City Council · 2021-02-23

ahead and begin our City Council work session meeting, and I'd like to read a notice on this before we begin. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated February 4th, 2021, the Orem City Council meeting on January— on February 23rd, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure the recommended minimum of 6 feet of social distancing for meeting participants at the usual anchor location in the City of Orem Council Chambers. Therefore, holding the meeting at the City Council Chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of all those who may be 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/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orem.org/comments. Written comments will be accepted before And during the meeting, all written comments received will be entered into the record and forwarded to each City Council member for review. Written comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting when required by law or when time permits. As technology permits, the City Council may also accept oral comments. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed. To additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. We'd now like to go ahead and start our work session and begin with a discussion on the status review of the water tank, proposed water tank for Orem. And Chris Shirkey is our presenter, so I'll turn the time over to Chris.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council, for this opportunity to provide an additional update Regarding the 10 million gallon water tank project located adjacent to 4 South, or close to 4 South, between 4th West and 8th West, as we have discussed in the past. I wanted to share— there's no formal presentation given tonight. We wanted to give you a summary and an update as to where we feel we are and summarize some of the comments and Give the council some opportunity to also discuss some of their, their insights and provide additional feedback for, for city staff. In our city council meeting— I'm going to share my screen here— in our work session or our Thursday evening meeting, let me pull the screen up here. Everyone can see that, I believe. There were 5 locations that were reviewed and discussed, and there has been some movement. We wanted to give you updates on some of those, some movement that's occurred, in particular with the Farley property, as well as the school district's 2 softball fields. Bren Abaybi has been in touch with the school district and reached out to them. And Mayor, I believe that you have as well.

Yes.

And perhaps you can give an update on, on the 2 softball fields and that property associated with those.

Well, I've been in touch with Superintendent Farnsworth. They took the proposal that we use those softball fields and buy that property from them or put it underneath there. And they went before their committee that considers land use last week, and the committee voted against allowing any use of those ball fields for the city water tank. So that option is out.

Okay.

Just confirm which color that is, please, Chris.

It's blue.

The 2 ball fields there on the western side of Orem Elementary.

Tom, can you see the screen that I have presented? Is that—

Yes, I just wanted to confirm as we go through.

Very good.

Mark the colors. Thank you.

Yep, thank you. Okay, so that's the 2 west ball fields there. Then the Farley property, which, which is showing, has the the purple or magenta tank at this location here. I believe Sam Kelly is on the call and he has been working with that property owner, Mr. Arlen Farley, and he has an update on recent conversations with him.

Yeah, I received a letter from Arlen. Actually, I've received 2 since his initial proposal. One was modifying option 2 where he wanted to sell the complete parcel and then have an acre and a half there as part of his living estate. He wanted to modify that from $825,000 per acre to $850,000 per acre. And then last week in speaking with our appraiser, he asked— our appraiser asked if he wanted me to reach out to— wanted him to reach out to Harlan. I said, yes, I'd like to be as transparent as possible. Apparently, there was some contact there and I've received a letter from Arlan essentially stating that the price of the property is to be what the seller is wanting to offer and not necessarily be negotiated by— due to a property appraiser and/or appraisal. So essentially, unless that appraisal that we've ordered, if those numbers come in and match his, then Arland won't be— he's not willing to sell. So, I'm just waiting to get that appraisal back. Likely, it won't be $825,000 or $850,000. It'll probably be less, but I don't know how much less. Very well could be significantly less, but that's kind of where we're at with the Farley property.

All right, and then we've also had contact.

Chris, how big is the Farley property?

It's 5.7 acres.

5.7, okay.

One thing, Chris, I could just jump in for a second.

Yes.

I don't think it would be appropriate for the city to pay more than the appraised price. I have no idea what the appraised price will come in, and I'm not in favor of the Farley property, but I'm particularly not in favor of paying greater than the appraised price.

So—

Agreed.

There was an additional property that was discussed in the, in the meeting on— 2 meetings on Thursday. And it's regarding this property here, which is under contract. It's at 673 West 350 South. And then I believe Sam has also had recent conversations with this property owner.

I have. The property owner there is Brent Larson, and I reached out to him to see if he was in favor of doing an amendment to our current REPSEA to extend the terms of closing on that property due to the constraints that we're up against as far as trying to locate an area for our tank, as well as the pump house and well. And he was amicable to that and is willing to go ahead and do an extension. We were set to close within 45 days of when we initially had that agreement signed, and he's willing to go ahead and And do that. And he himself has had some of the neighbors reach out to him, none of them very favorable for selling the parcel to the city. So, he understands the pressure we're under and is willing to go ahead and extend. So, we're in no big hurry to hurry and close on that parcel.

So, Sam, how many days?

He was amicable to whatever. So, I was going to work with Heather and we could extend 30 days. 45 days. I mean, whatever seemed reasonable. We're just now at this point, I know we're going to be discussing possibly putting the tank there where the baseball field is and how we can kind of work, work through that. So, Bren is scheduled to meet with ASD next week, so we'll probably have a little bit more direction and have an idea of if that's going to be an option, if it's a feasible option, and what we can do with— Baseball for Mountain View, likely there might be another neighborhood meeting to discuss either a we they move their baseball operations maybe to to UVU or Orem High or or Timpanogos and or we an option that we've discussed is possibly putting the baseball facility on the square parcel and or I guess just the rectangular. Parcel due west of Mountain View, that way they wouldn't ever miss a season. But then we would likely be discussing, you know, some options with those neighbors who may not want to have, you know, foul balls hit into their yard or listening to baseball. I mean, we're just kind of trading one set of neighborhood issues for another. So I guess we'll kind of get some more direction from them. come next week in that meeting with them that Brynn and Chris and Taggart will be part of.

I would like to also represent that Mr. Larson has been extremely good to work with. He's been very patient. He's had opportunities to look at other investment properties, and we're under contract. You know, we are concerned about that, and he is open and willing, like Sam suggests, to extend that out for a period of time. So we are very appreciative to Mr. Larson for that and his understanding. Just kind of a general overview, and I think council members, whoever was able to attend those meetings that night, I hope that you had a sense that, or felt that, our presentation was reflective of kind of the history of how we've gotten to this point, and that obviously this decision to pinpoint the exact final location is not done. And it's not simple, and we're trying to work that out with everyone in the neighbors and with Council's direction and support as well, so We have appreciated this, this process to date. We have received, I think during the meetings, we've received close to 150 different chats, most of which were questions. Many of, or most of those questions were already answered, I believe, in the frequently asked questions document that we have on our website. But there were some new additional ones, and we are as you can imagine, in the process of going through those and updating that document, which will take us a little bit of time. We did receive some very positive feedback after that meeting, and from, from community members, including some that we met with, you know, 4 weeks ago originally, and they felt and have expressed— and they can correct me if I'm wrong— but they've expressed to me that They felt that this was an extremely transparent process of that Thursday night and that we have garnered some additional support. I believe that they're also concerned that the exact location hasn't been identified and they're anxious to know what that will be. And with that, I'll zoom into this area to the north. these 3 areas, the yellow and the green and the red. And I think these, based on some feedback that we're getting right now, or perhaps one of these is going to be the preferred option depending on how the Farley deal transaction occurs, or if it even happens. And, you know, if there's a Neal or Bren, or anyone, Jamie, if anyone else would like to chime in here at this point, or if not, then I turn it over to Mayor Brunson for a continued discussion.

I guess I would just chime in that my discussions with Superintendent Shane Farnsworth have, have been very constructive. It hasn't been There hasn't been sort of contention or friction. There's been very much an openness to see if we can find, you know, a workable path forward as it relates to the baseball field. And, you know, the one joke he responded with was, you know, he thought he was going to get rid of us after working for the last couple of years on the fitness center so closely, but I guess he I guess he can't get rid of us that easily. So, but he's been very complimentary of how, how we've been able to work together and find win-wins for the fitness center and, and believes we can, you know, continue to work in that manner as it relates to the placement of the water storage tank.

If there's No other comments. I would like to make a couple of comments, Chris.

Yes, please.

So on the red square there, if in fact that were the preferred option, I believe that's close enough to Larson's property that we could still use that as the pump house and run the water over to the tank right there. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, the area over the ball field is a large area. The, the amount of area you need for the water tank is not that great, is not as great as that area is. So a couple of options that I see that would be close by anyway would be to take the ball field and move it. If, if you could zoom back out for a minute, Chris. And not the other way. There you go. And actually place the ball field in the green zone where it would be placed up on the northwest corner and then face southeast. If you did that, you'd probably have to remove about 5 trees. But you may not, I'm not sure. That would still give us plenty of ground. It still have 300 feet from the road. For the width of the tank going north, and then you'd have another 500 or 600 feet east-west for the tank to be that direction. That's one option. The other option would be to take the ball field, as you mentioned earlier, and put it up west of the Mountain View High School in their field there, and then take whatever activities are in that field And bring them down to the green area on the north side of the community park where the green shading is.

I'm trying to get to that, just a sec.

Sure.

Mayor, can I ask a question while he's— he's So I'm not sure if they still use that area for soccer. I know at one time a few years ago they used that grass area for high school soccer.

You're talking about the north end of the community park in the green, in the green zone up on top?

Yes, just north of the baseball diamond. Okay, so that area that you were just talking about right there.

Sure, that I don't know. We would have to check and see what it is that they want and need and go accordingly.

But yeah, you can see that they do right there.

Yes.

And I know that, you know, typically the girls' soccer is played in the fall and the boys' in the spring. So the baseball and the boys' soccer would perhaps have a conflict, but it's, it's much easier to find a place to play soccer than it is baseball.

Yes, and we have other soccer fields. As an example, if you go down to 12th South and Main to the elementary school there, there's a large area you can play soccer. As Jamie and I were talking, we have other schools close by, so you have Centennial that has a huge ball field out behind it, the new Centennial Elementary School. And the elementary school does not have a baseball team, but there's a very large baseball field there with a backstop. And if area were needed, we could use— maybe trade with that, and then maybe use some of the Sierra Park land just to the south of the Centennial School for any activities that the kids are involved in. The softball typically is going to be after the time that the elementary school gets out. So you have the area at Centennial. You also have a beautiful new area at Cascade. When they took the old building down and transferred that area into grass area and built a new building to the north. They put in a brand new beautiful backstop and have a huge park area there. The kids do play on that during the day, but I don't believe that they're there after about 2:30, and that area could be one that could possibly be used. So that could be used for soccer and baseball could stay here, or it could be used for baseball. And Cascades About 12 blocks to the east and 2 blocks to the north, and then the school to the south is not that far away, about 12 blocks to the south on Main Street. So I think there are other options out there that are available, and I think if we worked with the Alpine School District and just said, you know, what can we do, how can we work this out, I think we could come to a decision that would be helpful to everybody.

Mayor, this is Brandon. Can you hear me?

Yes, Brandon.

So just give you a heads up. So most high school baseball, they show up around 1 o'clock. Games are at 3. Just so that you're aware that being at an elementary school may not work if, if that's a concern. So, or you could shift it an hour, but I don't know what, you know, what, because normally they play a JV game right after it. And so you start bumping up against dark.

Well, they play doubleheaders, so.

Correct. That's what I'm saying. They play the varsity game first, followed by a JV game.

But if you put the ball field to the west of Mountain View High School in that field, and then—

I was just bringing it up for elementary school. Sure, right.

I mean, you could move soccer to elementary school as well.

So.

So, Mayor, I've got a question.

Sure.

So, Chris, can you go back and show the yellow and the red? And I want to look at the Farley property first and see how many houses border that property, because I think that's going to open up a big can of worms. And I, I don't like the Farley. I don't want to spend $4.8 million or whatever it is, uh, on the Farley property. So there's around—

there are around 9, 9 or 10 that are immediately adjacent.

