City Council · 2021-02-09

Hey, Jeff, you're good.

Okay. Mayor Brunst is tied up for a little bit this afternoon, so he's asked me to conduct this City Council work session today. And at the beginning, I'll read this, the notice of all electronic meeting and opportunity for public participation statement. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunst's proclamation dated February 4th, 2021, The Orem City Council meeting on February 9th, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the, the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location in the Orem City Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk To the health and safety of those who may present at the meeting and may contribute to the spread of COVID-19, there will be no public access to the Orem City Council chambers. Those desiring to view or participate in the meeting must do so electronically. To view the meeting, please go to orem.org/meeting. And because there's no City Council meeting this evening, any comments that are submitted will be read at the end of this City Council work session at the end of this meeting. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. And we'll go ahead and get started with our first discussion this evening, a discussion about the Hillcrest Park, and that will be presented by Lisa Benson of Landmark Design.

Yes, and maybe just to kind of preface, so we've got Mark Vlasic, Lisa Benson, and Hugh Holt from Landmark Design, and then Scott Smith with Method Studio. And we just— last time, due to time— naturally due to time constraints, we didn't really have time to kind of solicit more feedback, direction, and discussion on this subject. And so, Lisa will talk about comparing and contrasting the different options so that we can hopefully, you know, get some feedback there on what the preference of the Council is on how we move forward with that. And then also, we want to illustrate the online public open house process from here that we would recommend and how to get kind of the best constructive, helpful feedback moving forward. So, I guess with that intro, Lisa, can I turn the time over to you?

Sure. So I just want to walk through kind of some summary information on the concepts really quick so that we have more time for discussion. So I just wanted to walk through to refresh your memory. Let me share my screen here real quick.

Okay.

So again, we had the 3 different concepts for the Hillcrest site. There's the first concept.

Lisa, if I may, I think as a council we decided we're not at all interested in Option 1.

Well, Councilmember McDonald, I would I'm hearing otherwise, so I think—

okay, thank you.

I think the council needs to speak as to what their desire is prospectively.

I think Thomas— Rev Road wanted to give us an idea if we kept Option 1, what that would look like. It wasn't a decision to do it or not do it, just to see what they were going to So I think, at least that's what I'm thinking Jamie is referencing, just an opportunity to see what they were going to present if in fact we did keep the whole building and they took it over. But I'm not saying for or against that.

I'm going off our email of 2 weeks ago, and you're right, Jamie. I'll let her continue. I apologize.

No problem at all. We just wanted to kind of run through the 3 concepts, and then you guys can give whatever feedback you would like and ask whatever questions you want. Just some thoughts as we were looking at the 3 concepts. So the full school concept, the boundary area shown in red is basically the impact on the site if you decided to sell the building and the associated, you know, required parking to someone else. It takes up about 50% of the site, that area outlined in red. So the required parking for the building alone is 212 stalls. We did a rough calculation ourselves of the rest of the site, which would be 64 stalls. So that's a total of 276 stalls. You could possibly get that reduced to 223 by the Planning Commission, but the— The stalls provided on-site are only 170 shown in this concept. So, that's something to be aware of, that already what's shown is taking up nearly 50% of the site, and that is not enough parking according to city code, and even the minimum city code, if you could get that reduced. So, something to keep in mind, in addition to the costs, like if the city were to keep the building itself, that's a whole other road as well. The second concept again was this partial retention of the building where you would keep the gym, the kitchen, the media center, and you have some of those other uses. I just wanted to illustrate on this one that the building in this case would all be— this would be city-owned, this would be recreation purposes, but I just wanted to illustrate footprint-wise, you know, the building and what percentage of the parking on site. is going just towards meeting the city code needs for, you know, the parking for that square footage of the building. So in this concept, you have 70 stalls required for the building. We estimated another 76 for the site, the park site itself, so your total required parking stalls would be 146. This concept is actually only providing 113. You may be able to get that Reduced a little bit. So if you, if you could get the parking requirements reduced on site, we're not too far off on the parking requirements for this concept.

Lisa, I have a question.

Sure.

Okay. I have looked at the gym and the, and this whole building. Did you guys have a use for the media center as far as how you would repurpose that, or was it just that newer area leaving?

So when we were talking with Scott, and maybe Scott can speak to this because we weren't actually able to tour the buildings ourselves, but Scott was, and they said the quality of the media center was actually rather high. It's a really nice community space. And maybe Scott, if you want to chime in for a minute on that space.

Yeah, can you guys hear me? Yeah, yeah, the media center, it was, it was actually built in the '70s. '70s, so there would be some seismic upgrade, but the whole room itself is covered in wood, and it's kind of a nice cozy kind of place for either classes or some sort of community gathering place.

Hey, Scott, could you speak up just a little? It's just coming through pretty quiet.

Sorry. Yeah, sorry about that. My speakers and thing aren't working, but the media center itself is kind of a nice cozy spot. The woods— or the walls are all covered in wood. There's a nice fireplace. So, we thought that it would be a nice place for community gathering or other classes or something like that that could happen in that area. Again, it is built in the '70s, and so it would need some seismic upgrade, probably in that— just that area. But that's the purpose of why we wanted to maybe keep the media center.

If you decided that we didn't want to keep that area just because of its age and the cost to upgrade it, and you just kept the kitchen, the gymnasium, there's a really good classroom, would that give— well, obviously that gives you more space for something else, pickleball, open space, whatever. Is there, is there any thinking that what might be put there if we didn't keep the media center, or is that, is that just something we haven't discussed yet?

Yeah, we did. Method actually did look at another option where we kept just that footprint. We didn't do a site concept for that, but that's definitely something that can be looked at as we get further into the design process.

Okay, I just know that some of the emails wanted a little more open space, and the, you know, the gymnasium and the kitchen were in mint condition. The other was, it was okay. I know it does have some beautiful woods and But I, you know, it wasn't as— I think it costs a lot more and takes more time to upgrade that. So just wondering if that's an option.

Yeah, and something— and Scott, I know you guys ran some quick calculations at one point, the cost that it would be to build like this gym space new somewhere else. I can't remember if you happen to have a note of that written somewhere.

I don't.

It was, it was quite a bit more. I mean, we were looking at— let's see, let me just open my—

So just something to keep in mind as you're weighing options, you know, if you were to tear the whole building down, to be able to build this type of gym space and kind of community kitchen space elsewhere, kind of looking at the cost-benefit of that, to have to rebuild that new somewhere else would be quite a bit more expensive.

And, and also, I'll just kind of throw in there, Debbie, that part of the reason to keep some of it would be so that we didn't have to build new additional pavilions, new additional restrooms, that we could use kind of the existing there, which, you know, for basing kind of gym square footage, the cost of that, very extremely high level, you know, we're looking at upwards of—

$2 million.

$300 a square foot.

Okay, thank you.

So just to build that gym area would— I mean, we're looking at probably upwards of $3 million, just, you know, if we were to build that brand new.

So taking a look at the 3rd concept, which you remember is removing the building entirely and kind of developing that parkside out. And this, this option, we were pretty close on the parking there. That could come or go depending on, you know, additional uses that may come in or not. So that's kind of just a quick— the 3 concepts. As we were discussing this project, some of the things to think about are, you know, right now you have this 9.3-acre site. site in the middle of a heavily developed— I mean, it's already a developed area of the community, so to be able to obtain parkland in a developed area of your community, that's quite a feat. And so evaluating the value of possibly selling part of that off, you know, to this outside company and losing some of that use as park site, you know, and maybe that use could potentially be relocated, you know, could be located somewhere else in the city. Just something to think about. We think the value of having parkland in this area is quite high. Just something to consider as you're talking about it. So, does anybody have any questions or thoughts on directions on the 3 concepts? We feel like it might be helpful to narrow it down for the Council to decide on a direction. At least, you know, if you decide to totally rule out the option without the building, then that gives us kind of a narrower focus to go to the public with. And it's— I think it's easier to get more directed comments and feedback from the public than almost giving them too much to look at.

So, Lisa, I thought we as a council— maybe others can correct me—

but we—

there was an overwhelming feeling, I thought, last time we met with either going with B or C, and I didn't, I didn't see anybody that was interested in A. So unless there's others that feel differently, I, I definitely support your comments about what a great thing to be able to have in the middle of the— in the middle of a business district and retail district to have a park. So, but that's that. So I was— in fact, I thought tonight was going to be an actionable item to go with either B or C, or to have community input. So I'm— I don't know, I'm kind of confused what's going on, but—

I can speak to that. Personally, I favor 2, keeping the current gym and that, but I had a call from Mark Seestrand, and they had worked on a presentation about, you know, buying the building and what they would do. So I, when we first did that, I didn't know if they were still interested. And I think the idea was at least to see what they would offer. And so that's, that's why I was willing to look and see to make the best decision. I'm not saying I'm leaning that way. I, you know, I haven't seen what they would, what they, what they would propose or how that would look. I'm still leaning up keeping the gymnasium because it's, you know, it's, it's only 16 years old. That's my personal thing, but I wanted— I was willing to let them present so I had all the facts before I made the decision.

That would be present again since we already— they already did that.

I only saw an initial idea. I never saw their real— what they were— what they would do, unless someone else has.

This is Dave here. So I thought, just look from the email string, I thought we had 4 that wanted 2 or 3. Unless I missed an email. So I'm not sure, you know, where it changed course. Because I thought Tom was right when he mentioned the email.

I thought that we were all in favor of that as well. But I was also contacted by Mark and, you know, told him that I would favor Option 2 or 3, but that I would be I'm, you know, fine to listen to their presentation, but just with that caveat that I'm leaning heavily towards 3. And, you know, my opinion would be either 2 or 3.

I mean, was there an email that went out? I don't remember seeing that.

I didn't get an email. I got a call.

I got a call too.

My understanding, counsel, is that Mark Seestrand contacted each of you individually, and it was represented to me that 4 of you were still interested in having this conversation.

Jamie, he did not contact me. Well, he did months ago, but he has not contacted me in the last 6 months or whatever period. So no, I had no contact from him, and I do know that there was 4 people that wanted to have B or C.

So I will represent to you that I had a conversation with Mark Seastrand as well and represented to him what I thought was the intent of the council, which was to proceed forward with either Option 2 or 3. And I cited the essentially the, the amount of acreage that would be required for Option 1 for private use was such that essentially would make the conversations that we've collectively, you collectively been having about this location impossible.

Well, and that's, that's fine if that's the will. I was just, as a courtesy, I was willing to let him show us the plan to see, but I'm still favoring the other one.

