City Council · 2021-07-27

And then all—

then you just do that.

Yeah, Ernesto, did they talk to you?

Did you get a moment about signing?

Yeah, I did.

What did they ask you?

He said that they were wanting to work on it one day, that they should have it ready.

Test, test, test. This is a test.

And I'm only like halfway volume.

See, one of the things was the room volume was way down.

Oh, okay.

Like super down.

So that may have been part of it.

Yeah.

Okay.

How come he's picking on you, Kevin?

A word comes to mind, but I'm not going to say it.

It's not nice.

Debbie, Debbie, Debbie.

We would like to welcome everyone out to our City Council meeting this evening and would like to call this meeting to order. We will begin with an invocation by Jill Barrick, after which the Pledge of Allegiance by John Barrick.

Our Father in Heaven, we're so grateful to be here tonight. We are especially grateful for our elected city officials that have called this special session so that we may properly defined tonight what small-scale development is in the North Village District. We're so grateful for our community, for all of our neighbors, for the support that we've received, and for the opportunity we have to defend the neighborhood where we love each other's children. We've mourned with those that mourn and felt joy with those who have celebrated many, many occasions in their lives. This time we ask a special blessing that we will be able to adequately convey our feelings with no heated or disrespectful comments. We ask that our city council members will understand how grateful we are to them and that the appreciation that we show tonight will not just be tonight, that we will find ways to properly and adequately thank them in the future. And we ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I guess attention. So please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and repeat after 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, Jill, and thank you, John. We appreciate that. We're going to hear and go to our item, which is 4.1, a public hearing on an ordinance amending portions of Section 22-24-5F of the Orem City Code pertaining to overall height standards within the North Village District zones and portions of Section 22-24-5H pertaining to parking standards in the North Village District zones. And our presenter is Jason Bench, and we'll turn the time over to Jason.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. We're back again for some more discussion. So tonight, as we discussed a few weeks ago, it was a 60-foot requirement or proposal Right. The council asked us to go back to the Planning Commission and review a 35-48, 35 being in the edge and B zones, 30— or 48, excuse me, being in the core. So we did take that back. So both applications are still pending. The council continued the 60-foot, so that one's still active. The 48-35 is now before you tonight. So both of those are, are Ableton, Jason, you're— you need nose P up there. You got to love technology sometimes. So tonight is the proposed, uh, 38 feet— or excuse me, 35 feet in the edge and the Res A zones, and 48 feet in the core zones. And then what was proposing last time was the 2 stalls. Tonight is 2.25 stalls. Both of those went to Planning Commission. Just to remind you where the edge areas are. Let me just turn on my— So you can see here is the edge zone that wraps around the core, which is on the 4 corners, the Res A zone, which is the trailer parks that are currently along State Street. So those are the 3 zones that we have. So these 2 zones are proposed at 35 feet. The core is the 48 feet. And just to, just to be upfront, there is a 10-foot addition for those spaces that are non-habitable. So if there's a cupola or some other type of feature surrounding any HVAC, things like that, that can be another 10 feet that would not be occupiable space. So 58 feet would be the max in the core, and then 45 in the other district. The Planning Commission did review this request, and on a 4-3 vote recommended denial. So it is before you tonight now with not a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. But I'd be glad to address any questions that you have.

Does anybody have a comment? Debbie, go ahead.

So I'm interested to know what the Planning Commission and why they voted—

gave it a negative is Is Mickey or someone from the Planning Commission here?

I think Mr. Cochran is here, and I— he could speak for himself. But when the 6— or when the 60-foot requirement came, it was a 5-2 vote. So there were 2 council planning commissioners that did not want to see the limit of 60 feet. This meeting, there were 4 that felt that the 35-48 was probably extreme. But I'm not going to speak—

difference—

no, I'm not going to speak for them. They can— Mickey's here, and he can speak for himself. But They basically didn't think it was appropriate, would be my guess.

Sure. Mickey, can you come up and explain why the Planning Commission gave a negative vote on this?

My name— I'm Mickey Cochran.

I'm currently serving as the chairman of the Orange City Planning Commission, just one of 7 Commissioner?

Commissioners, we had the pre-meeting on this. As you know, the last City Council meeting, we had sent a positive recommendation to lower the height limit from unlimited to 60 feet. And we also sent a proposal to the City Council to increase the parking from 1.75 to 2.0. And that was above that which was recommended by the state.

The council opted not to address that issue, but to send it back to the Planning Commission with another application.

As we looked at that and the number of times we have addressed proposed changes after citizen input on that particular zone, you know, we did the 75-foot setback, we increased parking, We've, you know, there were a lot of different things that we had approved, changing back to an R-8 zone on some of the edge properties, which we all thought was fine. And we thought it was a great compromise to increase the parking from 1.75 to 2.0.

We also, well, 4 of us anyway, determined that—

5.

And that dropping it to 35 feet and 48 feet was again one of those requests of the camel's nose in the tent. So we turned it back to the city council and sent a negative recommendation to change that zoning ordinance one more time.