And how many are bordering the, uh, the original yellow site?

I think you have 7 there. Okay.

Ah, hold on.

Sorry, Chris.

No.

It's just, it's kind of thinking here. Okay. On this site here, you had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This is all owned by the same person. 7, 8, or 9 if you go all the way up.

So if we look at the baseball field, so I mean, is there a way to have a pump house over there and not have to buy that house?

To save money, or is that not the case?

You can't do that. The regulations won't allow it.

There, I would say if we were to decrease the amount of recreational area, that's true. If there was a need to perhaps consolidate or combine the restroom and the snack shack and make it more efficient, and then include perhaps a pump house with that same structure, there may be an opportunity there.

I'm just saying, if that would save money, then you have to buy the house. Because I think with the Farley property, it's way too much money for, in my mind, to buy that property for the tank. So I'm leaning— I'm a baseball guy, so I'm I don't want to see a baseball field taken out, but it will be restored better than it was. So I think that's the best option, is the red, in my mind.

Hey, Dave, if I can piggyback your comment.

Yes.

One of the other benefits of being under a baseball field is you never need to worry about tree roots or tearing up trees. And that was one of the benefits I saw of the baseball field area.

Good point, Tom.

Brent, do you have a question? Your hand's up.

Yeah, I thought you'd see my hand finally. Uh, as far as the Farley property, uh, maybe you could ask this, Brandon.

Is—

are there any tax incentives for the city or for Mr. Farley if he sold that?

Uh, that's well beyond me. There's definitely not for the city.

Okay, well, if you want to—

The tax incentive part would be for— he'd have to get with a CPA or some accounting firm or something to determine what kind of tax impact that would have for him.

Well, I was just thinking, actually, if I can, part of the agreement if we sell it would to pay the back taxes because that property wouldn't be in a greenbelt anymore. And when I called the county assessor, it was like about $30,000 in back taxes.

Yeah.

There's that.

That'd be on top of his asking price.

Right.

So, there's a requirement. Once you convert a property out of greenbelt into another use, there's kind of a clawback provision in the law that requires you to pay taxes. For, I think it's the last 5 years.

Okay.

Then another thing— you wanna say something, Tom?

I was gonna ask, even when a tax-exempt entity is buying it, Jamie?

But the responsibility for the taxes previous to the date of purchase would be the responsibility of the property— of the previous property owner. So yeah.

Well, I'm not in favor of the Farley property, but I, I was thinking if it could be to his advantage, um, save him quite a bit of money, it might drop his price quite a bit. Anyway, on the, uh, on the yellow baseball field and, and the one on the west, just, I don't know the measurements, they're not there. I don't think those are big enough for a baseball field, are they?

All of them are big enough for a baseball field.

This green one is?

Yes, all 5 options.

Have we done the measurement?

That would be a rectangular, uh, water tank there. The other— the red one could be rectangular or square. The yellow one would be rectangular. The blue rectangular—

Mayor, can I clarify? Are you, are you suggesting that once the project is final and complete that those improvements would be installed, not, not prior to, so that baseball wouldn't be interrupted? There would still be an interruption.

I—

or are you suggesting with your idea that we would build a baseball field ahead of time And then excavate for the tank.

That, that is correct.

Because I'm not sure—

We would, we would build a baseball field if it were west of Mountain View, or if it were in the green space, we would build a baseball field for the team. It would be ready to go for them, and then we would take over the baseball field as it sits, the old one.

One baseball field in the green?

I'm just kind of doing some preliminary measurements on Google Maps, and that would be, that would be an extremely tall order.

So the, as I measured it earlier in the day, the red area would actually shrink down. It would not be that big if you were to do the baseball field in the northwest section of the Cascade Community Park. So you probably lose the top third of the red area, but you would still have enough area to go wider to put in a rectangular tank there going east and west.

Let me suggest that part of the benefit of going in this red area would be that we would have an area to disperse the spoils pile, if you will.

Sure.

And then, and then not have as much export material. But if we didn't have any place to put those, which would be out in the green area, that would, that would be challenging. But if we put home plate at the top of the corner of where this grain tank is, that going— you need about 400 feet when you include stands and everything else.

Correct.

I guess if we blew out the whole pavilion and parking lot, is that what you're suggesting, is we would—

I don't know that you'd blow out the whole thing, but you'd certainly have to take out probably half of it.

Okay, I see. So if we did rearrange that, then those Those options do become more viable.

The only kicker in that— and that is correct, I think it's a viable option— the only kicker is those are wonderful trees, old trees that people love, and we'd have to let people know that we would replant new trees there for the future so they would have a feel for it.

There's also an advantage that you brought up, Mayor, regarding the location of the practice facility. west of the Mountain View High School. We have done a layout, a preliminary layout on that. That field could be designed and constructed starting whenever we make an agreement to do something like that with the school district, and whenever we get the green light. And that would free up this entire area to be, you know, recontoured and to install the tank and so forth. While they're they're held harmless with respect to the baseball. I obviously—

we—

they have other activities that occur there, like lacrosse, and they have practices for football and soccer, and they have a discus area, and, you know, other things for track and field. So, yeah, we're just— we're just kind of skimming the surface here and realize that there are— there's a variety of ideas or solutions. Solutions.

Well, and again, I would encourage looking at our other green space for those activities that may not have a tight time schedule or as tight as baseball.

Right.

And other areas where you wouldn't have to put in a diamond and a base running area. For example, with soccer, you know, Cascade, that field outside of Cascade would be beautiful for soccer after school lets out. You know, the area down south would be good. I think we have plenty of green space to work with. It may not be just as close as they want, but we can always buy a school bus, I guess.

But I guess, I guess, Chris and others, from staff's perspective, I think before we start essentially programming and planning infrastructure on school district property, We really need to take into consideration the needs and the concerns of the school district and essentially look at— before we start siting some of these, these ball fields on specific properties and such.

Let's get together.

Let's visit with the school district, because I don't want to be in a situation of essentially making plans with somebody else's property.

And I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting ideas, but definitely we would need to sit down and find out how we can work with the school district to make it work for both sides.

So, Mayor, quick question about this. You know, we looked at those softball fields that the district's not willing to do anything about. We own the baseball diamond. Why are we worried about this? I mean, what— the district, the district, you know, they're, they're going to tear out another school. They've got Geneva they're going to tear down. They've got plenty of ground. Do we have to pay? Do we have to build a new baseball diamond for the school? I'm confused.

So our, our relationship with the school district as related to the softball fields and the baseball field, back in 2016, we reaffirmed a relationship with the school district where We own the baseball diamond, the property in red essentially, and they program it. They own the property in blue, or a greater amount than that property in blue, and we program it. So we have always had kind of a reciprocal relationship where they're using our property, we're using their property for programming. And so that speaks to the need to try and find a win-win type scenario. Because in one circumstance, in either circumstance, we're impacting each other's programming and potentially property.

So Jamie, if they traded the blue for the orange or red, and we then we could do what we want to there, and they don't want to do that?

No, we approached them specifically about putting the tank on the blue area. And they have come back and said, no, we're uncomfortable with that because we have potential future plans with Orem Elementary. And the moment, obviously, you build infrastructure, you build a tank on that softball property, then you essentially eliminate that property for use in perpetuity. And you limit their ability to rebuild So— And I can see where they're coming from. At the same time, as we've said, Dr. Farnsworth has been open to entertaining a conversation about that red property. We've just got to find a solution tied to the baseball field that obviously meets with our budget and our approval, as well as the approval of the school district. I will represent too that our interests and our association and relationship with the school district is much broader than this issue. And so we want to do all that we can to maintain that healthy, positive, productive relationship with the school district.

So Jamie, could you start a conversation with Dr. Farnsworth to explore what his needs are and what thoughts would be available?

Yeah, we've already initiated— Brent's already initiated that conversation. In fact, he was on the phone with Dr. Farnsworth this morning even.

Okay.

I think that—

this is Neil. I think that this round robin of discussion is ultimately kind of pointing back to the reason we brought the yellow in the first place, because As we talk about relocating green space and you say, well, baseball can go play somewhere else and soccer can go play somewhere else, that is ultimately what led to the yellow where the people can go run their dogs and they can go play volleyball and they can use other passive areas of this park, recognizing it was adjacent to the homeowners. But that is ultimately why this this recommendation came as a first step for all these discussions that we're having.

So the red area, I believe, is optimal because it is away from the homes. It does not take out the park area for the residents and leaves that for them. They're a big portion of this discussion. And so I think that needs to be considered.

Mayor, I've got a comment.

Sure.

So just to reiterate on the Farley property, I don't like the location because it costs money, but also, if we're going to bond to lower our water rates for our citizens, that's going to jack it up and that's going to defeat the purpose in my mind to save— have a savings of of the water bill and the 4 tiers moving forward. So that's my 2 cents on the Farley property. So I'm not willing to do that, to add that to the bond.

Okay. Mayor, I too am willing to exclude the Farley property.

Okay, thank you, Tom. Any other comments?

I also agree with that. I'm not willing to buy the Farley property.

I'm not willing to buy it either.

And I would agree. I would agree with that also. I don't know why we would spend money when we have other property that we can—

that the city already owns.

Yeah, and I'm leaning that way also. This is Debbie.

So I think that's pretty much unanimous. Any other comments? All right, let's go ahead and stop and we'll see how things progress with staff. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chris and Neil. Let's go ahead and go now to an update on the Hillcrest Park engagement, and Bryn Bybee is our presenter. And Bryn, we'll turn it over to you.

Yes, thank you. I think we essentially went through another positive of those water tank online public open house meetings was that it set really a really positive, good standard for us for doing new additional online public open house meetings into the future. And so in, in general, we want to kind of follow that same format as we engage in an online public open house for Hillcrest Park that we did for the water tank locations. Stephen, do I have the ability to share my screen?

Yep, you do.

So this last weekend we went live and, and sent out 18,000 emails and posted on Facebook the launch of this new webpage at oremhillcrestpark.org that goes through and introduces people to where this park area is and shows— begins to show the different— the 2 concept plans that you as a Council kind of narrowed us down to, to continue to explore and to take to the public for feedback. So we did that. We've included those concepts on this webpage, the one that keeps a portion of the newer portion of Hillcrest Park building. And it is downloadable so that people can dive into this and look at the details and see what the different aspects are associated with it. Provided a summary narrative of each concept, and people can download also the detail on the cost estimate associated with these 2 concepts. So, Concept A is keeping the newer portion of the existing Hillcrest Elementary building. Is the concept that shows if we didn't keep any portion of the Hillcrest Elementary building. Again, downloadable. Look at the details of the cost. Then people can look at these examples of the specific features, especially the kind of unique or new ones that are called out in the 2 concepts. And then here below, We provide an opportunity for people to begin to provide comments and feedback on each of these concepts. And so we've already begun soliciting that feedback and, you know, giving the public the opportunity to begin to digest these concepts. And we've given kind of initial awareness or heads up about then these public open house meetings on March 4th. And we'll be providing 2 opportunities again. We'll have a brief introduction and presentation about the 2 concepts and how we got to what we got to and where those ideas come from. And then again, similar to the water tank meetings, There's also a link here for people to go and see how to join the meetings, the Zoom meetings that will be on Thursday, March 4th. In terms of the meeting itself, so we'll— yeah, we'll go through these concepts. Just like before, there will be in the chat section of Zoom the ability to ask questions or request clarifications. on what has been put together to this point. But again, in terms of providing, you know, specific comments about what they like, what they don't like, why they feel the way they do, we'll direct them back to this website and submitting, you know, that specific direct comment via the website so that we can accumulate all of that in a Google Sheet and be able to submit it. Summarize that and document it for later use. Let's see, I've got Lisa Benson here with Landmark Design, who's been our primary point of contact for this effort. Plan to have a panel of experts again, which will include both the consultants and city staff that will be available to answer questions and talk further about What we've put together so far. But Lisa, am I forgetting anything else in terms of the agenda and the plan for the public open house meeting?

