State. Furthermore, Orem's residents were what made the City a “"Family City USA."
However, the proposal lacked one thing: it did not provide a single benefit for the neighbors. He
said an alternative plan was presented wherein a land swap would move the project to the west
side of the freeway. He discussed how this alternative proposal would work from a hypothetical
standpoint.
Dawson Richmond, resident, stated that he was glad to live in a country where these debates
could take place. He said he had lived in Orem his whole life and wanted to continue living in
the City. He explained that the main reason he supported the project was for freshmen retention
at UVU. UVU presently had a freshman retention rate of about sixty-three percent, and this
development would give students more of a connection to campus. He believed that having a
Greg Doxey, resident, stated there were several reasons why the Planning Commission rejected
this proposal. He outlined those reasons as follows: (1) impact to the neighborhood, (2) concerns
for Lakeridge Junior High School, (3) traffic impacts, (4) parking and (5) the subject property
was located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Doxey favored tabling this item until further
studiescouldbeconducted.
Nick Varney, resident, said UVU changed his life greatly, as well as the lives of his friends and
family. He said anyone seeking an education could attend UVU, and the university had been
very successful in helping all types of people improve their lives. Mr. Varney stated that there
was a demonstrated link between proximity to campus and student success. Living close to
campus allowed students to spend more time in the library, work closely with professors,
mentors and tutors, and allowed for greater networking opportunities. Mr. Varney asked the
Mayor and Council to support this proposal.
Alan Parrish, resident, said he attended the Planning Commission meeting and the
Commissioners almost unanimously agreed that while they liked the plan, they felt this was the
wrong location. He said the UVU Vice President Cameron Martin stated to him that UVU's
hands were forced by private developers. Mr. Parrish stated that according to Mr. Martin, UVU
did not want to expand to the east but to the west. He said private developers ignored the wishes
City Council Minutes -February13,2018(p.29)


of UVU administration and hundreds of Orem families. He said the developers illegally
converted an entire neighborhood from its established residential zoning, thereby making it
difficult to build single family homes. Mr. Parrish read from Orem City's ordinance pertaining
to residential zones which stated that the objective was “..to provide an environment within the
City which was favorable for family life." In addition, “...PD zones were intended to allow uses
that would be suitable on the property, and sufficiently restrictive to protect the character and
quality of the surrounding neighborhood and properties." Mr. Parrish stated that neighborhood
families were looking to the Council for protections prescribed by City Code. He said he
overwhelmingly felt that this proposal would be an open violation of Code.
Anthony Collins said as a student he could attest to the fact that student housing prices had gone
up and the demand was high. He inquired as to what the area would become if the project was
denied.
Daryl Hague, resident, said throughout this discussion there had been claims that UVU sought to
meet the needs of their student body. He said the rent rates were approximately $545 per month,
which was unaffordable to most students. The proposed development represented a paradigm
shift in the neighborhood by virtue of the tenants it would attract. The price points of apartments
in this new project would allow tenants to reside in the area year round. Such a permanent
presence would mean that the neighbors would have to deal with the impact of UVU's growth
at least had a break during spring and summer, and they would not get a break at all under the
new plan. He said while he would like to see requirements mandating the tenants to be students,
fair housing laws did not permit such a requirement. He said the project would only create
increased traffic congestion and would not alleviate the student housing shortage. He concluded
that this was UVU's problem.
Steve Anderson, UVU Director of Community and Government Relations, said he was also a
  n   e n   s  '   s  s 
per day for classes, sports, library visits, etc. However, had he been given the opportunity to live
close to campus he would have walked, thereby decreasing the traffic in the area. Secondly, he
discussed the Residential Engagement Coordinator Program, through which the university placed
students in about a dozen different complexes throughout the area. These students helped to plan
activities and monitored crime in their respective living areas. Mr. Anderson stated that UVU
would love to coordinate with the proposed development in implementing this program. Thirdly,
UVU had cohort programs, including honors and leadership programs, through which they
rented out living spaces for high caliber students who maintained certain GPAs. He stated that
Scott Stone, resident, said he could provide a unique perspective on this issue because he worked
with BYU student housing for approximately 25 years. He said as a developer, purchasing land
with the expectation that you would turn a residential zone into something else was ludicrous; he
explained that developers shouid secure the use before moving forward. Mr. Stone said this was
not a place for this type of project and he echoed many of the same comments previously stated
with regards to traffic, safety and parking.