Yeah, I mean, in reality, it should have been an email sent out if we concur with that, and that was my concern. I think we had a decision that 4 people wanted to move forward with 2 and 3, and now we're— because somebody contacted on the backside, that we've changed our decision. So I'm a little concerned at that because it should have been an email sent out by Debbie or whoever and said, hey, this is happening. Uh, because I have not been contacted by Mark after our meeting last time.

If I If I may, I think there were 6 in favor of 2 or 3. The total City Council, the mayor never opined. And Mark did call me and said he didn't think it was fair. He asked me if I would champion listening, and I said no. I'm willing to listen, but I don't think it's helpful because the council and the community have spoken. We want to keep 9 acres in park. So if you think you can convince, I guess I'd listen. But I believe B or C is the right answer, and there were 6 of us who did agree with that. I think at this point we have to decide, do we want to listen to this other proposal, or are we firm in our decision?

When would we do that, listen to the proposal?

I would suggest that we do it— we would do it the 23rd of February, which is the next scheduled council meeting.

Well, I don't see a problem with listening to their proposal. I'm heavily in favor of— I think it was number 2, but, you know, to be fair to RevRoad, I guess we could listen to them.

But I think— I mean, the reason this conversation, I think, is relevant to what Lisa is discussing is if we are going to engage in a public process, then let's engage in a conversation that relates to, uh, essentially the supermajority will of the council and not something different. So if there is still an interest in having the conversation about one, that's fine too. But I, I think that we should delay having this public conversation and efforts to forward this public conversation Until we can get past this one decision point.

And to dovetail off that, because I think you can kind of see from what Lisa is showing us today, there's kind of competing interests here, right, between if we were to sell the building and, and then lose control of how to have kind of aligning uses of the parking, and, and then also It would significantly limit our ability to achieve the best of both worlds in having kind of regional park amenity uses here, and what the local— what the immediate neighborhood is wanting as kind of, you know, neighborhood park amenity uses. So, so I think we wanted to make sure that you kind of appreciated the comparison and contrast here and these competing interests. But again, ultimately hoping to get direction from you on where we go from here and how we come back to you.

Thanks, Brad. So, so my question is, Jamie, if, if we want to hear Rev Road, I'm assuming it's going to have to be— could it be a Zoom meeting next week, you know, or— because I don't think—

I mean, we could, we could schedule it as a— we could schedule it as a special City Council meeting. Yes.

But as a courtesy, I have no problem listening to Rev. Rowe, but I like 2 or 3, period. So unless they're going to dazzle us with something, I just— I mean, we'll give them the opportunity, but I think, you know, my decision is pretty much cemented, the way I feel and the way the citizens have spoken.

And I guess that was what I represented to Mark. So if you feel otherwise, then I'm happy to schedule the meeting.

My opinion is I'm very much opposed to scheduling a meeting because we've already gone down this road. We had 6— Thompson, we had 6 out of the 7 members of City Council say we want B or C, and then one citizen can come in and delay the process and continue to delay the development of a park after we already saw the presentation and there's no support. There's, there's a consideration since I guess, you know, he's a good guy and served on the City Council, but I don't know if that's a reason to delay a city park after this group already came, and I don't see much interest from the City Council to turn this— to rezone it and stick it off and put a bunch of companies in there. I'm confused why one person can delay this for another month.

I mean, the question, Terry, would be, you know, what if it's Thursday at 3 o'clock and they can give their presentation and we move on, so it hasn't delayed it more than 2 days or whatever?

But we don't have an actionable item on B or C until 2 weeks from now. Is that right?

Right.

We know—

I, if I may, sorry, Dave. Our intent would be to engage the community by way of a public process as to what their interest is relative to 2 and 3. I just think if we include one, it further complicates it. I represent the will— we represent, or I represent the will of the council to those in the community. So when I represented to them that I didn't think the council had an interest in pursuing number 1, I thought I represented the will of the council. And then I hear back that I don't. So, and that's fine too, but, you know, I thought we were past that.

Yeah, I agree, Jamie. That's what I did too.

And I agree with that too, Jamie. What I, what I communicated to them was that I was firmly for 2 or 3, that I didn't see 1 as a possibility, that it takes up too much space, too much parking, and it's more money. And the only thing that would sway me is if there was an overwhelming public outcry to keep the building, which I don't see happening. And so basically, it was, it was out of respect, or, you know, whatnot, to give them an opportunity to come and present. But I don't see my mind being changed from 2 or 3.

So if we, if we do schedule a meeting for Thursday and RevRoad presents their plan, and then with an email we can say, hey, let's move forward 2 and 3, and then we've only lost 2 days, we can do the public input and move on.

We wouldn't need an email. That city council could have an actionable item right there.

Okay, that's true. Thanks, Tom.

By the way, The feedback I'm getting isn't from anyone who wants a building, but people who say, hey, I don't want so many pickleball courts, just give me grass where I can go throw a Frisbee and a football and kick a soccer ball. So that's what we need citizen input for, I think.

I agree.

Well, and I, and I, if I may, I think it's important to reinforce that what we've been working on with Landmark, Concept 2, Concept 3, those are merely suggestions. I mean, we can come back, you can come back and say, let's do 8 pickleball courts, or let's do 25 pickleball courts.

It's—

we just wanted to put something that is representative, one, of the needs we have as identified in our Parks Master Plan, some of the feedback we've been hearing, but it's not exhaustive feedback. And third, trying to maximize use of the space, because we believe that those surrounding the area want it to be an active space. So what you're seeing are active-type things: pickleball courts, a hammock park, playgrounds, pavilion spaces, obviously an indoor facility as well. Because we made the assumption that people wanted to see more than just turf.

I've got a question for Scott Smith on this. Can you go back to number 2?

Sure.

Yeah.

So with the media center, I don't know how big that thing is, but my thought was, you know, do you put 4 pickleball courts in the media center and now you have somewhere you can go in the winter to play pickleball? I know that's just a thought, but we need to get citizen feedback for sure.

So the media center itself would not be big enough for pickleball.

No.

Okay.

It's, and it's kind of broken up as you can kind of see the floor plan there. So it's low ceilings and it's okay.

Sorry.

Thank you.

This is Debbie. You could stripe the gymnasium for pickleball, is that correct?

You could make that Okay, probably fit maybe 3 pickleball courts on that. Possibly, I think we'd have to, you know, lay it all out, but that's a possibility.

Yes.

Okay, so that would make indoor possible.

Yes.

So does that become then a satellite of the rec center? Well, we would have to hire someone to be there and to You know, open the building and—

I mean, there's, there's a variety of options. I mean, we could, we could use that space for city purposes, i.e., recreation programs. We could work with other local groups, i.e., CIRA, the United Way, other, other organizations, in allowing them access to some of that space for Some of their programs. But yes, there would be an added operating and maintenance cost from the city associated with that building, just like in the same way there's going to be additional operating and maintenance costs with the outdoor amenities and outdoor facilities. But we didn't necessarily envision exclusively keeping it for city-type programs. We thought, well, you know, if If there are community organizations that would like to use that space, we could, you know, we could make it available for use by agreement.

Amy, this is Ryan. Can I add one clarifying piece of information? The plan that Scott has up right now, that facility does not have restrooms, so we would have to add restrooms. to whatever we decide to keep. The restrooms are actually over near the media center in the existing classroom wing. So I just want to make sure everyone's aware of that.

So I'm willing to meet with Red Road on a special meeting They can show their plan, but bottom line is it's a citizen input on what they want.

So that's my 2 cents.

I think, you know, you know, Terry mentioned that it's right in the middle of businesses and, and, and civic centers, but it's also right in the middle of a neighborhood. that needs this space, and I really value heavily what their input will be. I think that will mean a lot.

So, do we have a decision on how we want to proceed? Jeff, you want to take a roll call, or—

I mean, yeah, how many of us would be willing to listen to Rev Rudd and At least give them the opportunity to present, and then—

If it's this Thursday, like Dave mentioned.

Okay.

And I think in fairness to them, they need to know the strong leaning is not to go that way. And then they may decide that it isn't worth their time. But I guess I'd be willing to delay this 2 days to listen to them. But yeah, so yes, I'd be okay if we do it Thursday, but they should know the feeling of the council.

Okay, Terry, is that okay with you?

I'm not willing to listen to them. I listened to them before, I saw their presentation, and I don't think it represents the best interests of the community. So I want to, you know, vote as far as an actual item, but I'm not willing to listen.

Okay, Dave, are you willing to I'm willing to listen, but as I said, I'm definitely for 2 and 3 and what the citizens want. So if they can do it on Thursday, and then after that we can make a decision and do an actual item, as Terry says, let's move forward.

Okay, and Debbie?

Same thing, I'm willing to listen. I still favor 2 or 3, but I think out of respect, I'd be happy to listen.

Okay, and I feel the same way, so Jamie, what would we need to do to make that happen?

We will— we can reach out to RevRoad, and we can schedule a meeting. Is the council— are you interested in an early morning meeting or a later meeting? It is obviously— we're heading into a holiday weekend, so I don't know what people's schedules are. Do you want to do it first thing on Thursday morning, for example?

I, I can be available for either.

Checking my schedule.

We will need to have at least 24 hours notice for the meeting.

I could, I could do either. I have something at 10:30, but I could do anything morning or evening.

I have a hard stop at 10, or I could do it at 4.

Well, if you want to do it at 4, we can schedule it at 4.

That works.

4 works for me.

Yeah.

Is that good for you, Brent?

Yeah, I'm good anytime Thursday.

He's retired.

Jeff, this is Terry. I will listen to the meeting. I'm opposed to the concept that one group can, you know, do what they're doing, but I will, you know, I'll be on the meeting too.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Okay, so it sounds like Thursday at 4 o'clock, that'll give us the 24-hour notice and Assuming Steve, Steve will send out an invitation to that Zoom meeting.

So we— Councilmember Lamson, we have Jody Bates, our city recorder, on the line. Can Jody, you just confirm that we're scheduling a meeting at 4 PM via Zoom on Thursday afternoon, and that I will reach out specifically to the folks at RevRoad and invite them to that meeting. And give them an opportunity to make their presentation.

Jamie, could you put a time limit on that to, uh, RevRoad? I don't want to go on, on and on and on.

I'm, I'm happy to do that.

And if, if Jody's struggling to hear, I'm hearing it well clear, and we'll get it done for sure.

Thank you, Stephen.

And will you let them know too that the heavy, the heavy balance opposed to what they're proposing going in?

Yes, I will.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions on the discussion for Hillcrest Park?

Okay.