No, I think that's a great summary.

So if there's any questions, additions, deletions, as it relates to how we want to continue to engage the public on, on this, the Hillcrest Park design process. Happy to take those questions and feedback.

Got a question, Brent.

Please.

On the time, I mean, if we looked at the water tank, it was an hour and a half, and you're leaving an hour. I think that's gonna— you're gonna— I think that's not gonna be enough time personally, because the Hillcrest Park is— it's a huge— I mean, everybody knows about it. So I think we might want to do maybe 5 to 6 6:30 and then maybe, you know, 8 or something. I don't know, but I just don't know if an hour is enough time personally.

Yeah, I mean, we can look into that. Part of it is that we've already kind of announced it from here. My thought was that, again, before we had 2 meetings because there were 2 different locations that we were trying to speak to 2 different neighborhoods. With this, we figured that if someone wasn't able to join on time or wanted to, you know, essentially provide additional feedback, that they could stay for that second hour. But we also don't necessarily have as much to present. I think in the time it will take to present these 2 options, I don't think we'll also take as long as the water tank meetings themselves. So, so that's why there was, I guess, the idea of an hour long for both of them.

I have—

I've had just enough, as many emails on the Hillcrest Park than with the water tank. I mean, it was— though, I don't know. I think that more time would be better because then you're being transparent. And, you know, the whole city is going to be invited, I'm assuming, to this meeting. So I don't know, just my two cents. I don't think it's enough time.

Brian, this is Terry. I agree with David, but another comment on this survey is we're telling people we want to reach out to the community and see what they want. There's no, there's no place you can put what you'd like. You're either having to choose A or B. For example, if you would like to have a splash pad, you can't put down, I would you know, on my wish list, I'd like a splash pad, or I'd like horseshoes, or I'd like whatever, outdoor basketball court. So I think we want to be careful we're not forcing the citizens to say you have to choose A or you have to choose B. Maybe overwhelming number would like a splash pad. So I don't know where we can put— have feedback. If I, as a citizen, I'm going, oh, I have to choose that one or that one. The mayor had an idea about putting You know, the pickleball courts next to the gym or something, you know, about moving it around a little differently than how it's drawn up. So hopefully people realize this is not in stone and you can, you can have your input on what you'd like.

Yeah, I would just keep in mind that, you know, these, these comments, this isn't intended to be like a survey where you know, we're turning this into, I guess, quantitative information that says, you know, X amount of people want exactly this. At the same time, we're trying to see if we can, you know, bring the overall vision along and narrow it to some degree, and also be able to show that, you know, there is reasoning behind what has been recommended to this point in terms of Trying to spread the facilities around that we provide in parks around the entire city. But again, if you look here, it shows that someone could say, you know, what do you like least about this concept? They could put, well, I look— the thing I like least about it is it doesn't have a splash pad. Or again, they can also say, maybe I like concepts for both. And then here in number 6, they could say, okay, This is why I like both or don't like either, because it doesn't have horseshoes or splash pad or whatever. So, so—

We got a couple of comments.

This is actually relatively open-ended in some ways, more than a survey that forces, like, you know, say 1 through 5 of how you like it.

I don't think it's open-ended, either A or B.

Yes.

Tom's got his hand up. Let's let him make a comment.

Please.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You know, when I had the opportunity to be the council liaison with our Rec Committee, I found them to be extremely helpful. And I'm wondering why we haven't added this to them to be kind of the vetters of some ideas. I have received, like all of you, emails and calls with Hey, we don't need that many pickleball courts, and hey, I want a place to throw a ball, or to Terry's point, I might want something else on it. But I think, I think this should be an assignment for the Rec Committee once we get through these meetings and then say, okay, what do we really want?

Good idea.

Okay, Jeff Lampson's got a comment.

I'm just going to say it has always been our plan to take it to the Rec Advisory Commission.

Thank you, Mayor.

They actually have it. I've given them a special invite to take care of this, so we will involve them.

So, so, Brent, so each meeting, uh, will the 5:30 meeting, would that be for Option A, and the 6:30 meeting be for Option B? No, it would just be both meetings would just be kind of an open discussion. Okay, and then, and maybe there could be a, just a place at the end of the survey that's just an open-ended comment section of, do you have other ideas or do you have other, other things that you would like to see as possibilities?

Okay, Lisa, you have a question?

Yeah, well, I was just going to mention that it's very easy to add an open-ended question to the end of this. We can definitely do that. Because it's not like we're— this is a statistically valid survey where we're crunching data. We're just looking at general comments. I will say that looking through the 100+ results that we've received so far, people are definitely expanding on that already. They're already— and I think it's a great idea to add that open-ended, but be aware that they are already kind of providing that feedback in these other questions. They're already saying, I don't want any of this. I want to bass pond, or I want, you know, there's all kinds of ideas out there. So, so we're definitely starting to get that kind of feedback already, but we're happy to add that question.

Let's see, Debbie's got a question.

I do. So my, my question is, is our goal of this meeting to at least narrow from the 2 plans to one and then drill down? Is that kind of our hope, is that if enough people want You know, to save the gym, or how do you want— is it just to narrow it and then really drill down to what exactly people want? I guess that's my— is that the goal? To go from 2 to 1?

I mean, ultimately, we're going to have to get to a point of decision-making and ultimately one design before something can be built, or before the construction design drawings can be created. But at that, at the same time, you know, this is, this is the first public open house meeting about it too. So, okay. And it's trying to find that balance between getting input, you know, and, and, but also bringing people along and educating about what's, what is viable, what's possible, what makes the most sense, what's consistent with, with with overall citywide plans that we've had to date.

Jeff's got a question.

Jeff?

No, I asked my question.

Mayor, Mayor, this is Jamie. I apologize, I don't have a hand as a co-host.

Go ahead.

Can't raise my hand in the meeting, but I see your hand. I would also, I would also kind of speak to when we developed our Parks Master Plan several years ago, We took that information and have tried to incorporate what the needs of the community are, in part, in these concepts. And those needs were determined based on a statistically significant or valid survey. So they are and were representative of the needs of the entire community. So to some degree, when we met with Lisa and her team, we didn't haphazardly just throw a whole bunch of stuff into a concept. It was based upon what the needs of the community are as part of our parks master plan, our citywide parks master plan, and also in line with a statistically valid survey that was completed as part of that master planning process.

Okay.

If no more comments, to me the most important part of our meeting coming up is to hear what the public has to say, so I'm interested in that. Let's go ahead and finish this portion and move on with the rest of our agenda here.

Now I'll just also— one last comment, Mayor, just that again, we, we've— I mean, we're receiving emails and comments too. As soon as we posted this on Facebook, we started to get a lot of comments and And I'll just, I guess, submit to you that I think by and large the comments have been very, very positive. And, and so really looking forward to this open house. I think we can keep it and keep it as a, as a constructive and productive meeting.

So, so, Bryn, prior to the open house, can you share with us the comments that have been coming in with the council?

Lisa, I think we can accumulate and summarize that information, right? And I would just keep in mind, again, we'll allow for those comments to still keep coming in during that open house as well, and we'll include it all.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Bryn. Let's go ahead and go on to a review of our agenda for this evening. We do have The prayer to be given by Ken Millett and Pledge of Allegiance by his wife, Lynnae. We do have a presentation on the Beautification Advisory Commission report. And Dave, do you want to mention anything about that or not really? Beautification Advisory Commission report tonight?

No, I think It's self-explanatory, and I think the presentation— so yeah, we're good.

All right, so let's go to our consent items. First one is approval of the meeting minutes of January 26th and February 9th, 2021. The next is 8.2, appointments to boards and commissions. So we have Becky Buxton, who is a reappointment to the Transportation Advisory Commission. And Lynnae Millett, who is an appointment to that. Does everyone know Lynnae? Are you all okay with Lynnae?

Yeah, she's great.

Okay.

And then we have an appointment to the CDBG Commission by Stephen Heaps. He's a resident of the city, been here for a while and wants to give back. Any comments? Anybody know him?

He's an outstanding person, known me for 25, no, 40 years.

Amen to that, Brent.

Okay, so everybody okay with those appointments and reappointments?

Yes.

Okay, then we have 8.3, which is an ordinance amending Article 2-22 of the Orem City Code. City staff recommends the Orem City Council amend 2-22 of the Orem City Code Code, which is the Employee Appeal Board, to include the 2 additional department representatives who are now serving on the Employee Advisory Council, and to increase the quorum requirement from 6 board members to 7 board members.

Mayor, can I just speak to that quickly? This is Heather. We, we have an outstanding issue that's pending before the city, and we'd like to remove this from the consent calendar and bring this back to the council at another meeting.

Okay, all right, so shall we continue that or remove that?

Why don't you go ahead and remove it?

Okay, all right, that's fine. Then we'll go ahead and move on to our scheduled items. The first one is 9.1, which is a public hearing to allow Public input regarding the issuance and sale of not more than $45 million aggregate principal amount of water sewer and storm sewer revenue and refunding bonds Series 2021. And B, any potential economic impact that the project described herein be financed with the proceeds of the bonds issued under the Act may have on the private That the act may have on the private sector and all related matters. So we're looking at public input here. Any additional information, or we just open it up for the public hearing?

Yes, Mayor, you'll just open it up for the public hearing, take public input, and then close the public portion of the hearing.

Yes.

Okay, then 9.2 is a public hearing amending sections, and you can see them there. Jason, I'm hoping that you can explain. So we have a couple of options here. We have some options that the Planning Commission has put forward. We have some options that the City Council, I believe, would like to move forward on. The ones that I see that I would like to move forward on is the Arts District Option 1 and the North Village Setback Option Number 1. But Jason, maybe you can explain Number 1 and Number 2 of both of those.

And the option—

you bet.

Thanks, Mayor. Option 2 is the one that we presented to the council about a month ago. Option 1 was, as we looked at the review with what the direction that we had from the council with the Res B in the North Village District. We wanted to be consistent with that requirement in the Arts District, and so Option 1 reflects the consistency between North Village and the Arts District. We're wrapping that 50 feet around the residential portion. The rest of that district is surrounded by streets on all other sides of at least 50 feet in width. And so we felt Option 1 is kind of the most consistent with that, and so we would prefer that Option 1 move forward. I'll have pictures and describe that further in the meeting.

Yes, and Option 1 is the one for Northgate where the setback starts at the back of the property, and it allows us or gives us the opportunity to rezone to an R-8 houses along 4th West there.

Right, the rezone is moving forward. I'll come to you another meeting.

Yes, yes, this opens that up.

Yes, to allow that. Correct.

Any comments from the council or questions so that everyone understands what we're doing? Okay. All right, 9.3 is a public hearing amending the current fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. Brandon, any comments or questions here?

Nope, relatively normal stuff. There are a couple of items I'll highlight related to the CARE money and the water fund, and there's a component related to changing ages with the recreation admissions. So those are really going to be the 3 main elements that I'm going to discuss.

Okay, Jamie, any things you want to bring up?