Cameron Martin, UVU Vice President for University Relations, stated that while UVU was not
the applicant they did support the project. He said UVU was continuing to grow and presently
City Council Minuics -Fcbruary 13, 2018 (p.30)


had 37,282 students. He said UVU had taken many steps in order to be a good neighbor to the
City. He explained that from a university standpoint, there were two strategies to manage
growth: (1) engage in mass transit solutions and (2) provide housing in close proximity to
campus. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed project would help UVU reach these objectives.
As this development moved forward, the university purchased three homes out of respect of
being a good neighbor. Furthermore, these homes provided a buffer to the neighborhood east of
400 West. He stated that if this proposal was denied, it was unlikely the subject property would
develop as single family residential. If UVU owned the property, they would still construct a
student housing project; however, there would not be a public process involved similar to what
was presently taking place. Mr. Martin explained that if UVU developed its own student
housing complex, the property tax revenue that would be otherwise generated for the City of
Orem would be eliminated. Lastly, if UVU owned the subject property they could potentially
Roger Harrison, resident, asked the Mayor and Council to be responsible to the citizens of Orem
who had been fighting against this project for over a year. He stated that some of the City's
incumbents received money from Woodbury Corporation for their campaigns. Additionally, two
of the City's elected officials worked for UVU's Woodbury Business School, and President
Holland had a model of growth for the university. Mr. Harrison stated that the Mayor and
Council were the citizens’ government for whom they voted, and he again reiterated his request
that elected officials stand up for citizens who opposed this project.
Tyler Mahoney, resident, said he had heard claims that the price point for rent was too high. He
said he lived in Orem and housed two students who paid more in rent to live in his basement
across the freeway, than they would if they could live next to this project. He said these students
shared a car which was a huge burden for them in trying to coordinate their schedules for getting
to campus. Mr. Mahoney stated that this location was perfect for student housing.
Angel Busath stated that if approved, this project would have the highest elevations of any
residential building in the City. She stated that PEG and Woodbury had been nice in trying to
accommodate the citizens; however, she explained that they had presented "band-aid" solutions
that were inadequate. She asked the Mayor and Council not to dismiss the citizens because there
wereotheroptionsavailable.
David Busath stated that the residents in southwest Orem were restless and had reached a tipping
point to either rent or sell their homes. He said he hoped the Council would reject the proposal,
thereby forcing the developer to move the project to the west side of campus. He said property
owners in the southwest Orem were hesitant to invest in their properties due to the growth UVU
was experiencing. He predicted that the area would eventually turn into a ghetto, similar to what
occurredinnortheastProvo.
Murray Lowe, resident, stated that rezoning fundamentally changed southwest Orem and was
another example of bad development practices. He stated that this was “the wrong thing, done at
the wrong time at the wrong place." He said in speaking with a realtor friend, the friend stated
that the only project that made sense in Orem was the mall. He said on-campus student housing
was needed in lieu of the proposed high density housing development currently under
consideration. He stated that on-campus student housing was the only solution for guaranteeing
higher student engagement and less traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that for
City Council Minutes -February 13,2018 (p.31)


forty-one years the UVU campus had been in a place that was mostly invisible to neighbors, and
this would change if the area was rezoned. He implored the Mayor and Council to force the
State to take responsibility on this issue, and help them see the problem they created for
themselves.
Barbara Howell, resident, said her property abutted UVU. She said she had lived in southwest
Orem for forty years and had endured a lot of growth. She stated that no comments had been
made with regards to how much this project would cost Orem City. For example, the City would
be required to pay for road repairs, traffic signals, upgrades to infrastructure and utilities, as well
as hire additional public safety personnel to accommodate growth. Ms. Howell stated that these
financial responsibilities would fall to the taxpayers.
Mary Rowley, resident, said UVU was a great school; however, the university had overgrown
their area and they needed to work with the Governor to reach a solution on the matter. She said
the Mayor and Council also served as the Orem City Redevelopment Agency, so it was in their
nature to want to foster growth within the City. However, she asked them to remember that they
were voted in as the City Council to be the citizens’ voices. She asked that they reject this
proposal at this particular location.