I'm happy to still go forward and discuss more, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to complicate the process. I was just asked to listen, so. So that's, that's why I brought it, even brought it up.

Okay.

Lisa, did you have other things that you wanted to present on this today?

Just our only thoughts were about the public process, what that might look like.

Okay, please.

I think, I think we'd like to, you know, recommend having the options, whatever, however many are out there, probably 2 and 3, maybe 1, have those out there on a website. that people can go and view at any time and have some sort of feedback mechanism, whether it's a little survey that ties to each concept. But then if we need to, we can host one or a couple of live meetings to go through the concepts and answer questions and take feedback if we want to that way.

And I'll just add that we feel like we've had some really good success doing online kind of public feedback open houses with, with some of our other efforts through, through planning, and would, would imagine we could kind of pattern this open house for the Hillcrest in kind of a similar fashion. And I think Landmark has had success with that with other cities recently too.

Yeah, we have. And just the interest that's already been generated in this topic in this park, I think Excellent.

Well, thank you very much. If there are no other comments or questions, we'll go ahead—

Jeff, I've got a question.

Okay.

So I think moving forward, we need to really use the email thing. If we have 4 people that want to do something, we We can't be going behind. It needs to be out in the open with the email to Jamie. So we have 4— if 4 or 5 or 6, we need to just move on with that and not cause problems.

So—

Yep.

Yep, I agree. Okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and move on to the next item, a discussion on Watts Smart Committee. This will be presented by Nate Prescott.

Hello everybody, um, so I'm Nate, I'm an economic development analyst, and I've got a new project, uh, and we just wanted to give an update to the council, um, so I'm going to share my screen. Alright, so this WattSmart Communities project is a partnership between the city and Rocky Mountain Power. We are— basically, we're working together to create an energy action plan for our future. This is a continuation of past energy projects that we've done where we've had energy audits and energy saving information that we've done with Siemens. And this project is— it's free and voluntary. And as we roll it out, it's free and voluntary for businesses, residents, different organizations. And we think that it can help them be more energy efficient and at the end of the day save a lot of money through their energy efficient means. So WattSmart Communities is a facilitated data-driven planning process that empowers your community community to plan for and achieve energy goals. Basically, we're going to— like I said, we're building on past projects. We're going to take all the information that we've already learned about our energy usage. We're going to get more energy information from Rocky Mountain Power, and we're going to work with stakeholders throughout the community to set goals for energy usage and create a plan moving forward. So, so like I said, with Rocky Mountain Power and with our stakeholders, we're gonna create goals and we're gonna create an actionable implementation plan. So here's some of our, our peers that have done this. This isn't a new project or a new program. Lots of other communities have had success with this so far, and There's a few of our neighbor cities that are still in the process of doing it, and things have worked out great for them so far. So the outcome that we hope for is for a custom-tailored energy action plan that's unique to Orem's needs and goals. We're going to use insights and goals from all across Orem It's going to be based in facts and reports from Rocky Mountain Power and past projects that we've done. It's— and it's going to result in actionable goals and plans from all different OREM organizations and the experience of Rocky Mountain Power and the projects that they've already done so far. So like I said, we're building a stakeholder team. We're trying to get varied experiences and goals and plans For, from organizations all across Orem to give us a better view of what we need and what we want. So we've got, we're working on stakeholders from the city, from Woodbury, some small businesses, people from Canyon Park Tech Center who have already done similar projects and had great success, UVU representatives, representatives from the school district, from hospitals, and other committees and involved citizens. So we're trying to get a very broad scope and very broad goals from all different walks of life here in Orem so we can craft our energy action plan. So at the end of the day, we're trying to create energy goals. We're trying to be more energy efficient and save all organizations throughout Orem some money and save them on their energy bills. And help contribute to a better environment. So we have a timeline. I didn't include all this, but it's going to be over the next couple years that we're working on this. We're rounding up stakeholders right now and we are moving forward with some workshops where we bring them all in and get all the information that we need from them, and then we'll move on to more of the planning and the, and the implement— creating the implementation plan. So right now we're in the early stages of it. We just wanted to make City Council aware of everything that's going on and let you know about this cool project. Are there any questions about the WattSmart Communities program?

And I noticed that you had involved citizens as part of the stakeholders. How, how would people How are they going to learn about this and how would they become involved if they wanted to do so?

Yeah, so, so we're still— we've got some names, but we also plan to reach out on social media. Maybe we'll mention it in our newsletter, but get the information out there. And for a few of these different— a few of the different organizations, we plan to do the same thing, like announce this on social media. try to get some attention and get some people to apply or nominate other people. But so we're still rounding up names, and that's one of the avenues that we plan to go down as well, is reach out to all the citizens.

Excellent. Wonderful. Any other questions or comments? Okay, Nate, thank you. The beard's looking good.

Thank you. Okay, thank you all, appreciate it.

We'll go ahead and move now to a discussion, discussion on State Street design standards. This will be presented by Jason Bench and Matt Taylor.

Thank you, Councilman Lampson and City Council. We're here tonight to present a review of some proposed ordinances that we're dealing with on State Street. We've had some issues with existing buildings along State Street that want to amend their site, but the ordinance currently prohibits them from doing that. We're here tonight to present some modifications to allow an existing building to remain, provided that the majority of their amendments meet the requirements. And so Grant— or Matt is going to be presenting This discussion. In addition to that, we're proposing some design standards in between the districts. Right now we have some pretty good design standards and abilities for aesthetically, you know, quality development within the districts. These standards tonight are going to help between the districts to bring that up to standard as well. So I'll turn the time to Matt and he can present his findings and presentation.

Thank you, Jason. My pleasure to be with you, council members. Um, let me share my screen and get that to work. Okay. So as Jason mentioned, the State Street Design Standards, we're gonna discuss 4 categories of topics here. What are the issues behind This. Jason already alluded to that, but I'll just reiterate a few points. We're going to talk just briefly about our desired outcomes or goals for this proposal, and then the actual details of the proposal, spend some more time on before turning it over to you for discussion. So, one of the issues that Jason already touched upon is owners that wish to expand existing buildings. That have a building that lies in what we call a buffered sidewalk area, and I will address what that is specifically in a moment. I'm sure most of you are familiar with that, but just a recap there. We also, as Jason said, want to address some basic design guidelines for the entire corridor beyond the districts. Mostly this would apply to C-2 zones. Also, I'm looking at utility appurtenances, boxes that might be placed within a right-of-way. How do we deal with that in an aesthetically pleasing way? So this is a buffered sidewalk provision. This is a really brief summary of the ordinance that exists as we redevelop State Street. The goal is to have redevelopment incorporate these buffered sidewalks with a 15-foot planter and 8-foot sidewalk along the corridor. These landscaped areas have trees every 40 feet. And one of the challenges we're facing is we do have buildings that exist, and they are within that 23 feet behind the curb. And I'll describe the extent of that in just a moment. But the ordinance requires redevelopment of that area, or requires that buffered sidewalk. And so it means that at a minimum, we'd need to remove the portion of the building that does not— that lies within that area. Of course, this may be prohibitive to expanding the building by adding additional costs or impractical costs or engineering to a building that's older. Also, property owners may not be interested in a major redevelopment at this time, taking the whole building out and coming up to current standards. And so in an effort to be customer service friendly and helpful and help the economy grow when we can, We're proposing some modifications to that buffered sidewalk provision that would help them expand their building, but retain our ability to create a walkable urban environment along the State Street District that will support transit in the long term. How extent— what is the extent of this? There are 54 properties and buildings within this zone. This graph, that represents 3.5% of the State Street frontage, so this isn't a huge area of The zone. If the entire corridor redeveloped, we'd see a variation of 3.5% of the frontage. Then, and that's also assuming every property didn't redevelop and they took advantage of this provision, so likely it'd be a far less number. Practically less, probably less than 1% of the corridor would actually take advantage of this at some point. That's a guess. But if everybody did, it'd be at the 3.5%. On this graphic here where it says A, this shows a building where it only has a portion of it within that buffered sidewalk zone. And so the standards we put forward would be modified just for that portion of the building, not the entire building. I'll show an example of how that works in a moment. Most of the buildings are, as just shown on this graph, are between 12 and 23 feet, which is the standard. There are a few outliers that are really close, about 6 or 5. And there are those extreme examples. I'll show an example of that, how that might apply in a moment. We do have maps of this, so I can share more detailed maps if you're interested. These blue dots sort of give you the feeling of the extent. Great thanks to Talia Adams, our intern, to helping me compile this inventory. What we want to do is, again, just briefly allow property owners more flexibility in how they expand existing buildings. We do want to provide some additional design requirements for the corridor to help tie the rest of the corridor in with the graph districts, but not, not necessarily to the same level of requirement. And as mentioned, we also want to deal with aesthetic concerns of utility boxes and how they're screened and look. So here are the details of our proposal. Buffered sidewalk modifications— this is the standard. We add an enabling clause that allows for modification to the buffered sidewalk provisions. This manifests in about 3 general outcomes. And those outcomes vary depending on the certain circumstance of the building, but if the distance between the back of the curb and an existing building is 13 feet or greater, this type of scenario would play into effect. That they still retain an 8-foot sidewalk, that's our number one goal. After that, a variable 5 to 15-foot landscape buffer would be employed depending on how far the building is from this curb, and trees would still be required to be maintained every 40 feet. Another possible outcome would be that if there's 13 to 10 feet between that building and the back of a curb. Again, we want that 8-foot sidewalk as our top priority. However, it becomes a problem with less than 3 feet often to maintain grass and landscaping and type of space. And so we allow a provision that allows them to put in stamped concrete or pavers. I apologize to Jason. I was supposed to put a graphic here of stamped concrete on University Parkway nearest to Outback Steakhouse where they've done this. If you can think of that area of the University Parkway corridor, that's, that's what we're intending here with this provision. Trees would still be allowed— required in this case though with tree grates that could project into the sidewalk area up to 2 feet, which would still allow for an even walkable surface. In extreme cases, and like I said there's less than 5 of these, if they chose to expand their existing building, we still require an 8-foot sidewalk to be installed and the remaining space could be put into that stamped concrete or paver with no trees. This is a tight situation and this would allow for them to have that flexibility. Now rarely would we ever see this actually employed— oh sorry, before I get to that point. We do want to make sure that the expansion of buildings isn't occurring within the buffered sidewalk.

Zone.

We don't want to increase the degree of nonconformity within this space. And so we have a provision that prohibits expansion of the building within that area. They could expand on any other side of the building. We also would require a transition, that they transition to the full standard as quickly as possible with a not to exceed 25 feet.

and length.