Yes, Mayor, thank you. Just a number of items to bring you up to speed on as related to just day-to-day operations. As you well know, we continue in the state legislative session and we Have a proc— we have now 8 days remaining, 8 working days remaining in the 2021 legislative session. There are several bills that we are watching very closely that have a direct impact on the City of Orem. Some of them are bills that we've been able to positively impact, and by we I speak to the efforts of Heather and others that spend quite a bit of time during the legislative session working on these things. One of them is HB 82, which is the single-family housing amendments. This is what would permit accessory dwelling units or mother-in-law apartments to be found or to be located in cities across the state. We have been able to work with the bill sponsor to temper that, to include recognition for cities that have universities in them. The bill language suggests that cities are required to allow— or required to have accessory dwelling units permitted within 75% of all residential zones in their city. However, in cities where they have a university, for example, Provo and Orem, Ogden, Logan, Salt Lake City, St. George, there are provisions that would essentially reduce that number to 33 1/3%. We already meet that threshold. There are and continue to be some concerns we have with the bill, specifically the fact that cities will not be able to regulate the size of these accessory dwelling units, nor will they be required— or will they be permitted to allow more than one off-street parking space per unit, as well as there are some concerns we have relative to code requirements that the legislature is willing to forego to allow these accessory dwelling units. Another bill that we're watching very, very— and so that HB 82 has actually worked its way through the House. It is now in the Senate, and we anticipate that the bill will relatively stay the same. Another bill we're watching very closely is Senate Bill 61, which is a billboard bill, which would allow, without city approval, the conversion of static billboards to digital billboards. And, you know, throughout the entire city, without necessarily consideration for those billboards in proximity to neighborhoods. So we're obviously very concerned about that bill. We feel like it is overreach. on the part of these billboard companies to transition potentially all of their billboards from static billboards to electronic billboards that essentially cycle through different ads every 8 to 12 seconds.

So, Jamie?

Yes.

If I could just make a comment, according to the information I received today, that has died in committee and is not going forward.

No, that There are several billboard bills. Okay, one of them has died. One of them died yesterday in committee. SB 61 is still very much alive and in its—

so they have— okay.

And, you know, Heather can speak to this probably better than I can. Heather, do you want to add to this discussion about SB 61?

Yeah, SB 61 has been circled on the Senate floor, but it will be up for its 3rd reading before the Senate in the near future. I did just receive an action and a kind of a call to arms from the Utah League of Cities and Towns regarding this, this bill, because they are getting an indication that it will go forward. The other billboard bill is SB 144, and it is the one that died, but it was resurrected by the Senate today. So it will be considered by the Senate as well. So we now have 2 active billboard bills.

That's tough. If I could break in for just a second, Terry, did you have a question or— You're on mute, Terry.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Just a question and a concern I saw on the city information that this— that we're asking people in the city that are staff, people that work for the city, to notify HR if they've had a COVID shot. I'm really uncomfortable with that. Can I get some clarification on why we would want to do that as a city?

Yeah, we, we're not requiring— let me just make sure— we're not requiring them to, unless they, unless they choose to provide us with the documentation that they've received it, but we are making efforts to determine if, for example, we need to in the future, and if we have the opportunity in the future to bring in a clinic within the city to provide our employees with access to the shot in a similar way we do with flu shots and other services. So for us, it's a means to determine whether or not there's enough critical mass necessary to bring in an in-house, for example, through community nursing services where they can run a vaccination clinic for our employees. That's one of the reasons that we're doing that. Secondarily, too, we also are concerned— we have employees that are very concerned on both ends of the spectrum. So we have some employees who are representing that they will never get the shot. We have other employees that are very concerned and are suggesting that they are not going to come back to work unless we have achieved some level of immunity within the organization. And so we're tracking that so that we can determine prospectively, you know, what is reasonable for us to assume and expect of our employees as it relates to, for example, returning to the office, returning to the worksite, and continuing their jobs, for example, in city facilities versus at home. And it's important for us to gauge to some degree what level of our employee base has received the vaccination so that we can make a determination as to whether or not For example, we can require employees to come back. If we're in a situation, for example, we have 60 or 70% of our employees that have been vaccinated, then we're working closer to herd immunity, and we can in good conscience represent, especially to our employees that are very nervous about the virus, that the risk of that virus has been, to the degree possible, mitigated.

Which also means that if you didn't get the vaccination, your job could be in jeopardy if you're working around others who had.

No.

Hmm.

I just think that's a private thing that I'm uncomfortable that the city's asking for that.

Well, I mean, I think administratively, if you were to ask our departments Having a general understanding as to whether or not their employees feel safe in the workplace and have access to the vaccine is a big deal.

Okay, why don't you keep going, Jamie, if you have any other items on the legislative side?

Yeah, the other, uh, the other item is House Bill 364, which relates to the Utah Lake and the creation of a Utah Lake Authority. We've been spending a lot of time with the sponsor of the bill, Representative Brady Brammer, and other cities in the valley in an effort to make this bill such that it benefits the city from the perspective of having a more influential voice in determining the future of Utah Lake. This bill is one that will be heard in committee tomorrow within the House, and a lot of people have worked to shape this bill in a way that we believe it represents the best interests of cities. Now, there are some, including those in water districts and other entities, who may not share that same opinion, but from a city perspective, it's our intent to to support the bill and believe that it will allow us a greater opportunity to impact positive changes in the lake in the future. Heather, I don't know if there are additional bills you'd like to speak to as related to the legislative session.

Right now, those are the 4 big bills that we're facing as a city and the ones that are moving quickly through the legislative process.

Okay, thank you. Just a couple of other information items. The first one is we are drawing very close to completion on our recreation fitness center, and I know Ryan has extended to you the invitation to tour the facility. I know, for example, he's touring the facility with at least one of you later this week. Obviously, we're very conscious still of COVID protocols that we need to follow, and we will open that center, we anticipate, with a need to follow COVID protocols. And so our staff is working, our very capable staff is working to meet obviously those requirements. This is a really exciting opportunity for us, and we just want to make sure you have an opportunity to see and tour the facility in advance of the general public. We continue to sell passes, and that pass sale is going quite well, where we are seeing continued growth in the number of passes that we are selling for, for the fitness center. Of course, at the same time, we're also in the process of recruiting for a new recreation director with the planned retirement of our current Recreation Director Carl Hurst, and I sent you some information yesterday about that recruitment, and we would invite you to be a participant in that recruitment effort. We also are continuing with the details associated with the city's compensation and benefits study that we started in 2020 and hit the pause button. We are now ready to re-engage in a very direct way with that study in cooperation with our consultant NFP, and information is going out this week to— in terms of the information gathering process is starting this week. And finally, just a word about our school resource officer program that is run through our police department. With changes the Alpine School District is making in the district, they are going to be consolidating their alternative high school options to one facility in American Fork. As you may recall, or you may know, we do have an Alpine School District alternative high school here in Orem, and we have historically staffed that facility with school resource officer. We, uh, the district has notified us that at the end of this school year they are moving that, uh, alternative high school to American Fork, and we will no longer need a school resource officer for that facility. That in turn will also change our funding relationship with the school district, and I've already had a conversation with Chief Adams where We will just absorb that school resource position and put that individual officer back into regular circulation within the police department, so it will not impact the number of FTEs we have in the department. In fact, it will enhance our ability to provide patrol and investigation services because that specialty assignment will no longer be necessary. at the alternative high school. And those are the, those are the updates that I had for you tonight. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Jamie. We do have a City Council report from Dave Spencer. Dave, I'll turn the time over to you.

I'll be really quick. So I'm over the seniors, not much going on there, but they're still a great group of people and very happy all the time over the beautification. And they're going to give that report in City Council about the goals and what they've— what we've accomplished. Recreation, we're looking forward to the fitness center opening in March. And then also with the Hillcrest Park, you know, going over that, what the citizens want. Also, I'm over the public safety which hasn't started yet, but I'm looking forward to that committee and serving on that with the citizens and those that are, that have volunteered for that.

So there you go. Okay, any questions? All right, thanks, Dave.

Appreciate it.

All right, let's go ahead and close our work session and start back up at 6 o'clock for our regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Hi. So just so you know that. Okay, I gotta start again. Okay, bye. Looking good, Millets.

Look at those smiling faces. That's good.

Nice to have you with us. Thank you.

Just tell us when to do our stuff.

We will.

Okay, what's your countdown to now, Ken and Lynnae?

How many days?

3 weeks from today.

Oh, that's exciting.

You get to have a baby with no pain, Lynae.

You have a baby with no pain, huh?

Oh, are we still there? All right, we'd like to go ahead and begin. I'd like to read a notice of an all-electronic meeting. Pursuant to Mayor Richard F. Brunt's proclamation dated February 4th, 2021, the Orem City Council meeting on February 23rd, 2021 will be an all-electronic meeting. There will be no anchor location for the meeting. The city cannot ensure 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 Orem City Council chambers would present a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be 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/meetings. To make a comment, please submit your comment through orem.org/comments. Written comments will be accepted before and during the meeting. All written comments received will be entered into the record and forwarded to each city council member for review. Written comments will also be read aloud during the live meeting. when required by law or when time permits. As technology permits, the City Council may also accept oral comments. Once an item has been voted on, that item will be closed to additional comments. Thank you for your cooperation during these challenging times. And now I would like to call our City Council meeting to order, and we'd like to start out with an invocation to be given by Ken Millett. Afterwards, afterwards, the Pledge of Allegiance to be given by Lynnae Millet. Ken, we'll turn the time over to you.

Our Heavenly Father, at the beginning of this council meeting, we offer Thee thanks for the opportunity we have to live here in this wonderful city, this wonderful state, and this wonderful country, which provides us the freedoms that it does. We would ask that Thy Spirit would be with us during this meeting, that the decisions made by the council and those who present will be beneficial to the citizens of Orem. We ask that thy blessings be upon the citizens of Orem, especially those who are suffering due to the pandemic and other issues. Bless them with thy blessings, Father, and help them in their sorrow. We ask thee that thou would bless this wonderful country and bless us that we might be able to continue to maintain our freedoms. We thank thee for all the blessings that we enjoy, and we pray for these things in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Kim.

Please recite the Pledge of Allegiance with me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ken. Thank you, Lynnae. We appreciate that. We'll now go ahead and go to a presentation from our Beautification Advisory Commission and have a report and update. We'll turn the time over to Reed Price.

Thank you, Mayor. I would just turn the time over to Elaine Parker, who is the chair of the Beautification Commission. She can do some introductions and then move through the presentation.

Nice to have you here, Elaine. So she's on mute. Elaine, can you put—

Yeah, there we go. Got it. Okay, yes, I'm Elaine. Parker, and I am the chair, and our vice chair is Sean O'Roulian. Other members on our committee are Aaron O'Roulian, Sherilyn Bennett, Tanya Harmon, Jason Bond, and Vicki Johnson. And David Spencer is on our, uh, our council member that is on our committee. Uh, our vice chair Sean O'Roulian is going to do our presentation, and I'll turn the time over to him.

Thank you, Elaine. I guess, Reed, go ahead and change slides now. This is our mission statement, and we have not changed it. We've had this for a couple years now, but I'll go ahead and read it. It says, the Orem Beautification Advisory Commission seeks to preserve and enhance the beauty of Orem City. We strive to inspire businesses and residents to continually beautify their surroundings through city-sponsored initiatives, events, and programs. All right, and there's a picture of the commission members we have. We are missing Vicki on that picture, but that's everyone else. You can go to the next slide. Talk briefly about our accomplishments and know that little COVID virus right there was not an accomplishment. Okay, next slide. So we had a lot planned last year and we were getting ready for a lot of events. We were excited for the year, then everything happened in March and shut things down. We planned on doing our Summerfest parade entry and having that a lot bigger than we had in years past. Obviously Summerfest never happened, so we couldn't do that. Arbor Day, we weren't able to participate in that, those activities. So unfortunately we didn't get stuff done with that. But things that we could do, we had free gardening classes and garage sale rules and regulations posting so people understood in the city what that was all about, how you could post, and the regulations for that. So we didn't have cluttered signs, cluttered posts in the city, you know, like light posts, things like that. And also we continued our social media outreach with Facebook, which has been very successful. We've had a lot of people constantly adding likes and joining that page as well, so that's been a very good way to connect with the community. We had our beautification awards. Through holiday decorations as well, and we're going to go through some of those slides and show you some of the beautiful yards that we have in our city. We'll just kind of— I'll just have Reed kind of scroll through this. This is a map of the city and how it's broken down in our commission as far as who covers what area. Each area, each color is a certain commission member, and they're responsible for giving out awards to those different areas. And you can see those are marked. So go through our residential beautification awards, and I'll just let Reed kind of slowly scroll through that. You guys can get a glance of some of these beautiful yards that we have in our city.