Jackie Steffus, resident, said widening this roundabout was not going to help traffic congestion
and suggested that a traffic light would be a better solution. Ms. Steffus was concerned that the
commercial property; she cited Wiggy Wash as one such example. She stated that Orem needed
codes that provided buffer zoning and suggested staff refer to Ogden City's ordinances as an
example of excellence in this regard.
John Harris, resident, stated that he had lived across from UVU for thirty-two years and had
personally known five UVU Presidents. He said over the course of thirty-two years, a lot of
promises had been made to the residents and the neighborhood had continued to be squeezed.
Mr. Harris asked about Sunday traffic and inquired as to where students would attend church.
He said 40o West was already a problem on Sundays. Next, he stated that by squeezing existing
residents in between two high density housing projects, the City was impacting their quality of
life. He implored the Council to reject the proposal.
Jeff Evans, resident, said in the 1950s Fred Trump purchased land around Coney Island for high
density development; the neighbors in New York fought the action and won. Mr. Evans felt the
statement from Mr. Martin was close to intimidation. He said UVU already tore down 100-year-
old Cottonwood trees where they intended the construct an underpass on Campus Drive;
   o r n  s       s  
ambiance of the City. Mr. Evans stated that if this project was approved, he would be concerned
with the lighting. He said while lighting was needed to maintain safety in the complex, it would
have a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. He said the American Medical
Association held a meeting in Chicago earlier this year wherein health concerns were discussed
with regards to certain spectrums of LED lighting causing epileptic seizures in some people. He
further elaborated upon this point.
Pat Debonham, resident, stated that the tone of this discussion at the beginning of the meeting
felt like this project was already a done deal. He said he attended the Planning Commission
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.32)


meeting; he then summarized the concerns that were discussed during that meeting. He said the
proposal did not take into consideration the wellbeing of the existing residents, in the sense that
the occupants of this project would have no connection to the neighborhood in the future.
Scott Paul, resident, said high density housing did not necessarily lead to increased crime. Mr.
Paul stated that any Orem citizen who had been treated at local hospitals, gone to local schools,
or been assisted by local public safety personnel had therefore benefitted from UVU. He said
they had heard tonight from UVU representatives that the proposed project would immediately
benefit students and improve the quality of UVU graduates. He stated that UVU did not make
decisions whether or not it experienced growth; rather, this was the decision of the State
Legislature. Mr. Paul stated that he was a thirteen-year resident of southwest Orem and he
supported this proposal. He remarked that his family was willing to move closer to the
development.
Brady Barlow, resident, was concerned that the residents in this area hadn't been listened to or
respected. He stated that the developers were in the business of making money, and was of the
opinion that this project was not moving in the right location. He said he was concerned for the
safety of his young children as they walked around the neighborhood. He asked the Council to
respect the citizens' concerns.
Jana King, resident, said the projected student population would be about four percent of the
student population, which was “a small drop in the bucket." She said that while this proposal
was presented as a cure-all for increasing freshmen retention, safety and higher graduation rates,
these issues did not represent a common trend for all students. While four percent of UVU's
students could enjoy the benefits of this project, 100 percent of the neighbors would deal with its
potentially negative impacts. Ms. King felt as if southwest Orem was the sacrificial lamb for the
growth of UVU, which she did not appreciate. She asked the Council to consider their
constituents and neighbors.
Debby Carlyle, resident, stressed that there were many citizens who opposed this project, and she
implored the Mayor and Council to reject this proposal.
James Kemp, resident, said he had lived in the area for six years and many of the Palos Verdes
residents were part of his neighborhood and LDS ward. Many of his neighbors were forced to
move, which he found to be distressing. He said there were two types of people who supported
this project, excluding the developers: (1) students and (2) previous homeowners who used to
live in the area. He explained that neither of those groups’ concerns were long-term, thereby
making it easier for them to support the proposal. Mr. Kemp stated that long-term residents did
not support this project.
Mayor Brunst closed the public hearing.
**Note: Mr. Macdonald took a break from 10:35 pm to 10:40 pm.
Mr. Sumner said while there were some deep pockets on this project, he kept thinking back to
issues that came up as part of the Midtown project. He said if the project was approved, he
wanted to know what would happen if the developer ran into financial issues and could not finish
City Council Minutes - February 13, 2018 (p.33)


the project. Mr. Bell said the only bond the City collected was for sidewalk, landscaping, asphalt
and other offsite improvements.