This graphic on the left just shows sort of how— this is a hypothetical, there's no real scenario that this represents, but this is how those different standards could be employed if they— all these buildings are compressed together. The graphic on the left is a mock-up of existing buildings on South State Street about 1700 South. I anticipate these buildings will probably redevelop rather than expand, but in case they did expand, this shows how the transition standards could be employed. Working around these buildings, the full standard being here on the right-hand side of the graphic, moving to down to a very minimal location, but transitioning as quickly as they can back to the normal standard. As we move northward, as this graphic's sort of oriented to the side. As we mentioned, we're proposing some additional design standards. These are based upon those in the district, but for the most part, but have some variation. I don't want to say a lesser standard, but less involved or required. But the goal to provide some consistency as well for the corridor. We want the entire corridor to be able to, as buildings redevelop, to have building access for daily customer use oriented and accessible from the street. And so we encourage the goals of the corridor for a transit-supported district and pedestrian-oriented district. This is a new provision, though, that would apply to the entire district, including the districts that buildings along State Street right-of-way would have 30 feet of leasable space along the corridor. The goal is to prevent storage, parking garages, uninhabitable spaces to be lining a valuable commodity. which is for street frontage, and which encourages the pedestrian transit nature of that corridor.

Hey, Matt, this is David Spencer. I've got a question. If you can go back to the next slide for the— yeah, the access on— so that is only on State Street. So if we're talking on 1600 North and 4th West, you know, we have to limit access, right? So this is just on State Street alone, correct?

Correct. It's right here. It says building frontage facing State Street shall have at least—

well, I just want to make sure that we— that because that's a big concern with a lot of citizens.

Yeah, no, this is just for State Street.

Thank you, Matt.

The districts require a 60% glass frontage on any building facing a street frontage. This will require 40% for the rest of the corridor. This is important, allows people to have visual interest and see into buildings. The goal is to allow for window displays or other visual interest that helps people continue to walk down the corridor. Also improves the safety of the corridor by having eyes on the street. And Vertical facade articulation is a provision we have in the districts. This would repeat that standard for the remainder of the corridor. The goal here is not to have just long, flat, continuous facades and give architecturally some visual interest and variations of buildings.

Matt, Councilmember Sumner has a question.

Yeah, Matt, would this— all this proposal, would it eliminate State Street parking?

No, no, there's no amendment here to current parking standards. Is that the answer to the question?

Yeah. Now, are you— is this an ordinance you want to put in place, or what?

Okay, this would be an amendment to some existing ordinances, and then The design standards I'm going through right now would be in addition to the current State Street District standards.

And all this is on the expense of the business owner, or does the city kick in money? What— where are we at on that?

This is just part of the design standards that they would conform to as they develop a property.

Just when they develop?

Yes. All right, ready to move forward?

Okay.

This is another architectural standard, just clarifying appropriate weighting of materials with modern building technologies. Sometimes we can see some odd things where we have levitating concrete over Stucco. Visually, this, this does not speak to what we're used to and what seems appropriate for architecturally appropriate. All this does is require that heavier elements be placed below each other. For instance, concrete is below brick and stucco is above brick. I've seen in my experience levitating stone sometimes. It's sort of off-putting. Proposed materials. This is similar to the district standards but at a lesser percentage. We have Tier 1 and Tier 2 materials. Tier 1 are those of brick, split-face block, glass, stone, or fiber cement board. Tier 2 of aluminum composite material systems, stucco, and EIFS. The ratio is different, and we only require 6— we would require 60% of the Tier 1 materials on street-facing facades. I believe the districts are at 80%. And then for non-street-facing facades, we'd only require 25% of the Tier 1 materials. Where I believe again the districts are at 80% there as well. The final additional language we'd like to include in this ordinance is utility enclosures. One, that either if they're within the buffered sidewalk area that they are buried and only accessible through a, you know, subgrade box. Or if they are required to be above ground, that they are screened and behind the sidewalk, and that the screening won't open up to the sidewalk. That is the proposal. We have a timeline that we anticipate this going to the Planning Commission on the 17th, the notice for that, and that we'd like to come back to you and on the 20th, March 9th, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. I'm available to answer any questions as you discuss this. So thank you for your time.

This is Terry. What's changed? Sorry, I'm just— I'm hearing these proposals, but tell me, give me in layman's terms what just changed.

Yeah, so each of these slides are new are new additions to the code that I showed you. So this would— the major proposal is that right now buffered sidewalks are required even if a building is within that area. They'd have to remove that portion of the building if they want to expand. So this provides some flexibility of how we design those buffered sidewalks. to accommodate an existing business so they could expand their building without coming to the full standard. And then the other major component to this proposal is new language in the code describing— sorry, design standards, including building access, habitable depth provision, windows and awning provision, facade articulation, material weighting and material type and utility enclosure standards for the— mostly in the area outside the districts in the— along the State Street corridor. This is typically going to apply to C-2 zone areas.

Matt, this is Ryan. If I could add to the response to Councilman Pedersen, this is a continued ongoing effort to to beautify State Street and to create more of a sense of place and nice architectural standards and, and to make State Street newer and better than, than what it is now when developments come in.

So, Ryan, a question. We need 24 feet for those 2 new bus lanes that are going to go down State Street. Where do they go?

That's a fantastic question. Those 2 15-foot planter strips. Those were developed in our State Street Master Plan. The purpose of those is to have about 8 feet of that be taken up when BRT comes down State Street. So any trees that are put in— Matt shows them centered right now— they're actually not to be in the center. They're to be offset in that photo a little bit to the right so that those trees could remain. Same with monument signs. So we're basically, as anything redevelops, we're setting aside and making sure there's any property that needs to be acquired for that project, that they wouldn't have to tear down any buildings or new improvements.

Okay.

They would have to pay the land, you know, if they don't have the right-of-way, they would have to buy right-of-way from the property owner, but it all depends on where those property lines currently lay.

This is Jason. Worst case scenario, they would have to buy the building if it encroaches, you know, into that right-of-way. They may have to buy the building in the future, but that's worst case scenario.

So can I just share a comment? A lady mentioned to me this last week about parking behind a building, and she was asking about State Street plan, and she said for her, as a a woman, she said that's very scary for her to park behind a building where nobody can see what's going on, instead of in front of a building where there's traffic. And anyway, interesting comment.

But many times, especially when buildings redevelop, they're designed with dual access from the parking lot too, so they can access those buildings from the front and back. I think a great example of that might be the Riverwoods. where they have the main facade on the interior street, but they're equally accessible and visible from the rear parking lots.

I see Councilmember Sumner has his hand raised.

Yeah, Ryan, I— going back to your comments about the bus lanes on State Street. That with this ordinance and with the bus lanes, that'll eliminate parking along State Street.

This is Jason again. This does not eliminate any parking on State Street. I mean, if when the BRT does come in, that may have an issue with parking, but this, what we're proposing tonight, only beautifies State. It does not take away any parking.

Well, I know, but, but it's a step towards taking away the parking.

Well, that's already a step in process with the BRT coming through. This, this has nothing, no relationship to the BRT.

Well, I can see a lot of expense to the property owners trying to adjust to this ordinance. Just a comment.

Yeah, I understand your comment. This, this only applies to those that are actually wanting to redevelop their property. So if somebody has an older building and they just want to maintain it, this ordinance does not apply to them. If they want to, you know, add on to the back, then the other material requirement would come into play, or if they want to tear down a building, this would come into play, but it does not require an existing property owner or an existing building owner to do anything to come up to standards until such time as they redevelop.

Right. I'd also, I'd also like to add to that the very first portion of Matt's presentation. Actually helps our business owners redevelop that have buildings up against the right-of-way. One such business owner here in North Orem is not able to expand right now because of the current ordinance. This will allow him to redevelop his building, remodel it, put some money into it, and expand the number of people working in it. So it's actually very helpful for those that have buildings that are up against Stay straight at the current moment.

Yeah, that's a very good point. This— the whole design or requirement of this coming back to make that modification was intended for current property owners to be able to redevelop the back portion without having to bring— tear down part of their building. So this is driven by property owners to allow them to go forward.

Okay, thank you.

It sounds like it's actually giving them more flexibility. In what they can do with their property and with the building.

Right, right now our answer is no, you can't do it unless you tear down your building. This gives them an opportunity to do something without having to tear down their building and be able to expand in the back or, you know, on the top, as long as they don't encroach into that area that Matt described, and allows them, you know, to have another 20, 30 years of life in their building without having to Raise the whole building and redevelop.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, super. Thank you, Matt. Good to see you.

Appreciate you having me.

And thank you, Jason. We'll go ahead now and move on to the next item on the agenda, discussion about water Infrastructure, and our presenter will be Chris Shirkey.

Great, thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm going to share my screen and let me know if everyone can see. It's a split screen. It has a PDF on the left, and then on the right there's a series of tabs with the web browser. Can everyone see that all right? Yes.

Okay, good.

And so, as you're all aware, we've received a great deal of feedback regarding our water tank and preferred location at our Orem Community Park in— at about 600 West and 400 South of that location. And over the past few weeks, We have been meeting and discussing this with several different people. We wanted to give you an update and then also present to you some options that have become available in the last—

We want.