Oh, those are great.

Yeah, I mean, as far as, you know, there's some areas that need help, but, you know, we really have some talented city members And a lot of effort put into into making their yards look lovely, and we really appreciate that. I'm constantly amazed at some of the things I see and and the effort that people take to to make the city look nice and their yard. So it's always it's always great every year when we have this opportunity to recognize them for their efforts. We also had the business beautification awards that were handed out. There were a handful of those given out to different places in our, in our city. Just want to mention, if anyone ever has recommendations, any commission members, any city council members, any residents, they want to recommend any awards for these people, they can always go on our Facebook page and send us a message, and that's very helpful for us so we don't have to go out and constantly drive around trying to find them. So if you guys in this upcoming year do have those, please reach out to us on our Facebook page and we'll gladly look into those. Here are some of the holiday decoration awards that were given out. Some of these houses aren't the biggest and, and, and newest, but, you know, people that live there put some serious effort into making them look nice for the holidays, and we appreciate it. It's always fun to drive down a street and stop and, and look at the lights with the family.

Yeah, those are beautiful.

All right, so real quick, this isn't going to take long. The goals we have for this coming up year, we'll go over these. First one, to promote worthwhile practices that enhance the beauty of Orem. And so how are we going to do that? Go to the next slide. First, we're going to encourage Orem residents and businesses to beautify their yards and properties through the recognition awards that we've just talked about. And we're also going to continue to recognize both during the holiday season for their efforts in decorating with lights and displays. We want to continue with Arbor Day activities so that we can Sustain our Tree City USA designation. It's important that we plant trees. We appreciate that we have a lot of trees in our city and that they're well maintained. Goal 2, promote the roles and activities of the Beautification Commission. We're going to continue to promote the commission and the beautification activities and education opportunities through its Facebook page and city newsletter. And we're really excited to participate in Summerfest. Hopefully things will work out. You know, we're waiting to see what the final verdict is on that and what we can do, but whatever we can do, we will be a part of it. So yeah, and that is our presentation. We appreciate your effort, your support as a city council, and always look forward to criticism or advice or whatever you guys think we can do to better do our jobs as commission members. Thank you.

Well, it's a beautiful city, and thank you to the Beautification Commission. One thing I would maybe bring up is if, as you drive through the city, if there are places within the city that you think we can, as a city government, beautify our own grounds. It'd be nice to hear about that.

Great, thank you for the recommendation.

Okay, thank you, appreciate it very much. Thank you, Elaine and Shawn. All right, we'll go ahead and move on now to our personal appearance time. Um, we have set aside 15 minutes. Uh, we have set aside 3 minutes per person. And these comments are to be given on areas that are not within our agenda for this evening. So Steve Downs, do we have anyone who has put forth a personal appearance yet?

Yeah, 2, 2 comments, Mayor.

While you're doing that, I'll start the 90 seconds for any additional comments. So go ahead.

This first one comes from Gaylene Rosenthal regarding the water tank. The property of 444 South 400 West is a great location for the water tank, well, pump house, and water lines. A written letter was emailed Saturday to the mayor, city council, and staff giving many details for this choice of location, which would take longer than the 3 minutes allowed. The following are a few thoughts from the letter. No one can put a money— could put a money price on the disruption and closure of the busy Orem Community Park area, high school sports, and other sports, tennis courts, sports playground pavilion, access to the new Orem Fitness Center, family time, and children and students going to school safely for a couple of years. This project is like doing a remodel job in the park versus building new at the 440 South, 400 West. Most contractors prefer new construction, saves a lot of time and money and has less unforeseen issues and complications. Both areas have concerns that are the same, like school safety, construction time, inconvenience, dust, devalue of homes, and a multiple— and a multiple of other concerns. Utility rates will rise regardless of the area. This is in fact a reality. This is a fact of living in the real world. In all my years, I've never seen utilities or property taxes, which generates money to the city, decrease. A statement was made at the February 18th meeting regarding homes directly affected at the 2 locations, Orem Community Park and 444 South. 400 West. There are 15 home properties in the park area that border or touch the park boundaries, including the 2 homes on 600 West that will be highly affected. Also, all the people who use the park. There were 9 home properties that border or touch the 444 South 400 West property, which has no access and is fenced entirely. No one uses the orchard but at the owner's permission. The Arm Community Park would be highly disrupted while the 444 South 400 West property is not used by public. It would be great to turn the 444 South 400 West area into more green park space and not more housing and traffic. Call the park Farley Park to remember the— and honor the owner. The property at 444 South 400 West is a great location for the water tank, well, pump house, and water lines. That's the end of that comment, Mayor. Next is Lisa Richards. Stop to reconsider that there is no need for more pickleball courts. Stop assuming your personal opinions are representing the majority of Orem residents. What is the rush on pushing Hillcrest Park development and assuming you have a thorough understanding of what serves all of Orem best? So you, you're telling me that this group of 40 to 60-year-old council members know what kind of parks the younger families want? How many children will use 16 pickleball courts? You are aware that Orem has a new massive indoor pickleball facility? You think just one person opposes this and will hold up your hasty plan? I don't care if you like number 2 or number 3 when there is little differences between them. These ideas are stuck with thinking inside the box and what hinders Orem development from ever succeeding or serving the residents well. Mayor, that's the end of the submitted— the comments submitted ahead of time. I'll check with Pete to see if there's any others.

Okay, our time is up.

And no, yeah, no other comments at this time, Mayor, for the personal appearances.

Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and close the personal appearances portion of our meeting and go on to our consent items. On our consent items, if there are any items that the council would like to have put into our regular scheduled items, please let me know. We start out on 8.1, approval of city meeting minutes of January 26, 2021, and February 9, 2021 city council meetings. 8.2 is appointments to boards and commission. Reappointment of Becky Buxton to the Transportation Advisory Commission. Appointment of Lenee Millett to the Transportation Advisory Commission and a new appointment of Stephen Heaps to the CDBG Commission. 8.3.

Mayor?

Yes.

I just have a correction. I've known Stephen for 50 years, not 40.

Okay. I didn't think you were that old. Anyway, 8.3 has been pulled from our agenda and we'll not be considered this evening. So I would like to make a motion that we accept the consent items. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I'd like to go through and take a vote on that. First of all, I'd like to hear from Jeff Clamson.

Aye.

Okay, Debbie Laree.

Aye.

Tom McDonald.

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

David Spencer?

Aye.

And Brent Sumner?

Aye.

And I, Mayor Brunson, vote aye as well. Our consent item agenda passes, and we'll move now down to our scheduled items. Our first one is a public hearing, and this is to allow public input regarding A, the issuance and sale of not more than $45 million dollars aggregate principal amount of water sewer and storm sewer revenue and refunding bonds series 2021, the bonds, and B, any potential economic impact that the project described herein is to be financed with the proceeds of the bonds issued under the act may have on the private sector and all related matters. So this is a public hearing. We are going to open it up to the public for any public comment. And we've got 90 seconds, and if anyone would like to make public comment, please do so. And Steve, if you have any come in, feel free to start to read them.

None ahead of time, Mayor.

Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public input portion of our public hearing and move on to our next scheduled item, which is 9.2. This is a public hearing amending portions of Sections 22-24-5F2C, 22-24-5F4C, 22-24-4F2C, 22-24-4F4C, 22-24-1, 22-24-2, and 22-24-3 of the Orem City Code pertaining to setback requirements and building setback requirements in the state street district zones. And our presenter is Jason Bench. Jason, we'll turn the time over to you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Can you see the full screen of my presentation?

Can you make it larger? It's kind of—

Yeah, I think I've shared the wrong screen. Let me try that again.

Is that better? Uh, not really. You're about half the screen. I mean, we can live with it if that's all you've got.

I can do better than that.

Hold on one second.

Okay.

Sorry about this.

Let's see.

Jason, try hitting Windows+P. Hold Windows and hit P, and then hit Duplicate Monitor or Duplicate Display, and then try it.

All right, now my thing is stuck.

How's that?

Any better?

Uh, no, we just see your small picture.

No, you're not— you're just not sharing your screen yet.

All right, you're an old hat at this.

I know, I can't believe I'm having such dick Difficulties with this stupid thing.

Don't get violent.

Let me try it again one more time.

I'd say just run with that. You're not full size, but it's good enough.

That screen and not this.

Ctrl+P.

Yeah, Windows+P and do duplicate.

I did.

So that's not any better, right?

No, you're going backwards.

Oh, for heaven's sakes.

But I'd say go ahead and go with what you got. We can We can put our glasses on.

Well, I don't know why it's doing this. I've never had this issue before. Sorry about that.

It's okay. That's good enough right there.

Okay, so we'll just go with that, assuming I can switch the screen. So this is before you— we went to discussion about a month ago with the council to talk about North Village. We also talked about other districts, and the Arts District was another one that we brought forward. What we're here tonight is to show— and we had that discussion, we held a neighborhood meeting last Wednesday on the 17th. We had about 30 neighbors that came on our Zoom conference call to discuss the options. The screen you have before you tonight is the North Village District in the 50-foot setback. That we're proposing around any area that is adjacent to a residential zone. You can see the yellow is residential.

The—

also the North Village District Res B zone, which you can see on the top right of your screen, we went on the backside of that so that any developer would have to meet that setback on the backside and not on 400 West.

So it's the back of the property lines of the The houses is where the setback starts.

So that, yeah, the 50-foot and then the maximum height within that 50 feet would be 35 feet.

Correct.

In addition to that, the existing setback requirement of equal to the height of any residential zone would also be in play. So whichever one is the more restrictive, we would require. So there's 2 different setbacks now that would be in play in this specific district. The next one is the Arts District. I know, Mayor, you had wanted us to include this, and what we're— to be consistent with what we were doing in the North Village is there's only one portion of this district on the top. You can see the AD res. That's the only area that's residential, similar to the Res B up in the North Village. The rest of it is either core or civic. And the rest of the district is surrounded on all 4 sides. except for the very south, which is a commercial zone with Warren Boulevard, 4th South, 4th East. And so we felt comfortable proposing Option 1, which basically just allows this 50-foot setback with a 35 maximum height that would surround that AD res zone. As you recall, there's a new elementary school that was just built to the south, so I doubt that's ever going to be redeveloped. The city obviously owns the park that's south of that. So I don't know that there's gonna be much development in the Civic Zone. The real major development redevelopment is going to be in the Core Zone, which is surrounded either by State Street or Orem Boulevard or 8 South. And so we felt this is reasonable as far as the option. The one that we originally presented to the council as Option 2 takes in the buffer from the street itself, which We have, like I say, at least a minimum 50-foot-wide street on all these parameters. So I'm not sure that Option 2 is really applicable in this instance, and Option 1 would be our preferred option. That's what we're presenting, both options, because we did present Option 2, but feel that Option 1 is more reasonable. Any questions on these 2 maps before I go to the next?