Mr. Woodbury said it was his understanding that Orem City funded a bond to help subsidize the
Midtown project. Mayor Brunst said the City funded a bond for the parking garage. Mr.
Davidson interjected that the City did not fund a bond; rather, a special improvement district was
created and the developer paid for the bond. Mayor Brunst clarified that the bond was backed by
the City and developer paid the City each year.
Mr. Sumner asked what was guaranteed even in the worst case scenario. Mr. Woodbury said
there was not a guarantee; however, he said the risk was to the developer not the City. Mayor
Brunst asked how much square footage of retail space was owned by Woodbury Corporation.
Mr. Woodbury stated that they owned approximately ten million square feet of retail space,
excluding PEG, and they had never defaulted on an obligation. In response to a question from
Mr. Sumner regarding retail uses, Mr. Jardine said they had 6,000 square feet that were
designated as a convenience store and a cafe in a 50/50 split.
Mr. Sumner said when UVU removed the berm, there was a significant problem with
construction trucks coming up 8oo West and leaving a trail of debris. He asked if there was a
mitigation plan in place for 40o West. Mr. Jardine said the primary access would be through
Wolverine Way and 960 South; in other words, they would not leave the City's roads in disarray.
Mr. Sumner said he was concerned for the safety of the neighborhood children.
Mr. Lynn Woodbury said certain limitations would be imposed on the contractors with regards to
accessing the site. He stated that they would work with City staff in developing those access
routes. Mr. Sumner asked if a van shuttle program would decrease the traffic in and out of the
complex. Mr. Jardine said they had brainstormed ideas on how to cut down on trips out of the
complex; however, nothing had been included in the development agreement. Mr. Taylor
Woodbury added that they were conscientious of providing a first-class student housing project.
While they did not currently have a shuttle plan in the agreement, they were not opposed to
considering the option in the future. Mr. Sumner asked if there were any plans to construct
electronic signs on 4oo West, to which Mr. Jardine responded in the negative. He explained that
the concept rendering showed signage above the parking structure entrance on the south end of
the property, as well as a monument sign on 960 South and Campus Drive. Mr. Sumner asked
about easements on College Drive. Mr. Jardine said all of the easements were included in the
development agreement and would be recorded upon approval; all easements were tied to the PD
zone and would be recorded individually.
Mr. Sumner asked if the developers’ easements were in violation of an existing moratorium on
1300 West. Mr. Earl said the developers had an agreement with UVU which granted certain
easements; the easements in question were pending recordation upon approval. Mr. Earl said the
moratoriumwould not beviolated.
Mr. Sumner said he loved the project and trusted the developers of this project. He noted that he
worked for UVU for eleven years and was now retired. He stated that the City had spent
countless hours on developing a vision for the community, and it was his personal opinion that
this project destroyed that vision. Mr. Sumner stated that he was on the City Council in 2014
and he voted for the moratorium on high density housing along State Street. He said a lot of his
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.34)


campaign literature stated his promise to preserve neighborhoods. Therefore, he could not vote
in favor of this project.
Mr. Seastrand said he appreciated the passion in the room and said he had visited with many
people in various parts of the City regarding this project. From an overall standpoint of
leadership, he was trying to address what was going on in the City and seeking to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the residents. He stated that every economic study indicated that
Orem and surrounding cities would experience significant growth within the next few years. As
a Council, it was their responsibility find a way to address that growth. He said the growth was
occurring as generations of existing Orem families continued living nearby. Mr. Seastrand said
he supported all types of families. In dealing with growth, there were many issues that needed to
be addressed and he believed staff and elected officials had given their best efforts to address
those items. Mr. Seastrand said he valued education and he believed the community did as well.
He said Orem was blessed not only for its family values but because of its great institutions. He
said he represented all of the City's residents, both and near and far to this particular project. He
said this proposal was especially challenging because it was not a complete win for all parties.
He said he opposed this project until the Council received confirmation of approval that the
developer had met the expectations set forth by the City. Mr. Seastrand expressed appreciation
for the long hours and extra costs involved in addressing parking issues. In addition, he said he
felt the traffic issues had been mitigated to the best extent possible. Mr. Seastrand reviewed the
discussions he had with various individuals on this proposal, including representatives at
Lakeridge Junior High. He said the passion of concern for children's safety was high on every
level.