Well, actually in the last week or so. And Jamie has asked me to kind of put together in a chronological order a list of events that have occurred over the last while. Specifically regarding the Water Master Plan and other water plans performed by Bowen Collins and Associates, Hansen, Allen, and Luce, other meetings, discussions, and so forth. So I'd like to go— I'd like to give you all that background or refresh your memories for those of you who have been here since 2014. But back in February of '14, we created the Public Works Advisory Commission. I think at our last City Council meeting, the Public Safety Advisory Commission was created. So it's similar in effect in that we receive and obtain feedback, and we appoint the lay members of the community— the council does— to represent the community at large and to review documents and, and other, other pertinent studies and other all things public works related. At that time, it was specifically very beneficial and helpful in receiving their feedback. And, and as we presented plans and studies for these master plans, the water, the sewer, and the stormwater master plan. And so we met monthly throughout that process for about 2 years during the development of those 2 master— those 3 master plans from 2014 to '16. Presentations were made, feedback was given, adjustments were made, so on and so forth. And then in March of 2016, the Water Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in conjunction with the pay-as-you-go funding plan. In 2016 and '17, at that time we were working with the Town of Vineyard and Central Utah Water Conservancy District to develop an additional study that would further refine and evaluate the key and strategic locations based on hydraulic modeling and engineering analyses that took place. Hansen Allen Luce performed that study and presentations were made, and that completed study was done in February of 2017 and is also published and made available On our website. Um, at that time, shortly after that time, we became aware of the Town of Vineyard's interest to specifically hone in on a tank at the location on 600 West and 400 North. They have looked at other locations in Orem, including Orem Junior High, and so on. I'm just trying to paint the picture here as to how we got to this point today. In the last few months, the Town of Vineyard has made us aware that they are going to be building their own water tank and their own infrastructure in their own community in the city limits of the City of Vineyard. 2019, we had an additional analysis performed by Hansen, Allen, and Luce regarding the tank locations at What we were considering a preferred location for Orem Community Park. Prior to that time, we evaluated the— we considered orchard locations at 4th South and 4th West, which is owned by an individual that we recently had discussions with, and then also at 700 West and 400 South. We had discussions with that property owner. Neither property owner was interested in discussing or selling their property to the City of Orem at that time. We have since had discussions with some neighborhood representatives, including the owner of the property at 700 South and 600— or 700 West and 400 South. He has reconfirmed that he is not interested in selling his property. We have engaged in a discussion with the owner at 4 South and 4th West. During this entire process, there's been the development of a website that provides this information, these studies that I've identified here in this document. It outlines the 10 million gallon tank location recommendation that was given to you, actually to the City Council, in January of 2020. That was given again in January of 2021. We've had these subsequent meetings in the last year as well. During that process, we've changed our philosophy and we've gone from strictly a pay-as-you-go financial or funding plan to a bond and pay-as-you-go. I would suggest it's more of a hybrid financial plan, but it is considering a substantial capital component for bonding, including the water tank and all things associated with the tank. And then August through today, we've since then hired a firm, Hansen Allen— excuse me, Bowen Collins and Associates, to update the master plans. Those I'm reporting to you today, that those plans are all updated in a draft, final draft And they've been presented to city staff for review. Over the past 7 to 8 months, we've also engaged with Lewis Young Roberts in Birmingham, who have updated our financial models and then updated our pro formas on a per-utility basis, and also given a recommendation regarding the bond parameters resolution, which was presented to you January 26th, 2021. We've had these other meetings on the 8th of September, the 8th of December, January 12th, January 26th. providing you that information and giving you those updates. And so what you see here on the right side of the screen is— I'll just blow that up— this is our website that outlines all of these plans, all of the information that's been made available. We've sent, I believe, around 17,000 emails out to the community at large, and we have been meeting with smaller groups, neighborhood groups, of those that live adjacent to the park. We've not had a formal invite or a formal meeting yet, and that is our next step in this process. We wanted to make you aware that the property located at 400 South and 400 West has been presented to us as an available option today. 2 years ago, when Neil and I went to meet with the property owner. He was— he didn't mince words when he said he was not interested in any way, shape, or form to sell that property to the city at that time. We have since gone back with the assistance of some neighbors that live in and around the park, and we've reapproached him. Last week, Ryan Clark and Sam Kelly and Lane Gray with our Orem Water staff met with him on his site to review the option or potential of building that tank at this location. This was not recommended to you 2 years ago because it was not an available option, and we were not— we didn't think the City Council would entertain eminent domain to acquire that property at that time. Things have changed, and he has now interested in receiving reasonable offers on his land, on his property. And we are right at the beginning of some negotiation and discussion with this landowner at this time. Of course, that has led us to other discussions. In consideration as to if we were to purchase this land, and if the City Council would like us to move forward with this. We would have an increase in cost, overall capital cost, and then ongoing operations and maintenance costs of whatever that city land were to be used for. Most likely, perhaps, an open space, an open park area, yet to be determined. We do know that we have not engaged with the neighbors in this area at this point. And we have engaged with some of the neighbors in this area to the west and south of Orm Community Park. And that is our basic update to you at this time. We have, we have put on our calendar, I believe next week, to have meetings with 2 different neighborhoods to discuss these 2 different options. With that, we would like to invite you, if you have any questions or have any comments or any direction to provide at this time, we would like to receive that now.

Chris, would you mind just making mention of the home that we've been discussing? That, that, for example, several of the council members have probably heard about the city's interest in a home.

Okay, very good. Thank you. This home is currently under contract. It has not yet been purchased, but this is a property that is of interest to the city. It's right adjacent to the park, and that well— or excuse me, the tank is generally located— would generally be located in this vicinity in relation to the pavilion and the park. parking lot and the playground. This is the home that is under consideration for acquisition.

I have a question. This is Councilwoman Larray. I'm getting a lot of pushback that people haven't been informed, there hasn't been public input. When we hire these consultants, is there a public outreach with those consultants? Or does the public weigh in once we've kind of narrowed it down to a certain area or 2 areas? I'm trying to figure out where— did we drop the ball with the public input, or is it something that would happen and that's what we're doing right now? I'm trying to ascertain when and where we should have engaged the public.

That's a great question, Debbie. So typically when you're acquiring land and and needing to purchase homes and to have right-of-way acquisition along a corridor, we would engage. If this is a federally funded project, we would include an environmental impact study or statement that would be over this property. We've basically been given recommendations strictly from an engineering analysis and perspective, and we've determined that tank in this general vicinity of 4 South is the most ideal location from an engineering and hydraulic perspective. And we have had public meetings over the course of the last 5 years. We have not engaged this, this neighborhood directly, and I think that's, that's what we're on the cusp of doing at this time.

Chris, if I could too, this is Steven. One of the issues we were up against is until recently we We didn't have really any other option. So to engage in a public process without any, any other options is difficult because at the end of the day, we needed a water tank. We had one option at the time of a vicinity. We now have, you know, potentially multiple. So we, as we kind of evaluated what a public process looked like when you're gathering input on the one option you really have. That becomes difficult. School district wasn't interested in the softball park. This one property wasn't available at the time. We went back to this one location because it's— it made sense from an engineering standpoint. We own the land, and at the time— Chris, correct me if I'm wrong— we didn't really have another option.

Okay, so the way I'm hearing it, the public engagement was when we actually had a real site with a real option, and then that's what we're doing now, and it's It's nothing that's been done secretive or without knowledge, something that just— we were just looking, narrowing, making sure the right ramifications, costs, like you said, close to hydraulics. I'm just trying to make sure that there was nothing inappropriate along the way. I'm just trying to— I keep getting this question, and maybe other councilmen too, about why didn't you engage with the city? Why is this the first time I'm hearing about it? Why is— why, you know, why haven't we been engaged? And where's the transparency? I'm just trying to say that this has been a reasonable process, and now we're to the point where we have 2 sites, it sounds like. So I'm just trying to make sure that that's, that's a reasonable thing that we have engaged the public with.

Yeah, I believe so. Yeah, we've had— we, as you recall, we had over— we had a dozen sites that we were looking at, and we've presented those to you over the course of the last 2 years. We've given presentations, all public meetings. We've narrowed it down, and as we've gotten to this point, We've even approached several property owners. If any of these property owners would have been a viable option back in the last— within the last year or 2, we would have brought that to you at that time. And now we have an option that's available that wasn't there before. The school district was exhausted. We looked at 3 or 4 options with the school district. We went through a formal public process regarding that. That went to the formal— to their school board. that rejected any interest that we had in acquiring property. This location with the 2 west softball fields are a great location. We went down a 6-month path and discussion with them, and they came back and said they'd like to maintain that and keep that for future school, for the Orem Elementary School in the future, when that would be rebuilt, and they wanted to retain that. So they eliminated that as an option altogether. We've had Hansen, Allen, and Luce perform independent studies of locations in this park area. They recommended the softball fields as well, and that's why we went after that and exhausted that as an option. Now, we've had multiple discussions with the owner of this vineyard and this property owner here, and things have changed at this point, and this is a viable option that we're presenting. For consideration.

So if I can just add, I mean, similar to what we're doing with, with Hillcrest or anything, first we need to figure out what is even viable first, and what, what can our budget afford, what can our rates afford. And so, you know, before we can bring something to you and then to the public to a greater degree, We first got to figure out what's even possible, what's viable, what's feasible.

I've got a question. David Spencer here. So the mayor sent an email out this afternoon about some— I guess the property in between the softball fields and the baseball fields. Is that something that is even something you can look at, or is that—

Yeah, you're talking— and Chris, if you can If you can shift, there you go. So you'll notice that we have a parking lot to the northeast corner of that property, as well as a pavilion. That actually is another site that we looked at. At the same time, we're also facing similar situations in terms of disruption, in terms of the neighborhood, the road network.

It's—

and then of course our goal, our primary goal, is to get to 4th South. So, and the engineering can be explained by our engineers, but that site is particularly problematic because it requires us to trench a line from that site to 4th South that is going to be incredibly deep.

If I can add to that, Jamie, so also that's kind of programmed space by the school, so used in terms of, you know, for the school soccer and lacrosse and, you know, ultimate or whatever. So Compared to the southwest corner of the park, that's programmed space. So higher cost, programmed use of the space.

By the school?

By the school, yeah.

And we did have Hansen, Ellyn, and Luce evaluate that, Dave. We had them to— we asked them to compare this property here versus the softball fields. And even with the reconstruction of the softball fields, including the dugouts and the lighting and the fencing and the all things associated with the restoration of that land, it was still cheaper for us to go here along 4th South. So as Jamie suggests, the closer we are to 4th South, the least cost it would be to the city and the taxpayers. And so that was a strong consideration for us.

I have one more question when my turn can come again.

Looks like Brent has his hand raised too. He's had it up for a while. Brent?

Oh, I fell asleep there. Jamie, on that 4th South and 4th West property, I don't know for sure, but I think you're just shifting the problem with neighbors. And how much above market rate are we willing to pay?

Well, I think that's obviously a question that you're going to have to grapple with. We've ordered an appraisal on this property. We believe that the asking price of the property owner is well, well above what market is. But that's, you know, if we're willing as a city to pay well, well above market for that property, I think we can acquire it. At the same time, I still think there are going to be neighbors who are going to be concerned about an adjacent tank next to their property. So I don't necessarily think we are quote unquote solving a problem, but in turn we are essentially dealing with a different set of neighbors.

Well, the purchase of that property, which will be above market probably, um, will that affect our water rates back up? Or somebody's got to pay for it.

Yes, potentially it could.

Thank you.

Debbie?

Um, so my question is this. Um, you just said that it's much cheaper to be closer to 4 South. Would we offset any of the construction costs if we buy this property at 4th South and Fort Worth because it's closer to 4th South and we wouldn't have to trench it as deep? Is there a cost savings that would be offset from paying higher market? Would it offset or—

Yes. But based on the current asking price, let's say, it would not be a break-even situation. not even be close to a break-even situation.