So Option 1 for the North Village setback and option 1 for the Arts District is what you've just shown us.

Right, we only have the one option for the North Village. We've always been working with— because we do have more property, excuse me, in the North Village that abuts to a residential zone on the backside of some of these properties. So that's very much appropriate there. Northwest, we've— they're in the process of rezoning, and we've discussed that briefly with the council. those 9 or 8 lots on 4th West back to R-8. That's in process, will be coming to the council end of next month. But we've, we've modified the ordinance since we've met to actually go on the backside of those homes. So yeah.

So how do you, how do you describe this if not Option 1?

It would be Option 1, you're right, but there's only one option for North Village.

Okay.

Jason, this is Debbie. How was the 30 people that showed up at the meetings, were they mostly for the North Village? Were they mostly for the arts? And if so, what was their feedback?

Mostly North Village. There were— had quite a few chatting comments. Majority of them just wanted to know what the process was. We had several property owners that are in the potential R-8 zone. We just wanted to make sure what that process would be. We had some that were frustrated that we could meet together and discuss face-to-face. We were limited on the ability to have conversation, you know. So it was more of a chat. We did probably have 30— and I think you have a copy of the chat questions that we had, but we probably had 30 to 40 questions related to traffic and other things like that. We tried to focus just on the issues at hand, which was the setback and the rezone. So we kind of limited the questions and answers to those.

And I think most of those people were in favor of what Option 1 is.

Yeah, I think any concerns were more district overall, not necessarily for these setbacks that are proposed tonight.

Jason?

Yeah.

Did the homes on the west side, did they all agree with what we're doing?

On the west side of which one?

On the west side, the homes.

Of North Village?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

All—

well, except for the one to the south, which was the one that wanted to have the potential rezone. The rest of those, we did have something signed by each of the property owners wanting to go back to the R-8 zone. So the majority of those property owners are in agreement that they want it to be rezoned back.

Okay, thank you.

And that, just to keep in mind, that by rezoning them back to R-8, it would allow on that west side that they would have to not only meet this 50 feet, but also equal to the height of any structure, which would then, you know, probably be a greater setback. So there'd be 2 setbacks that they'd have to meet. So once it's rezoned, I think it would be sufficiently safe to say that any impact would be limited into the middle of the property and not next to the residential property. This is the graphic we had before the council, based on the street, 50 feet, 35 feet. This is an example of the one graphic we showed before. The one on the bottom is a new graphic. This kind of shows an existing home, 25-foot setback, and then the 50-foot setback that we require with a maximum 35 feet, and the setback that's also required. So it would still— you can see the open area that that would be. Both of those requirements built in would still allow a pretty significant step back or setback from the residential property. The other requirement that we're looking at tonight is, if you can look on the picture to the— in the upper right. No, this is just text. Sorry, let me go to this picture. This is the— what we're looking at is if this is a 2-story Building. Let me turn on my laser pointer. Maybe you can't see my laser pointer. Anyway, the 2-story building, what we're proposing is right now the ordinance requires any building that has residential above has to have the step back, that 20-foot step back on the first level. What we're proposing is if a developer comes in and wants multiple story of commercial that, that step back be associated with the residential portion of the building and not just at the first level. So in this picture that you're seeing before you, if it's a 2-story commercial and then you've got the step back for the residential, that's the direction that we're wanting to, to go. And the next building kind of shows the same thing with buildings that have a 2-story commercial component and then the residential are above that. What we're wanting to do is associate that step back area, that 20-foot landing area, which would, which would have amenities for the residential portion of the development, be a part of that residential development and not have to come down and through a commercial portion to access that, because it is designed specifically for residential uses and not for the commercial. The way the ordinance is written right now, commercial itself does not require that. So if somebody wanted to come in and build a 4-story office building, they wouldn't have that step-back requirement. It is only required if part of the building contains residential uses. So this ordinance that we're proposing would basically allow that step back to be at the same level as the residential starts. If somebody comes in with a 4-story and after the first level they want that residential, then they would have to step it back on the first level. If they wanted to come in with a 2-story commercial and then 3 stories, they would step it back on the second level. So hopefully that's understandable. So those are the 2 different requests before you tonight. We did go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's made positive recommendations on all of these and be glad to address any questions.

All right, if no questions from the council, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up to the public for any comments. Steve, if you're there, We'll go ahead and start now with our 90 seconds. And if you get any comments, let us know.

Mayor, I do have some comments submitted ahead of time. We'll start with those. First one is from Stephanie— if I pronounced the name wrong, I apologize— Visnaw, V-I-S-N-A-W. I appreciate the council's consideration in implementing, implementing a 50-foot setback from the back of the property. Lines of homes in the Residential B zone of the North Village District and adjacent residential zones. Zoning efforts to buffer residents from commercial property is crucial in maintaining the desirable and higher value residential properties. It is my request that the City Council consider increasing this setback from 50 feet to 100 feet wherever an NVDE edge zone abuts a residential zone. Edge zones are designed for mixed commercial and residential use, with building heights restricted by parking and setback requirements. There are many cases in the North Village District where edge zones abut R-8 zones. It is my understanding that mid-density Res B zones are transition zones to step down from commercial to standard residential zones. Many standard residential zones of the North Village District abut edge zones and do not have a Res B zone as a transition. which allows taller commercial high-density housing to be built right next to an R-8 zone. Increasing the setback from 50 to 100 feet wherever all residential zones abut an edge zone would protect and buffer residential properties that do not have a Res B zone as a transition. Although not on today's agenda, I would further propose that certain edge zones be considered for rezoning to Res B, especially where they abut R-8 zones. One such property is between State Street and 401 West behind State Street Storage and continues to the corner of 1600 North and 400 West, which does not have State Street frontage, frontage not ideal for the required commercial element of an edge zone property. The current Res B homes along 400 West have applied to be rezoned back to R-8. If this application is approved, rezoning the current edge zones behind it into the south corner of 1600 North and 400 West to Res B would provide the transition from commercial to residential, as well as provide a better use for property that is currently zoned mixed commercial/residential with no State Street frontage or access. I understand that a lot of time and resources have gone into preparing the master plan. However, now is a good time to take another look and improve upon the master plan for the North Village District. The master plan states NVD zones are intended to be more residential in nature, with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 State Street districts, increasing edge zone backs to 100 feet and rezoning some edge and resby zones in keeping with the master plan description of the North Village District and would be beneficial to all Orem residents involved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mayor, that is the end of this next one. I will begin the next one. Just as a reminder, if it goes beyond the 3 minutes, we'll, we'll stop it, but we'll send you on the entire comment.

Okay.

Okay, the next one is Lisa Hill. City Council and City of Orem, as stated in the Orem City Code of Ordinances Article 22-4-5, purpose: the North Village District, NVD zones, are located at the city's northern gateway. The NVD zones are intended to be more residential in nature with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 State Street districts. As a resident where— whose property abuts the North Village District. I want to thank the Commission and Council for considering the impact of commercial and high-density development on residential areas. The recent proposal to create a 50-foot setback around the NVD-Res B zone is a great example of this. Upon further review of the NVD ordinances, I have a few concerns and requests. Residential rezoning— the NVD-E and NVD-Res B zones are designed to scale back larger development as it nears residential, transitioning from commercial to mid-density residential. There has been a request submitted To change the current NVD-Res B zone along 400 West back to Res A. If this is approved, it would make sense to rezone the portion of NVDE adjacent to the west and south of this area to NVD-Res B. With the currently zoned NVDE, it requires some commercial residential mix. Changing a portion of the NVDE zone corner of 400 West and 1600 North, as well as the area behind the homes on 400 West, to NVD-Res B with with a 35-foot maximum building height would allow the step down from commercial to mid-density housing, as zoning ordinances are designed to do. Benefits. Yeah, benefits. Changing a portion of the NVD zone to NVD Res B would allow a developer to build mid-density housing in an area that already has residential nearby without the commercial restrictions. This would alleviate some of the residents' concern with commercial areas creeping into the resident— into the residential. State Street access is limited in this area, and eliminating the commercial aspect of this property would help with easement from other surface streets. Property line setback requirements: although the 50-foot setback behind larger homes on 400 West is a great improvement, 50 foot is not very much room to buffer from larger buildings. It would be a huge benefit to all residents near the North Village District to have this setback requirement increased to 100 feet wherever NVDE abuts a Residential 8 zone, with With NVD Res B as a step-down buffer. My home, Res 8, at 399 West 1560 North, is such a property that currently has NVDE on the back fence line. Without doing any rezoning, increasing the 50-foot setbacks to 100 feet would help buffer from any further large developments. Street, street setback requirements. Currently, the ordinance is to have any new, new build be 10 feet from the sidewalk. As this may work for State Street, it is not conducive to 1600 North or other streets in the district. Having large buildings within 10 feet of the sidewalk or less on 1600 North does not help with the residential feel as it transitions to residential areas. The corridor or boulevard look and feel should be focused on State Street only in the North Village District. Commercial residential access. Mayor, that is the end of the 3 minutes. I will send on the remainder of the comment.

All right, any other comments?

Yep, there is another one.

Anya—

and I pronounced the name incorrectly, I hope not— Becerra, B-E-C-E-R-R-A. I appreciate the council's consideration and support at this time, and I asked the city council to consider increasing the setback from 50 feet to 100 feet wherever NVDE edge zone abuts a residential zone. Edge zones are designed for mixed commercial residential use. With building heights restricted by parking and setback requirements. Many standard residential zones of the North Village District abut edge zones and do not have Res B zones as a transition. For example, homes behind Mountain America Credit Union, which allows taller commercial high-density housing to be built right next to an R-8 zone. Currently, all 7 residents on 400 West have applied to change homes from Res B, who were not aware of this change along 400 West, back to R-8. zone homes, which they should have never changed in the first place. All who are asking council members and city to approve this request in a future time, and then if this application is approved, it would facilitate rezoning the current edge zone behind it to Res B. This would provide the transition from commercial to residential, as well as provide better use for a property that is essentially landlocked. Increasing the setback from 50 to 100 feet Where all residential properties abut an edge zone would protect and buffer residential properties. Furthermore, it would lessen the impact of the traffic that is already dangerous and impacting residential neighborhoods. A dangerous example of insufficient setbacks is Quick Quack, which was built right at the corner of 1600 North, so close to residential homes. Our neighborhoods recently experienced dangerous driving conditions and traffic chaos due to enormous lines and blocked traffic. As many of you know, traffic in the area is not an isolated event. And the amount of traffic on 400 West and the intersection of 1600 North and 400 West is at times dangerous. The number of accidents that have occurred at this intersection on 400 West has been, has been significant, with people driving over 40 miles per hour. I also request that due to the amount of traffic, that no roads or connecting streets go through 400 West from any commercial or higher density housing. I understand that a lot of time and resources have gone into preparing the master plan. However, Now is a good time to take another look and approve the master plan for the North Village District. The master plan states the NVD zones are intended to be more residential in nature, with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 straight street districts. Increasing edge zone setbacks of 100 feet and rezoning current edge and resby zones is in keeping with the master plan description of the North Village District and would be beneficial to all Orem city residents.

involved.