Mr. Macdonald said he moved to Orem when he was thirteen and at that time there were only
four stop lights in the City. He said he had watched the City grow over the years. In November
2015, he met with Murray Lowe; Mr. Lowe showed a vision of what could happen with regards
to growth within the City. He stated that the “goal post had switched many times" and that it
would be impossible to please any one particular group on this issue.
Mr. Lentz said he appreciated the participation that had taken place during this meeting. With
regards to traffic on Sundays, he said traffic measurements were based on typical weekdays
because that was when the majority of the City's roads experienced the greatest demand. He
asked staff to speak to what traffic they might expect on a Sunday. Mr. Bell said typically the
counts took place during the week; he said he could not venture to guess what would take place
on the weekends. Mr. Goodrich said he also did not have any data to address Mr. Lentz's
question, because staff was unaware of the LDs Church's plans.
Mr. Lentz asked staff to speak to the rationale behind why the City had not installed traffic lights
at roundabouts. Mr. Goodrich said he did not know of a five-legged intersection where a traffic
light worked well. He discussed the roundabout on Campus Drive and stated that when it was
installed it provided better access to campus and reduced traffic volumes. Mr. Lentz asked how
a land swap would impact traffic. Mr. Goodrich said they would need to start from scratch
wherever a developer wanted to position a site; since there hadn't been a proposal in another part
of the City, there hadn't been any analyses conducted. Mr. Lentz asked if there was any way to
predict whether or not a university parking lot would be more likely have more traffic versus
parking was free and explained that public transit was also a factor.
City Council Minutes -February 13, 2018 (p.35)


Mr. Lentz asked Mr. Bell to summarize the infrastructure costs that would be required to support
this project. Mr. Bell said the City promised to pay for design work on the traffic light. He
continued that the City presently did not have any plans to widen 40o West. The developer ran
an analysis for water and sewer capacities and determined that the existing pipes would handle
the growth; if this were not the case, those improvements would have been the financial
responsibility of the developers. Mr. Bell said he was not aware of any other infrastructure
needs, and noted that there was already existing street lighting.
Mr. Lentz asked if the developer would help pay to connect the storm drain for the underground
pedestrian walkway into the existing system. Mr. Davidson answered affirmatively and stated
that this was a project improvement. Mr. Lentz asked if the proposed development was the
highest density project in Orem. Mr. Bell said he did not believe that was true; he said Midtown
was larger. Mayor Brunst said he believed the Aston development at University Mall would be
the largest development once it was built out, and Mr. Bench concurred. Mr. Lentz stated that
with regards to property values, there was no crystal ball that could determine a property's worth
in the future. However, he asked Mr. Bell if he had seen any significant shifts in neighborhoods
surrounding high density projects, to which Mr. Bell responded in the negative.
Mr. Lentz asked if the City could hire a part time student parking enforcer in order to address
parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Earl said the person would need to be sworn in as peace
enforcer or employee of the City; private citizens could not issue parking citations. However, the
City did have volunteer police officers and the person would not necessarily need to go through
the Police Academy in order to be qualified to issue parking citations. Mr. Earl said based on the
language of the development agreement, even if someone was parking legally they could be
referred to as a nuisance by the residents. He subsequently described the process for filing a
complaint. Mr. Lentz asked if there was a way to fast track the process for submitting
complaints, such as establishing a hotline. Mr. Earl stated that residents could contact
developmentservices.