Okay, but there would be a little cost savings in the construction?

Yes.

All right.

See, and part of the challenge is, and Chris and Neil can speak to this, there is a significant water line that runs down 400 South. So ultimately, whatever we build needs to connect to that water infrastructure that runs down 400 South.

Maybe that was a great question. It would, it would help.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question also. One of the, one of the concerns that we're hearing from a lot of the citizens is the safety of the children getting to and from school. And Chris, you and Neil, I believe, have met personally with some of these neighbors at their homes. Thank you for taking time to do that.

Yes.

Um, I mean, that whole park area where we're proposing a community park is fenced off. Are there a lot of children that come kind of to the west and north of this area that walk through the park on their way to school, kind of west of Mountain View High School? Is that where the concern is coming from?

Yeah, you're exactly right, Councilmember Lamson. There's a— there are 2 gates, as far as I know, maybe more. I believe there's one approximately at this location here. Children we've observed walking through here. We've met with the neighbors in this area and they told us of that concern. This is where the tank would be going. And so that would definitely need to be addressed. I believe there's another gate perhaps up at this location here. Safety is of our utmost importance, and it's at the top of our list of concerns for children, for the general public. This is going to be a large project. It's going to displace a large amount of material. There's going to be some heavy equipment. Obviously, we need to ensure that children can make it to school safely. And as Sam Kelly, the city engineer, develops these safe route plans with, with the neighborhood, that will— we will definitely take that into consideration and work with them directly. We're not at that level of design or implementation. We are aware of that concern, though, and we will definitely address that.

And Chris, if I could add to— we're aware of that, what that same concern would be over at the other property. You can see there's multiple crosswalks that That go right from that property essentially to the school and at the intersection. So either, either place, that, that specific issue is going to be something we have to look at very closely and work with the contractor on. So the issue of children's safety that will come up, that I can— I know for a fact that'll come up at both of these locations.

Absolutely right.

I have my hand up, if I may.

Please.

Um, we haven't discussed eminent domain, and maybe this is not a place where we want to use it, but if we do, if, if we are legally allowed to use eminent domain, and if we do, then we pay market value, not above market value. Is that correct, Jamie?

Yes, but, but I think, and I would need Greg and Heather to potentially opine on this, Generally, in situations of eminent domain, as a city, our responsibility would be to essentially provide information that this is the only viable site. There are not other sites that could accommodate a use like what we're talking about. And so I don't know, for example, if we went down a path of exercising eminent domain, if an argument could be made on the part of others to say, well, you have access to additional acreage elsewhere, but you're choosing not to use it.

Thank you for that clarification. And then one other question I had, probably more for Chris: the road that kind of goes through that park area, would you envision that remaining open during construction?

Well, that is, that is a great question. We would This area, as it's being excavated, we would need to have vehicles coming in and out. And we would need to develop a very good safe route that makes sense. We would coordinate with our engineering and construction managers on that. I would imagine that a large part of that traffic would come through 2400 South.

Okay.

And then I did have one other question. I, again today, received a text that they were concerned about a 1,000-foot hole being dug there. Okay, that was some kind of early misinformation.

Sure, clarify that.

I know the depth of the tank is only 16 feet, so I'm guessing the, the hole's no more than 25 feet. Could you opine on that?

Sure, yeah, the tank itself will— the hole for the tank in the excavation, based on a schematic that we have today, would be around 20 to 25 feet, no more than that. What I believe that is being referenced is a well. When we drill a well, we have to tap into the aquifer that we use for our drinking water, and that's typically around 600 to 1,000 feet deep.

Okay.

Chris, maybe you— in addition, though, we're talking about, for example, on this community park property, we're talking at a depth of 20 feet because we're stretching the footprint of the tank across more square feet. If we were to go on, for example, that Farley property, the depth would actually increase.

If we were to enlarge the footprint, the depth would decrease.

No, but I mean on the Farley property, because we're dealing with a smaller parcel, we have to go deeper.

Can you see the screen here with the schematics?

Yeah.

Okay. So this, what you see in blue is a 300 by 300 foot outline for a tank that would be about 15 feet deep. What you see here in the pink or the magenta is the same shape and size as what you see in yellow over here, and that tank, that tank would be around 19 feet deep.

So, if we could acquire the entire parcel, we could accommodate essentially the same depth Absolutely, yeah. But what about the blue outline? The blue outline as well on the Farley piece, that could accommodate the same depth as what we have potentially in Community Park?

That would be even— it would be less deep. It would be 15 feet deep versus about 19 feet.

Thank you. Yeah.

Chris, maybe to the To the depth of the well item, and some of the concerns there, maybe you could just speak to real quick where else we have wells that are in proximity to neighborhoods or residents.

Sure. We have— almost all of our wells are in residential neighborhoods, like what you see here. Our most recent well is— it's excuse me, it's at about 900 east and 800 south. The well is around 1,000 feet deep. And it doesn't look like somebody lives in the home there. It looks— it's very nice. And it's about 30 by 40 feet in dimension. But most of our— most of our These wells are on residential properties, a single-family dwelling property, R-1A, 8,000 square feet or so. We have 9— we have 10 wells altogether in the city, and— or this would be our 10th well in the city. There, I think maybe 2 of them are in parks, but all the other ones are in residential neighborhoods.

And, and per the city zoning ordinances, in many of our R-8, R-12 type zoning, we actually permit water infrastructure in those zones.

Could you show us a picture of one on Google?

Yes. Can you see the Google Map here? Believe so.

Yeah.

This is What was formerly known as Draper Lane is 900 East. Palisade is right here. This is Draper Lane and 800 South. As you're driving by, this is what that building looks like. That is our well number 9. And as you're coming down 8th South, this is how it appears from the south. This is actually our number 1 or number 2 producing well, nearly 4,000 gallons a minute.

Wow.

Now, we don't, we don't have to construct our wellhouses to that particular specification. We can construct it in a manner that is more consistent. with a neighborhood. So that, for example, if the concern was, let's say, chain-link fencing or the appearance of the building itself, those buildings can be designed and constructed in some respects to even look like a single-family home. So I worked in another community that had a well house that was constructed in a neighborhood, on a street. It looked like a house. And we would get calls from the neighbors complaining because this is back in the day when people were dropping off newspapers and such at the doorstep of the well house. And they were collecting up at the front door, unbeknownst to the newspaper delivery person. He or she didn't realize that that in fact was a well house.

So, I've got a question for Chris.

Chris, on the well house, you know, we've had some emails about the noise. They're really noisy. I mean, what is the— are they loud?

You know, on the inside, they can be loud. And on the outside, we have double wall, double door, double insulation at this particular location, and we don't have any complaints whatsoever. On some of our older wells, We've had to retrofit them to accommodate any noise concerns. So we've learned our lesson from, from, you know, historically from past experiences, and we would design and build this so that you wouldn't be able to hear the engine or the motor.

Thank you.

Councilman Peterson has a comment or question.

So, Chris, just a question. When we're done, so let's say we go to where we have the current property, and when we're done and the tank's buried, what does the property look like? I've had people concerned, is it above ground, is it below ground? What will that area look like?

That's a great question. So let me go back to that location. The tank itself will be buried. You won't be able to see it. You won't even know that it's there. There will need to be access points that will be strategically designed and located, so you won't, you won't be aware of that. Oh, did I go the wrong way?

Okay.

All right, let me come back. So at this location, you would— if the community would like to have the exact same pavilion, we can put the exact same pavilion back. The ground is as you see it here. It'll, it'll be— if, if this is what the council and the community wants in the area, we can restore it back exactly as that is right there. Of course, any trees that are in this area of construction would need to be removed. Our goal is to maintain all of the trees along this west property fence line and restore everything back to a condition equal to or better than what it is today. This is, this is what that home looks like from a street view. The actual pump and well house, as we've consulted with engineers, would be about 40 by 80 feet, which is about the same footprint as what you see here for this home.

So the park is going to be a new park and there'll be new, new playground, new pavilions.

Sorry about that.

Yes, that is right.

It looks like Brent has a comment.

Yeah, I was just wondering, Jamie, if you pick— if we choose the ground on 4th South and and 4th West, after it's all done, can you build homes on that without a basement? No.

So it has—

it needs to be a park or something?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

If you could, Stephen, would you allow me to share my screen?

Yeah, I thought you had that. I think you have that permission.

I think I had to stop sharing first.

Go ahead.

Let me just share something because I think it kind of speaks to what I'm trying to suggest here. What you see here is Clearfield High School up in Davis County. Can you see that on the screen?

Yes.

So there is a baseball diamond, and that baseball diamond looks fairly circular, a little different than what you might see on a regular baseball field. As you zoom in on that property, it's circular because there's a water tank underneath it. So The intent would be for us to build these facilities and allow them to return to normal recreation use. Or you could put tennis courts on top of them, or you can put, you know, obviously you have to be, you have to have some discretion in what you put on top. You can't put, for example, trees or anything like that that would undermine the structure of the well, but you could actually put stuff in very, very close proximity to the well, and people would hardly know if they, you know, if they were there for the first time, they wouldn't know generally that there's a well right there.

And then, Jamie, I think this has been mentioned, but when that time comes, there would be a large public process, and this community would be able to weigh in on what their new park looks like. And most communities, most neighborhoods don't get that opportunity. So that would be a unique opportunity for this neighborhood.

Yeah.

So I have a question. Mayor Pro Tem, may I ask?

Please.

So have you had a chance, since this new property might be available, to kind of do a pro and con versus each property? Because it seems like You know, cost is a con on the one, but close to 400 South is a pro, and maybe a new park. So has anyone had a chance— I realize you just got this information— because I kind of want to see the pros and cons of each area. If there's one that makes sense, is there one that would— the cost would be too high that it would raise our rates? Because we're trying to lower rates. I'm just asking for an analysis of both sites, as I— because if one has so many cons, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to go down. But if they're equal, maybe then it does make sense. So I'm just asking if someone could give a pro/con eventually on the 2 different sites and why.

That's all.

Yeah, I've got a comment.

Considering Mr., Mr. Farley got back to the city last night, we haven't obviously had a chance to, to even have a discussion with him yet in relation to the Right, and I do understand that.

It's just something going forward I'd like to give the information to help make a decision.

So, um, I want to thank, you know, Jamie and Chris for tentatively scheduling that neighborhood Zoom meeting, the 2 meetings. I think that'd be well attended, and I think that's definitely in our best interest to do that. And I appreciate your efforts, Jamie and Chris, for doing that, and hopefully we can get the word out and, and be able to get the information to the citizens so there's not a lot of misinformation, that everybody's on the same page.