Mayor, that's the end of that comment. The next one, Lenee Millett. I appreciate the work that went into creating the State Street Master Plan and the ideas put forward to help beautify the development along State Street. The residents in my area feel the North Village has some unique issues and request that zoning adjustments be made to address those issues. One, there is no buffer zone for the homes on 400 West. There should be a transitional Res B type zone with the State Street core zone and the homes on 400 West. The edge zone is not sufficient buffer, and Res B zone designation would be more appropriate up to the 1800 North boundary. The Res B zone would be in keeping with the purpose of this node. As stated in the State Street Master Plan, is intended to be more residential in nature. Please rezone the intersection of the northeast node to a medium density condo type housing. For small commercial office or small commercial office with customary density and height. Height restrictions for the property directly behind the home should be revised, and the 50-foot setback should be increased to 75 to 100 feet. The height of the building should transition down from State Street, not from the middle of the node or from 1600 North. The land behind and to the south side of the home should have resby height restrictions. The homes need a greater buffer than 50 feet. 75 or 100 feet would be in keeping with smaller transitions found in the areas of Orem where medium-density housing abuts to single-family housing. 3, building setbacks should be no more than 0 to 10 feet from the curb— or should— sorry, should be more than 0 to 10 feet from the curb, and the shoulders on 1600 North should be increased to the customary width found on other large collector streets. Eastbound 1600 North has extremely narrow shoulders on the north and south sides. Several times an accident or local business travel have created extreme traffic issues for residents, as 1600 North is a main transportation gateway for the North Orme area. Zoning setbacks that would allow for an opportunity to widen 1600 North to 400 West would be wise and would reduce future costs and problems. A wider shoulder between the street and the sidewalk would provide greater safety for pedestrians. A walkable community provided for the safety of pedestrians, and that area is not safely walkable. For a requirement for businesses to provide a few street-visible parking spots would provide for a safer, more visible parking area for women versus all parking in the back of the building. I had an unsettling experience once where a man approached me in a parking lot that was secluded behind a building. I was grateful the business had a security guard patrolling the parking lot. Requiring a few parking options in the front would provide a safe option for those seeking one. For consider— please consider this for State Street. Thank you for helping us to preserve our neighborhoods and for the safety of safety our residents.

Thank you.

of our streets.

That is the end of Lenee's comments. One more, Jim Condie. One more at this time, assuming no more come in. I appreciate the fine people in the Planning Commission and their willingness to meet with the neighbors near the North Village District to help us understand how the city processes work. These planning people are our neighbors and friends. I'm excited to have my home, one of the homes on the west side of 400 West 600 North, moved back to R-8 zoning. allowing for more of a buffer between— behind my property, between residential and future commercial or multifamily developments. This is a residential area. We want to keep it residential. Traffic is a problem that takes away from the residential feel. 400 West above 1600 North has a major artery for Orem, Linden, and Pleasant Grove. The zoning corrections will help reduce the size and setbacks of the commercial development that is in the plans. The next concern, the existing traffic and future traffic on 400 West above 1600 North. Any development in the northeast corner of the NVD should not be allowed unless it has access to State Street. Please approve the NVD buffer zones to be between the most restrictive regarding the 50-foot setback or more, or the setback equal to the height. Also, the rezoning of our 8 homes back to R-8 as per our petition to the city. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor, Council, I believe that is all we have at this time. Pete, anything else? Okay, that's it. And for all the information, I was not yawning because of the comment. It's my personal sleep habits. I want to make sure nobody was offended. Thank you.

Well, we didn't want to keep you up. So Debbie Luray, you've got a question or comment?

Yes, Jason, several of those comments. wanted to do more than the 50 feet. I heard 75 and 100. Is there a reason we wouldn't want it bigger, or do you think 50 is sufficient? Can you kind of give me some— your opinion on that?

In my opinion, 50 feet is sufficient, especially when you take into account equal to the height of the building. You're going to have 2 different restrictions. The more you go back 35 feet— if let's say we go back 100, in the instance of the storage facility, that's half their property. So the more the ability that we take away from a developer to actually redevelop the property, the less likely it's going to be redeveloped. In this instance, I think 50 feet is acceptable. 100 feet, I mean, obviously is a doable thing, but it's going to take— chew into their property, and it's really going to be unreasonable, in my opinion, for them to have to meet that 100-foot setback.

What about 75?

I think 50 is sufficient, in my opinion, especially with the equal to the height. requirement where it's going to step back, whatever that height is going to be, it has to be equal to that. That's, that's built into the ordinance, and I think that is the purpose of that, was to have a buffer between residential and whatever is built on in the district. So that's, in my opinion, is already taken into account.

Thank you.

Mayor, I've got a question.

Yes, go ahead.

So Jason, if we look at the State Street Master Plan and the cities that we visited, say in Oregon, You know, the, the whole gist of it is to put commercial and residential on State Street, and then that's built up, and then it feathers down into the neighborhood. And right now, I don't see that feathering into the neighborhood. I see that invading that neighborhood there, and I don't like it. So I— my thing is, what happens if we go 75 feet? I think that would be a good buffer. Because I still don't think that we're— this edge district with the State Street, it's supposed to be pushed to State Street, and now we're pushing everything towards the residential neighborhoods. And I think that— I think we're missing the point here, and we're too close to residential neighborhoods, and I think we need to do a better buffer than 50 feet.

You got to realize, if you don't mind me answering that question, the district itself is not very wide. State Street, the depth of State Street and all the small properties you can see on the map. I mean, there's no way a small property on State Street can do anything but what they have. It's going to take multiple properties. This was a C-2 zone prior, so we're not taking any residential property that we hadn't done before with commercial property as a C-2. So this district was designed to fit into the neighborhood. Granted that obviously it's about a 300-foot width from State Street to the neighbors, but that was the intent of State Street to begin with. It's not a very wide district, and we're going to have some properties that are going to abut a residential, which is why we put— built in the equal-to-the-height setback requirements. If you have too restrictive of setbacks or too restrictive of height, we're never going to redevelop anything on State Street. And if that's the direction, then I guess that's the direction. But I think we're missing the boat on that.

Well, I think too is if we, if we start with the commercial and residential facing State Street and then feather it back in the neighborhood, that's my concern because we're not feathering it back. It's, it's going to be all of a sudden now it's 35 feet, now you have this huge building. So the other question I have is, we are not On 400 West, we're not letting any access from that parking lot or whatever into— onto 4th West, correct?

That's correct.

And then what do we— I also noticed the, you know, the old Meinecke building, there is a bunch of cinder blocks or big, you know, cement blocks blocking a driveway. Is that going to stay there or is that going to be blocked off?

I have to look— I'd have looked at that. I know that they're trying to restrict some of the inlet to that, but at this point I'm not aware of anything being restricted.

There's one in and out that goes— you can turn left on the 1600, but then if you go further west, there's 4 big cement blocks that are— it's a driveway. And my concern there is, you know, that's going to have to go away too.

Yeah, most likely when something comes in to redevelop, that will be definitely looked at and access will be limited to a certain location.

Oh, my, my opinion is I'm fine with the 75-foot because that would push everything towards State Street towards residential.

Thank you. Terry Peterson, did you have a comment?

Yes, I have the same concerns I think I'm hearing from some of the others that I think we need to be— it's very important as a city that the first priority is protecting the homeowners and not worried about putting, you know, what we can stick on State Street. So I also would be in favor of, you know, 50 feet is way too close. 75 to 100 feet is a strong message, I think, to the citizens that we're trying to do what we can that protects homeowners.

Okay, Brent Sunder has a comment.

Now, David mentioned the exit on, on the 4th West. If that corner's developed, south corner, can you still come on 4th West from that edge down there?

No.

So there will be nothing on 4th West?

No, there would not be any access on 4th.

Okay, and If this is voted down, it goes back to the original C-2, right?

No, the zone is already in place. This is simply requesting the 50-foot, 35-foot maximum height that you see outlined in the red. That's what we're proposing tonight. We're not proposing rezoning anything back to C-2 or anything at this point. It stays North Village District.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Mayor, this is This is Jamie.

Yeah, go ahead, Jamie.

I think, if I may, consideration also needs to be given to those property owners who would be impacted by this change. If in fact the will of the council is to change the setbacks, and in this case right now the conversation is to add 50% to that proposed setback, I think it would be appropriate to notice and to advise those that find themselves in this zone and make them aware of the council's interest in doing this so that they too have an opportunity to voice their opinions and provide feedback relative to the change as well.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Jason, could you go back to the one of the last drawings you showed where it's 20-foot in and 20-foot Hi. So if you look down at the bottom right there, you can see the house that's there. Most of the houses are not up against the property line. They're a ways back. Is 25-foot a requirement on the backyards of their houses?

Yes, that's a standard setback.

Okay. And then from there you go Basically 20 foot and then up 20 foot, another 20 foot, up 20 foot. Is that correct?

Right.

Yeah, in this example it's 14-foot increments, like to the top, just showing that, yeah, step back equal to the height. So if it's a 20-foot building, the same is applicable. Yes.

So you've got 25 feet to the property line, then you have another 50 foot that we are proposing here that would have a maximum of 35 foot in height, and anything you build up, you have to go back the distance equal to the height.

Correct.

So to get up to 35 foot, you've got to go up 35 foot. I mean, you've got to go back 35 foot to go up 35 foot, right?

That's right. Yep.

So you've got the 50-foot, then you've got the 35-foot, and then you've got the 25-foot from the house. So I think there's plenty of room there for, you know, modification from a high building. Because you're going to have the 25 plus the 50, that's 75. And then you're going to have another 35 before you can even get up to 35, which is the amount of height that the house is allowed to have. And, and so I really feel like that's 105 feet right there. Basically, I feel like that's what they're considering and asking. And this, as Jamie said, I think we need to look at property rights for both sides, both the homeowners and the people that own the commercial property, but you've— you basically have 105 feet back from the house before you have a building that goes up 35 feet, equal in height to what the house would be. So I feel like this is a good compromise, and I feel like the 50-foot— you know, originally the 50-foot was going to come from the edge of the street, and we moved it all the way back to the back of the lot. And I don't know how big some of those lots are, but they look fairly large in size. So I would not be in favor of going to 75 to 100 feet. I believe you're taking away the rights of the property owners in the commercial section, but I believe that the residents are protected by the 25-foot to the backyard, then the 30 And then the 50-foot from there, and then the 35-foot from there. That's, that's 105-foot. So I believe we're there. Anyway, this is a public hearing, so if there's no other comments, let's go ahead and open it up to the public for public comment. And we'll start our 90 seconds right now and Steve, do you have any—

Mayor, is this it? I apologize, did we already finish this public hearing?

We already had the public hearing, Mayor.

Yeah, we did. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you're right. So we don't want to go back to that. So anyway, any other comments from the council? Debbie, you have a comment.

So Mayor, if we approve the 50 today, which would improve it, we can still go back at a later date and tweak that a little bit. I guess I'm feeling like I want to at least change it and improve it, but then I, I'm not sure that can't be tweaked a little bit more later on. Is that correct?

Well, if somebody has a commercial building, they're going to start to build, and we've approved this in the zone, then you can't go back and change their building.

No, I realize, but if we don't change it tonight, then we don't have these protections, the 50 feet. What I'm saying is I think we need to do the 50 feet. But I heard a lot of saying we should do 75 or 100. I want to kind of look at that. So if we— what I'm saying is we approve the 50, I can still go back and tweak it later. Is that correct?

It could be another application.

Yes.

So the city would do an application.

And if we don't improve it, it's—

I mean, don't go to the 50 feet, then be stuck with 50 feet from the street.

From the street. Okay, so this is definitely an improvement. That's what I'm trying to get at. We can at least make it—

Have the R-8 zone for the houses along 400 West. Okay, lose all that.

So this improves the situation and we can still look at that setback if we want to later.

Yeah, potentially, yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other comments?

Yeah, Mayor, I've got a comment. So if If we move forward, we're safeguarding the 50 feet from the property line. But then if we have 4 council members that would like to bring this topic back up, we can go ahead and put that back on the agenda and make application.

You could potentially.

I mean, I'm just trying to clarify.