Mr. Lentz expressed appreciation to the citizens for their involvement on this issue. He said he
did not consider “density" to be a four-letter word; however, he realized that there were impacts
that resulted in high density. In his mind, the enemy was not density but poor planning and
design. He stated that it was painful to hear students compared to solid waste, which had
happened during tonight's meeting. He said students were not aliens, and he explained that he
never felt pressured by the developers or staff on this issue; however, he did feel pressure from
the South West Orem Neighborhood Association (SWONA) group. Mr. Lentz discussed a
personal experience he had in volunteering in Kenya with an organization that provided micro
loans, and the number one concern Kenyan citizens expressed was how to get their children in
school. He said this area had thrived because education was a high priority. As far as preserving
neighborhoods, Mr. Lentz said in speaking with a resident they discussed which was more
damaging to neighborhoods: illegal accessory apartments or high density housing. He said if
there wasn't any student housing available, students would opt to cram a bunch of people into a
single-family home with an absentee landlord. Mr. Lentz was of the opinion that this impacted
the neighborhood more negatively than high density housing. Mr. Lentz said he couldn't speak
for the future; however, tonight's vote did not bind future votes. Mr. Lentz recognized that the
s  d s r     m d sn n   si
that the way residents were impacted by this decision paled in comparison to how students were
City Council Minutes -February13,2018(p.36)


impacted by this decision. He said his first year at BYU set his life course in place. He said they
needed to respect and represent the citizens of Orem and that included UVU students, who also
paid taxes and shared the costs of City services. Mr. Lentz concluded that the students’ short-
term concerns had very long-term impacts.
Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Jardine about yearly contracts. Mr. Jardine said the market as a whole
was trending towards yearly contracts, which was also their preference. Mr. Spencer asked Mr.
Martin about square footage of the student center building where another meeting on this issue
was previously held. Mr. Martin stated that the facility in question was a five-story building with
250,000 square feet. He recalled that the building contained 150 offices with a capacity of
approximately 8,0o0 students; however, he said he would need to verify that information. In
response to a question from Mr. Spencer, Mr. Martin noted that the UCCU building was owned
through the County government and the State owned the land. He said in total there were 8,600
parking stalls at UVU's student center. There was subsequent deliberation regarding a potential
land swap and what purpose it would serve.
**Note: Mark Tippets made several inaudible comments from the audience.
Mr. Spencer stated that in his mind the City had three options to consider. (1) The City could
vote no and UVU could do a land swap, thereby moving the PEG development to the other side
of freeway. (2) The City could vote no, and UVU could do an RFP and construct the building to
the university's specifications. In this case, the public would have no input on the project. (3)
The City could vote yes, the City would control the project with a development agreement and
receive the property tax. Mr. Spencer stated that at this point, Option #3 seemed like the best
option. Mr. Spencer said he was pained by this project because there was no compromise.
Mrs. Lauret said she had lost a lot of sleep over this project. She asked Mr. Goodrich if UVU
grew to 50,000 students and this project was not built, would those additional students add more
traffic to this neighborhood. Mr. Goodrich said yes, the traffic could be a lot worse. The
neighborhood was taking a huge gamble on this project. However, the City would have control
over the project by way of a development agreement. Mr. Goodrich said it was his professional
opinion that student housing was the best development option for the property in question.
 r is  ss s  d r a n n 
walked the UVU campus; these developers were of the highest quality and had built many good
projects. He said this area seemed like a prime location for student housing; it was consisted
with the rest of the area because it was surrounded by UVU. He believed the development
would reduce car trips, thereby reducing some of the demands on the roads by creating walkable
student housing. Mayor Brunst stated that the demand for student housing was real; he
expressed the importance in investing in the community's students.
Mayor Brunst moved, by ordinance, to amend 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 *UU', and amending Section 22-5-3(A) and the zoning map of the Orem City Code by
changing the zone at approximately 1000 South 400 West from the R8 zone to the PD-48 zone.
Mayor Brunst also moved, by ordinance, that the City vacate those portions of 1ooo South Street,
Palos Verdes Drive, and a portion of 5oo West Street that were included within the Palos Verdes
Estates Subdivision, Plat “A" and Plat "B". Mr. Lentz seconded the motions. Those voting aye:
City Council Minutes -February 13,2018(p.37)


Richard F.Brunst,Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,and David Spencer. Those
voting nay: Debby Lauret and Brent Sumner.The motionspassed 5-to-2.
COMMUNICATIONITEMS
Therewereno CommunicationItems.
CITYMANAGERINFORMATIONITEMS
Mr.Davidson said had newInformation Items to share.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Spencer moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lentz seconded the motion. Those voting aye:
Richard F.Brunst,DebbyLauret,Sam Lentz,Tom Macdonald,Mark Seastrand,David Spencer,
and Brent Sumner.Themotionpassedunanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:42 p.m.
CORPORATE
SEAL
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved: March 27, 2018
CityCouncil Minutes-February13,2018（p.38)