And I like it, so thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments at this point on that, on this discussion?

I see 3, 3 hands raised, virtual hands.

I think they've all been addressed.

Terry and Brent, did you have other comments or questions?

No, I'm good. Thanks.

Okay.

Jamie, you sent out quite a hearty email this afternoon previous to this meeting. Did we cover all of the items that you communicated there?

Yeah. I mean, I think it might be helpful because I imagine there are other people that are on the line that are interested in this conversation. If you would allow me just a minute to follow up on some of those, those comments, I would— I think that would be helpful.

I think that would be great.

So, and I'm happy to, I'm happy to share this with, with the council and, and those that are interested. The specific information that I have left off of this email is related to property negotiation, and we obviously would like to reserve the right to negotiate in good faith on a confidential basis because obviously we're trying to get the best price for this property. But other than that, you know, I think we've talked about the safety concerns, and obviously safety is of great concern regardless of where we put that— put the facility. So we're mindful, and we would spend a lot of time and effort working with the contractor to ensure that safety is addressed, regardless of what location we're dealing with, we're working with. The neighborhood concerns, it's staff's opinion that in siting this facility, We are going to face feedback from neighbors about pretty much many of the same things: safety, inconvenience, traffic, concerns about the tank and its viability. What if it leaks? Is it going to impact my home? Is it going to impact my property values? I don't believe that those questions are unique to one particular site. that they would probably be applicable regardless of what location we were to select. There were some questions about public meeting access. I know several last meeting made an effort to connect online, and we looked at our system, and those systems seem to be operating properly, but we've gone back and we've made some additional improvements to that site. and allowed people an opportunity to obviously leave messages in advance of the meeting. And I think Stephen is going to read some of those messages here today. So obviously we're interested in citizen impact. This project, regardless of where it's located, will require a well and a pump house. And we are very aware of the fact that The community park property is in property that is encumbered by a grant that the city received many years ago for initial construction of the park through the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. What that Land and Conservation Fund requires of the city is that we maintain that property in perpetuity as open space. And we are prepared to do that. And we have had conversations with the state and federal representatives who manage that Land and Water Conservation Fund and that program to ensure that if we were to construct a tank on this park property, that we could fit the guidelines associated with those grant— that fund requirement or those grant requirements. I think we spoke to the House. The city has signed a real estate purchase agreement for that property. We do obviously put out some earnest money. We also have notified the seller of the property that we are engaged in this process as well, and we have a 45-day closing period on that property, and I think we have about 30 days remaining on that effort before we need to close or fish or cut bait, so to speak. You know what they say in real estate, the best time to buy property is when it's for sale. And so we in fact took that opportunity. We recognized that we probably needed to pay or would pay a premium price, but given its location to the site that was under consideration, We thought that it was worth the value, as well as we compared it to another property that was for sale, similar vintage, similar acreage. And while yes, it was more, it wasn't dramatically more. The, uh, the property that we're talking about, Mr. Farley's property, like I said, we reached out to him a second time. He's had some conversations with his family. He's come back to us and given us a a potential proposal. The studies and review— I think Chris noted those studies, and that information is available at orum.org/watertank. Under additional resources, you can see copies of our utility master plans, as well as the site study that was completed for and on behalf of us, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and Vineyard City. Where it talks about the recommendation as to where to locate the tank, the public engagement effort. Again, we have gone out to bid to hire an engineer and a public engagement firm to help us with this effort. The bid closes on February 18th, and we would anticipate having somebody on board thereafter. Proximity to 400 South. Some people have asked, well, why don't you locate, for example, this tank farther north? The, the City of Vineyard was considering using Orem Junior High School property, their track, for their tank. And the question was, well, why don't you locate Orem's tank on that property? The reality is we could. But we also need to consider What one, the cost is, and what the level of disruption would result, because ultimately we need to get to 400 South so that we can run that infrastructure down 400 South to the south and the west. And we're talking about $450 a linear foot to run that line. So when you start running a pipe over a mile, The costs start to add up quite, quite quickly. The rates— I think Councilmember Sumner brought up the idea of a rate, obviously, rate changes in the rates. Obviously, we talked with you 2 weeks ago about some recommendations we were making if we went to a financing option in lieu of a pay-as-you-go option for our utility infrastructure. And it was based on a need for a certain amount of dollars, $25 million. Well, if we're adding, for example, $3.5 to $5 million additional dollars to that, it is going to impact the rate. So we could effectively see a decrease in the, the, the recommended adjustments that we are suggesting to you that be made in the future. If we are to finance this project. And then finally, this idea of neighborhood meetings. We are operating under the assumption that if we are going to have a conversation with the property owners in and around Community Park and that property, it's most appropriate that we also have a conversation with neighbors in and around that 4th South, 4th West site. And right now our plan would be to advertise and notice 500 feet from the property, so everybody within 500 feet would receive a notice and be invited to participate. Now that doesn't mean that other people couldn't participate. We, we just needed to draw a line somewhere. And our noticing That I think state law requires 300 feet, and I think we actually go beyond that typically when we notice a zoning issue. That's why we went 500 feet. So, you know, we are trying to engage the public in a way where we can answer their questions, but at the same time, There is very limited acreage for us to build this kind of facility in the middle of the city where it needs to be located. I wish there was a broad swath of land that wouldn't result in any level of disruption to anybody, but given where we are as a community, we don't have that luxury. I also noted that This need is something that the state has put us on notice, that it is a deficiency that we need to correct prospectively. And historically, one of the ways we have been meeting the need is we have actually been using capacity in a tank owned by Central Utah Water for Orem purposes.

And Orem has—

excuse me, Central Utah has given us notice and said, we can no longer accommodate your water in our tank. Our customers in other parts of the valley need that capacity now. You need to build your own capacity. And so that is kind of in part what is driving this whole discussion, because we are running out of, I guess you could say, flexibility. Can we hit the pause button and prolong this decision? I believe we could in the very short term, but we are inching ever so close to not having enough capacity in our tanks to accommodate peak summer demand, meaning when everybody is going to need and want access to water in the summer, are they going to have it? And if we start, for example, If we are required sooner rather than later to vacate the space we have by way of Central Utah Water, then we could find ourselves in a really hard spot. So that's the information that I've shared with you, and I think those are all kind of pieces of a conversation we'd like to have with the neighborhood. I had a conversation with a water engineer earlier today, and I expressed to him the comment that neighbors in and around this proposed tank are concerned with what, you know, what may be built next to him. And his comment to me was, They need to see the engineering associated with a project like this, and once they see that engineering, then they're not going to be concerned. Obviously, we haven't had that chance yet to show them the engineering because we don't have it. But I'm quite confident that we can bring a project forward regardless of location that long-term is going to provide What we need in Orem. Yes, it's going to result in a short-term inconvenience, and by short-term I'm referring to several years, but we're talking about building a facility that— whose use— that useful life of that facility is 50-plus years. So, Chris, Neil, I don't know if there's anything else that you'd like to add.

Jamie, I have a hand up, if I may.

Oh, I'm sorry, Tom.

No, no problem. Hey, will this— somebody who doesn't live right adjacent to it called me and said, hey, I'm all in favor of this water take. Will it improve my water pressure, which I've noticed has been going down over the last period of time?

Yes.

Could you comment on that? Thank you.

Chris and Neil?

Yes, absolutely.

That's the things that we're experiencing now and have for a good 7, 8 years noticing that, and that's going to be resolved with this project.

So thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, for that opportunity.

You're welcome. Thank you for taking that time. Any other questions or comments on this or anything else before we turn the time over to Steve for public comments? Okay, seeing none, Steve, would you mind— do we have some public comments that need to be read?

Yes, Mayor Pro Tem, we do.

Okay.

Mayor Pro Tem, there is also an agenda item for Council City Areas of Focus follow-up.

Okay.

Okay. And who— City Council Areas of Focus follow-up.

Mayor. So, oh, Jamie, go ahead, please.

We just wanted to reconnect with you. We had a conversation several weeks ago. We provided a Google Doc and requested that you ponder over the areas of focus that, that you discussed during your retreat. We just want to circle back and see if you have any additional comments or input that you would like to share relative to those areas of focus.

Maybe just as Jamie—

thank you—

as a reminder, the areas of focus that you identified were safe and livable neighborhoods, thriving and balanced business environment, dependable infrastructure, community-focused and effective government, skilled and talented workforce. And again, as Jamie suggested, Terry Peterson specifically and others said we'd like a couple weeks to think about these things and spend some more time and then make sure as we go into our budget process, which we've begun, that we're shooting at the targets that you, you identified.

Thank you.

Any comments from the council on that?

I have one. So I've looked at it and I think it's pretty complete, but the one request that I've had over and over is more toddler, family-friendly things at our rec center. Our pool doesn't have— it just has a big hump and a water thing to add, and kind of look and see what Springville and Provo have that's a little more family-friendly. So I know we have a lot of young people, and that's the request I keep getting, 0 to 5 play, but also looking at our pools. Sierra Pool seems to have a lot, but the fitness center is one that I've had requests. So for me, it would just be a family-friendly— looking at some of our amenities, and maybe not this year or next year, but really trying to improve some of those to make them a little more family-friendly. I don't want to have this new pool and have everyone go to Springville or Provo still because the little kids' structures. So that's my comment.

Thank you. Any others? I think it's a great document, a working document, and I appreciate the continuity and the focus that it provides, not only for us as a council but city staff. I think it's a, I think it's a wonderful thing. So thank you for that.

And you may know this, Jamie has reached out to all staff, all departments, all divisions, all sections. and asked them to really consider where they fit in and what goals they'll make this year to move the needle in each of those areas. So I think those areas you've laid out have been communicated by Jamie very well throughout the organization, is that these are the areas we, we want to move the needle in and we want to improve. And you need to, as a work area, division, section, department, determine how you're going to do that. And we've had great discussion with our department heads. I think it's going to be embraced and you'll see great reporting in these areas as to what, what we're doing based on the feedback you've given us. So from us to you, we appreciate it.

Thank you and appreciate the accessibility that we have to that and that we can go on and, you know, since it's a Google Doc, that we can add comments or, you know, chime in from time to time. So Thank you. Okay, well, if there are no other comments or questions moving forward, Steve, if you want to go ahead and read the public comments, that would be great.