I mean, the planning, the Planning Commission has already approved Making the change with the 50 foot from the street. So we either— if we change 50 foot from the back of the lot line, that's fine. And that takes out the 50 foot from the street. If we don't pass this and we're not together on it, then you go back to the 50 foot from the street and you lose the R-8 zone for the houses on 400 West.

So Well, the R-8 zone is a different application, Mayor, so that's not before you tonight.

I know, but what I'm saying is we're talking about the 50-foot behind all the houses, right? That leaves that portion open for when that comes up. So, correct. So I think you'd have some unintended consequences. All right, well then I would like to make a motion.

My hand's up, Mayor.

I'm sorry, Tom, go ahead.

If Heather is still on, I'm wondering how we— at what point does the business owner say, wait a minute, you can't keep making changes on property that I own? I think you were referring to that, Mayor. We have this that we could approve, but if we don't approve it, I'm fearful the business owner could start going with the rules currently under— underway or on the books. And so if we don't approve this, I mean, how many changes can we make before this business owner says, wait a minute, I bought this land with these rights? I wondered, Heather, if you could clarify that, or maybe Jason, you can. I apologize if I directed that question to the wrong person.

No, Jason, if you want to take it, that's fine. Steve Earle is also on the line and can speak to this particular legal issue.

Yeah, Mayor, this is Steve.

Sure, go ahead.

In answer to Tom's question, you know, basically you can make as many changes as you want, as long as there is a reasonable or a rational basis for each decision that you make. You have the right to change your mind. You know, if you may— if you establish one standard and, you know, in 2 weeks or 2 months or whatever, you feel like you should have done something different, you can still do that. The real test is when somebody— when a developer or property owner makes an application to actually do a development on the property. At that point, they're locked in. They get to develop under the standards that apply or exist at that time, and you can't change it as to them. But you could still change the standards for everybody else, essentially.

Mm-hmm.

So, again, you can keep changing the standards and changing your mind, again, as long as there is a rational basis for what you're doing. Obviously, these districts are kind of something new, and we're learning. And, you know, when we have actual development proposals that are on the table, we start to think about issues maybe in a little bit different way than we did when it was all theory. So again, you know, you can make changes in the future if you want to do that.

So, Mayor, I've got a question.

Sure, go ahead. Brent has a comment too.

Okay, well, to Tom's point, so we have this— the Planning Commission approved, you know, the 50-foot setback behind the neighbors.

The Planning Commission approved the 50-foot from the street.

So my question is, if we tabled this and said, hey, we want to talk more about the neighbors and the business owners, are we locked in with the 50 feet, 50-foot setback, or can they come in and build or put a permit in and go ahead and start building when it goes back to the curb?

Or the answer to that is you're protected with the— what's being proposed tonight. A developer could not come in— well, if a developer came in, they would have to comply with these requirements. So you're basically protected at this point. Even though we didn't pass it, even though I mean if you're continuing the item because you want to think about a little bit more, yeah, you're still protected. Okay, if you voted no on it, of course, then you would lose that protection.

Okay, Brent, did you have a comment?

Yeah, Jason, I what the mayor just said, I want to make sure I have understand what it what he meant. If we approve this tonight, it's the fifteenth. 50-foot from the property line, back property line, right?

Correct.

And if we don't, it goes back to the front, the front of the property line.

Until such time as those properties are zoned to R-8. That's correct. So this is probably the best option to protect the neighbors on 4th West is to approve this tonight to allow that 50-foot, 35-foot maximum around the backside of their building.

properties.

Yep.

But it has to go to R-8 first.

No, no, no, no. This 50-foot, 35-foot would be approved tonight if the council approves it, regardless of whether it's zoned R-8 or Res B. The same restriction would apply.

Okay, the edge zone would be past the homes. So that option would be available.

Right. Well, this— yeah, this is in the edge zone.

this 50-foot, 35-foot zone, right, would be 50 feet from the back of the property line. It's not— those homes have not been rezoned R-8, but they can't be rezoned R-8 if we leave the edge zone the way it is.

Yeah, they can. They probably will be rezoned R-8. That wouldn't affect this.

If we left the Edge zone 50 feet from the curb.

Well, right, right now, the— yeah, the setback is from the curb, right, under current standards. This is going to move it back behind those residents if we pass it. If you pass it, yes.

Do we have an application on this property, Jamie?

There's no application currently.

So this does actually protect the neighbors by putting the 50-foot zone behind the fence line. And again, if you look at where the homes are placed on the lots, there's quite a bit of property there between that and the fence line.

Right.

So I guess the question is, do we have enough that people want to delay it for 2 weeks, or do we want to move forward?

So I'm interested in adopting the 50-foot from the back fence line. How's everybody else looking at it?

I'd like to delay.

Okay, Terry, do you have a question?

Well, same. I would like to delay this until we have more information and think about it.

What additional information are we looking for?

Just, I don't need more information. I guess I just have a very uncomfortable level with the 50 feet. That's so— I'm not willing to pass the 50 feet.

And I understand, I understand that. I think what's important, and Jamie brought this up as well, is there's 2 sides to this fence. So the property owners of the commercial properties may Come back and say, no, we want to push back the other way. So anyway, so we have 2 that would like to continue it. Are there 2 more that want to continue it?

Mayor, I, I wouldn't have a problem going 2 more weeks. I, I'd like to get this right, and I, I guess what I need to do is physically go down there and, and look at it.

Okay, that's 3. Do we have one Anyone more that wants to continue it?

You know, I'm okay to continue it. I, I want to protect those, you know, I like moving it, I like the direction. It's just the 50 feet in my— is that where that needs to be a little bit more? And so that's the part I want to protect those homes. I want to, you know, make sure that it's from the back of the property, but it's the 50 feet I need to see if, if we should go a little bit bigger, farther— I mean, longer width-wise.

So, yes, go ahead, Heather.

I was just going to say, if there is going to be continuation, we need a formal motion to continue.

Yes. Yeah, no, I know. We're just trying to find out if anybody's going to have an interest. Okay. Mayor, this is Ryan Clark. If I could make a comment. Sure, go ahead. We, you know, in an effort to be business friendly, which is part of what we're trying to do here and balance out. That's why we are recommending the 50 feet. We think that that's a good balance. If we are going to study this for 2 more weeks, we would really appreciate some direction so that we as staff know what the expectation is. Well, from my perspective, if we were going to continue it, I would, I would want to hear from the commercial owners of the commercial properties there, as well as the The residential owners. I would want to hear from everybody within that area. So, all right, at this point I will go ahead and make a motion that we continue this item until 2 weeks from today, which I believe is March 9th. Is that correct? At 6 o'clock at a City Council meeting. Staff, I'm looking to you. It's March 9th, isn't it?

It's 9th, yep.

Okay. And then I will need a second on that motion.

I'll second it, Mayor.

Okay, and then we will go ahead and go down the list. Councilmember Lamson?

Aye.

Okay, Councilmember Larray?

Aye.

Councilmember McDonald?

Aye.

Councilmember Pedersen?

Aye.

Councilmember Spencer?

Aye.

Councilmember Sumner?

Aye.

And Mayor Brunstad, I actually vote nay, but that goes— the motion to continue passes, and we will take that to March 9th and would encourage staff to everybody within that district. All right, Jeff, did you have another comment?

Yeah, now that, now that we've done that, have we— and maybe this is part of that process that we're going through— but have we done the math to see what the maximum height of a building there would be? How many stories stories and what the maximum height would be in that property with what we're currently proposing?

Versus what we might propose?

Versus what we might— yeah, is there a difference?

I think Jason could figure that out and let us know.

I'd be curious to— I mean, are we talking about a 10-story building? Are we talking about a 4-story building?

It's all based on theory, based on whether or not somebody wants to build a a parking structure or, you know, how they can do that economically. I don't know that we're going to, you know, be able to build something that tall, even though the availability may be there based on a setback. I don't know that we're ever going to get there based on the economy of scale. But that's just my opinion. We can definitely get you that number though.

Okay, thank you, Jason.

All right, let's go ahead and move on then. And we will move on to a public hearing amending the current fiscal year 2020-2021 budget, and Brandon Nelson is our presenter.

Thank you, Mayor. Everybody see my screen?

Yes.

Great. So I'm just going to kind of run down through the, the notes that were attached to the budget amendment. So the first item on there are, you know, historically when we come we have various grants. These are denoted by a 1 in the note. Those items are grants and/or donations that the city has received. As you can see, they are in various places and various types related to our task force, The drug task force and the HIDA grant for them, the library, various donations that employees have donated their vacation time towards the library and fitness center, just as examples of some of the elements related to those donations and grants that he has received since the last time we brought budget amendments forward. Are there any questions about that particular note?

Uh, question for you, Brandon. What does FCVAC hours stand for? That's on your capital improvement project fund.

Oh, okay. Um, library fitness center vacation hours. So the, the hours are donated in the general fund, but then obviously the project for The fitness center and the library is in the capital improvement fund, so we have to transfer those dollars from the general fund into the capital improvement fund.

And the 2019 GO bonds interest, that's coming off the fitness center and the library hall money?

Correct. That's sitting remaining, you know, any money that has yet to be spent on that project, which Is almost all spent, but— Is there still any interest? Yeah, there's still some interest on those dollars that have yet to be spent.

Okay.

Item number 2 relates— which is one of the items related to, again, the fitness center. You'll recall money has been set aside over a few years, plus, you know, up to $4 million, and those— the interest associated with That project is being applied towards the fitness center. And so that's what that item number 2 up here at the top under the CARES Act Special Revenue Fund, that's what those dollars are related to. The mayor mentioned item number 3, the interest on the GO bonds, simply adding that interest and making it available to those 2 projects. Item number 4, in the water fund. These are— so we received money from Metropolitan Water District of $500,000, plus they intend to use $400,000 of water fund reserves for the Country Woods water line project of approximately $1.8 million. So this is not the whole thing, obviously. This is a about half of it. And so, it's— that's where the funds for that project are coming from, in part. Item number 5, due to COVID, obviously, the fitness center, there were various elements that, because of COVID were delayed. And obviously, now, with some stabilization in our revenue sources, and a better understanding of where those are. There are various custodial needs and some— I believe some equipment as well for them that needs to be added to that fund in order to accommodate the opening of the fitness center. And then item number— and that exists both here within the Facilities Maintenance Fund as well as within the Recreation Fund. Then item number 6, the recreation folks have asked that we, as part of when we open the fitness center, that this change— so this change would take place in essence on March 21st, right after we have our grand opening— and that the changes be made to be more in line with other recreation facilities in the county. And so you see the proposed change for the children, youth, and senior citizen categories and the age changes that would be associated with admissions and/or passes, etc., that anything that is, you know, uses those categories as a pricing model. So those are all of the elements within these budget amendments. Are there questions regarding any of them.

Okay, any comments from the council? Jeff, you have a question? Jeff Lamson? Okay, that must be an old one.

That was— yeah, that was from before.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is a public hearing, so we will now open it up for the public comment. We'll take 90 seconds. And Steve, do you want to tell us if anybody sends a comment in or read it to us?

Yeah, Mayor, no, no comments right now.

Okay, and our 90 seconds starts now. All right, our 90 seconds up. Any comments come in, Steve?

No comments, Mayor.

Okay, so we'll close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Any comments from the council? All right, I would make a motion that the City Council amend the current ORM fiscal year 2020-2021 budget as outlined. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll start with What is the vote of Jeff Lampson?

Aye.

Debbie Laree?

Aye.

Tom McDonald?

Aye.

Terry Peterson?

Aye.

Dan Spencer?

Aye.

Brent Sumner?

Aye.

All right, that passes. Thank you, Brandon, we appreciate it. That ordinance has passed. We'll now move down to any items, communication items. Jamie, do you have anything No, I don't.

I shared my items earlier. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.