Yes, Mayor, or Mayor Pro Tem, I will. As we have noted on our website, I will read these, but they will be limited to 3 minutes, and if 3 minutes come and go, We'll move to the next one, but we will send you the entire comments. You have the ability to read that. Okay, first one is from Melissa King Solver. I live in a cul-de-sac just off of 400 West and 1750 North. Following are my concerns about the proposed high-density unit at the corner of 400 West and 1600 North and Orem parking. All developers of high-density units should be required to provide a minimum of 2 parking spots for each unit in their development. This has not occurred in the high-density housing That are now scattered throughout Orem. I have observed the trouble this causes residential neighborhoods firsthand, as my married children have lived in these communities. They have to wait a full year before even one spot was available for one of their 2 vehicles. Until then, their only option was to park wherever they could find a spot within 1 to 2 miles of their housing complex. This will happen here as well. In fact, there are already many personal vehicles parked along 400 West that belong to residents of homes there. It is not safe and it is not fair that our neighborhoods become inundated with the vehicles of people who live in the proposed housing complex. I do not want our streets to become permanent parking either. Where will your— our family guests park when they come to visit our homes if every space along the roads within 1 to 2 miles is already taken? We did not choose to live in this, in this beautiful part of Orem to deal with this encroachment. I respect Respectfully request that the developer be required to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit within the housing complex and on the high-density housing unit property. If there isn't enough space to accommodate that, then the number of units must be reduced until it can be done. Safety: the above situation will negatively impact the safety of the children in our neighborhood. We all choose— chose to live on these cul-de-sacs so our children could be safer as they play. Having significant vehicles coming and going throughout the day and night will pose a danger to the kids. By having more cars on the street. Also, one way to maintain a safer neighborhood is to know the people who frequent the area. We want the status quo to continue, that our children can play outside without worrying about many strangers in the area. Also, many children walk to school or ride their bikes along these routes, and children and adults alike walk or bike these roads. They will become significantly more dangerous with parked cars lining the road and pulling out in front of the— in front of traffic. 400 West is already narrow and very busy. Please do not make it worse. Traffic impact along 1600 North. 1600 North is already known as I-16. It is a major route to the freeway, becomes very backed up at high traffic times throughout the day. It is made particularly challenging with the short distance between 400 West and State Street. Having significant additional traffic pouring onto 1600 North from the proposed high-density housing is only going to make it worse. If 1600 North had additional lanes in each direction, or there was greater space between 400 West and State Street, It would be an easier transition, but as it is, it will be very challenging. People leaving high-density housing units will— onto 1600 North and wanting to turn south onto State Street will have a hard time getting access to the traffic already waiting at the light. If they have the high-density housing, by exiting onto State Street, they will have to turn north only. I'm sure many will get into the center lane and do U-turns so they can drive southbound in the direction they wish to go. This will create significant traffic problems on State Street. which is already a very, a very high-flow area all day, every day. And then I will forward the remainder of that comment on. Next one, Jeff Wilkes. My, my wife and I have owned our home on 322 West, 1750 North for the past 20 years. We're deeply opposed to any project on the State Street corridor at 1600 North. It would affect our traffic on 400 West or the intersections at 1600 North, parking on 400 West, or the crime rates in this area. We do not think sufficient, sufficient attention is being given to these factors with the currently proposed apartments at 1600 North 400 West location. When the State Street corridor was approved, the incredibly tiny space at that corner was thought small enough that only small businesses or housing could be put there. We assume no housing along 400 West could be rezoned, and certainly no access from 400 West would be granted to any property there. Now we see that these very things are being considered, and we are very upset. There is simply no space for any building on the corner of 1600 North, 400 West if the last house on 400 West remains as currently zoned. We are also deeply concerned about the likelihood of the proposed housing being turned into Section 8 housing before or soon after completion. That seems to be something developer owners have done in the past in order to get additional credits and other payouts. All in all, the side of the corridor being so close to our home should not be— should not be allowed to have such high-density housing. I recommend that the City Council not approve any variances. From current zoning at all, and that the City Council examine traffic and parking in more detail around such a project. Jason Bench mentioned in a recent meeting that a gas station was once considered for the same space, and that the traffic for this now housing project wouldn't be any worse than the gas station. I disagree with that thinking. Gas stations do not attract traffic. They are a stop of convenience for people already leaving or coming through the area. The fact that a gas station was once considered should not be used to justify the traffic and parking problems that the proposed building commercial use would create. In summary, my wife and I are opposed to this project because of the likely traffic, parking, crime impact, and potential for Section 8 approval that would follow. We call on all City Council members to change the corridor zoning in whatever way necessary to prevent such an out-of-place proposal from ever being built so close to single-family residential areas. Next, Stephanie Mason. We, the residents of the neighborhood along 400 West adjoining the State Street North Village District, wish to convey our concerns about the proposed North Village District zone changes. We understand that the 50-foot setback limited— limiting the height of the new developments along 400 West is a positive change to help limit the impact and flow from a commercial area to residential area. However, we are concerned that not enough is being done to help this problem. The North Orem neighborhoods are much quieter and less commercial than other areas of Orem, such as the City Center District, Hub District, Canyon Crossing District, or even the Arts District zones. We fear that as developments begin to rebuild in this area, the quiet, safe neighborhood we love is in jeopardy. Many families have resided in these neighborhoods for decades and include multi-generations, from aged parents to small children, for which we have special concerns. Therefore, we are asking that our concerns be considered for any decisions— before any decisions are made. The houses that are currently located in the North Village District that are zoned as NVD Residential B and other homes located along 400 West should be more protected from encroaching developments. We feel the 50-foot setback that is proposed is insufficient, request it be extended to 75 or even 100 feet from 400 West Street. This would ensure that we— this would ensure that we have an adequate buffer in the heights allowed on the edge zone immediately next to our neighborhood. In addition, we feel that these homes located in the North Village District should have the setback for height restrictions measured from their backs and sides of properties to prohibit excessively high buildings from being built directly behind their properties, rather than the setback being measured from the curb in front of the property. We also believe that it would be prudent to change these homes out of the North Village District and back to their original R zone status to protect the neighborhood from encroaching businesses and large multifamily developments. We realize that it's sensible for them to continue to grow and do not oppose growth itself. However, in this area of Orem, we residents encourage that growth does not call for excessively high buildings. We understand that since the North Orem North Village District is the smallest of the state's districts, it does not have a minimum height requirement. On the other hand, we believe that a maximum height limit should be set to prevent these neighborhoods' agreeable blends of well-crafted established older homes and new homes from being overshadowed by multi-story multifamily buildings. We have no problem with State Street and its attendant businesses and apartment buildings reflecting the vibrant metropolitan side of Orem City. We just asked that the City Planning Commission and other concerned parties to to respect and appreciate the value of established quiet and safe neighborhoods to the city as well. We feel the need to address other concerns we have regarding the possibility of a large multifamily unit being built in the area of 1600 North and 400 West. Increased traffic in this area is not acceptable. The streets are narrow and the space between State Street and 400 West is so short that if an entrance to a large multifamily development were built, it would create traffic congestion affecting only 2 areas. 2 already busy intersections. The 1600 North corridor is very narrow, traffic moves very fast, and the safety of drivers and pedestrians is of great concern to us.

And that is—

I will, of course, as mentioned earlier, send on the remainder of that one. Next one, Jenny Scribner. My husband and I are highly concerned about the proposed multi-unit apartment building on 1600 North and State Street. Bordering 400 West. The parking concerns offered by the builder are not adequate to keep cars off 400 West and the intersection of 1600 North and State Street, as well as the intersection of 1600 North and 400 West, are already very heavy with traffic. How do you plan to keep the district of State Street quiet and focused on single-family homes, as stated in the purposes of the State Street District? This area is too small, will be heavily impacted in a negative way if you allow this multi-unit apartment to be built here. Please make sure the right decision— please make the right decision and stop this from moving ahead. Next one, Elizabeth Kenaley, K-E-N-E-A-L-E-Y. I was recently made aware of the proposal of the Hillcrest property. I am writing to ask that the city take advantage of this unique opportunity that Orem has to increase our available green space with a piece of land. Please don't put more pickleball courts. The pickleball courts only appeal to a small percentage of the residents of Orem. It is unfair to take one of the few available spaces left in our city and use it entirely for a small subset of the population, those who would be interested in having enough pickleball courts for a tournament. Orem needs outside space that will attract kids, tweens, teenagers, and families. We need space that allows outdoor activities for all different age groups. What we need are splash pads and skate parks, a bike track, and shade trees. Places for picnics and open areas for pickup soccer and football games. Please consider the needs of the entire city when making these decisions— this decision, and don't cater to the select few who think that pickleball courts we already have all over the city aren't enough. Please remember all the residents of Orem when deciding what to do with this valuable space. Thank you. Next, Catherine Parsons: Why are the cameras not activated on traffic lights? The number of people running through red lights are absolutely abhorrent. and incredibly dangerous. It causes accidents all the time, and there are many near misses. I have watched countless people drive through red lights after pushing the yellow and even plowing through a red light while traffic is moving in the other direction. There was a car that zoomed past me on my way home as I was turning left, and they were going straight down the canyon despite the light being red well before and after I turned. I would have been— I would have been blamed if there was an accident. This is a huge problem, and I'm tired of it being ignored. Activate the cameras. issue tickets based on pictures and generate more income. Who do I need to talk about this, and why isn't it happening already? Next, Eric Shauman. I want to express my concern about the decision process of the Orem Community Park water tank. The neighborhood residents and public at large have clearly not been given an opportunity to comment on this massive project. I understand there's a need to balance cost, disruption, engineering requirements, etc. However, there's been, to my knowledge, no effort to gather public sentiment prior to making a location decision. Informing us through email on January 27th that an independent public engagement team will gather resident feedback after the fact is irresponsible and shows a lack of effort to understand the concerns of your citizens. Compare the public input on $25 million library and rec center expansion with the public input on this $34 million project. The lack of public input on the water tank project is overwhelming. Please put a pause on this project so that you can gather the citizen input you need to make the right decision. One final comment, Mayor. This is from John, John Morgan.

Just pull that up.

Having lived in Orem for over 18 years now, I want to thank the City of Orem for such— for taking such great care of its properties. They are so well maintained and look so sharp. I have lived, worked, and traveled in so many cities where this isn't the case, so thank you. And that is the end of public comments.

Excellent. Thank you, Steven. You should consider being an auctioneer. If there is nothing else, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

And a second?

Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and adjourn. Thank you, everyone. Great meeting. And I guess we'll—

Are you going to vote on that? You should get an aye from all of us, Jeff.

Oh, okay.

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald, aye. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good job, Jeff.

Thank you.