Thank you.

We did not discuss any of this in our pre-meeting, which anybody, if you want to listen to what we did discuss in the pre-meeting concerning this, are free to do so. And we had no preconceived way that we were going to vote on that particular application that came before us.

After our own personal deliberations, 4 of us opted to send the negative recommendation to the council.

And we just thought that the 2.0 parking stalls per unit and the 60-foot limitation was sufficient.

Did anyone of the 4 that voted against it, did anyone else—

I watched part of the planning. I didn't get through it all. Did anyone discuss why they were going to give a negative?

No, not among ourselves.

No, we did not.

When Marisa—

it was Marisa Bentley, Commissioner, who made that negative recommendation, and it seemed like the right thing to do.

Anyone else here from Planning?

I didn't see anybody.

Okay.

I was just interested in you know, hearing what you guys had to say.

Okay, thank you, Mickey.

Thanks, Mayor.

Any comments from the council? Terry, go ahead.

Yeah, I was there, Debbie, but you've watched it as well. It became a very combative meeting. Mr. Cochran said that the 200 or so people that were voicing their concern, that that was insignificant. Which is a pretty painful thing to hear because I think every person in the city should be able to have a voice. And I don't think any of us should be called insignificant. So that started, you know, a really— started a really negative experience, I think, for a lot of people there.

I thought I heard it was related to a statistical significance and not a personal thing. But that's how I heard it.

It was related to the number of—

because there were like 200 there, that they were insignificant as far as—

far as the overall city, which, you know, none of us like to be called insignificant.

Well, obviously not.

I don't think it was personal. Maybe I'm speaking, but I heard it was related to statistics, so.

All right, any other comments? I would ask that anyone who makes comments this evening make them on the issue and not personal. I would appreciate that there be no personal attacks No clapping, no yelling, that we carry this forward in a proper manner. Any other comments from the council? So I have some concerns on the proposal. I certainly understand the desire to have the 35 feet on the edge, but on the core, going from 60 to 48 feet will pretty much limit what can be done on State Street for businesses. And the reason that we put forward the State Street Master Plan was to allow high-density and commercial businesses to go on a major thoroughfare in a proper manner. We've worked very hard as a council to protect our neighborhoods. We passed a law 2 years ago that we cannot change residential zones to high-density zones, which protects much of our neighborhood. We also have a moratorium from 7 years ago where we do not allow commercial zones to be changed to high-density zones along major thoroughfares. And it's important, I think, that we realize that we've tried to strategically put high density in 5 zones along State Street so that, in fact, we can protect our neighborhoods. One example of that is the Jones home in the Cherry Creek area. Several years ago, the owner and a developer came and wanted to make that a high-density neighborhood. We, in fact, as a council, turned that down. We felt that the proposal was a good proposal, but in the wrong spot. The Planning Commission on that particular item voted 7 to 0 to approve it, and we voted— I don't remember, I think it was 6 to 1 to not approve it, with the idea being that that area should be kept residential lots instead of high density. That particular piece of property is going to be coming before us again now, and they are in fact developing it into 26 residential lots that fit into that neighborhood residential zones. So that's the kind of thing that we've been trying to do, and that's been very beneficial to keep our neighborhoods together and to keep them protected from high density. So, but in that category, we feel like that State Street is an area where high density should be allowed bordering on State Street and in 5 zones. And the other 4 zones, we have high density going on. As you know, within the mall area, we have over 1,000 apartments going in there, and that's helping to relieve the need within our city. Right now, I think it's 40/60, 40 high-density and 60 residential. But we have quite a few people, young people, other people, retired people, that need housing. And those are areas within the zones on State Street that they can, in fact, achieve that desire and find housing. By looking at this particular amendment, if, in fact, we change the edge to 35 feet and the core to 48 feet, That will limit any building on the core on State Street of any substantial high density. Now, that may be something that people want, but again, you need to realize is if we don't allow areas for some high density to occur, the legislature will overrule us and start putting high density in other parts of our city in neighborhoods where we don't want it. So this is beneficial to actually look at this. I would prefer to see the core kept at 60-foot so that, in fact, the people there can build high-density and mixed-use. We do have, just so you know, on State Street in the edge zone, we have the Osman property, Osman Designs. Osman Designs is right on State Street. All the traffic goes in and out of State Street. State Street is a state road, and they govern that. But this, in fact, would allow traffic to come in and out. The Osmond Design Group would like to build some high density there together with mixed use. If this goes through at 48-foot, that will make that basically not pencil and basically impossible.

Thank you.

And they have bought that property with the idea of trying to use it and develop it. And again, like I say, if we go to the point where we do not allow high density to occur within the State Street Master Plan, it will be pushed out into the neighborhoods, and we don't want that. We've worked hard to eliminate that. So my concern is, is real on the 60-foot on the core. And I would prefer to keep it at 60 foot at the core. Any comments from the council?

Okay.

Well, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open it up to the public for public comment. I would ask again that you give us your name, you hold your comments to 3 minutes, you only comment on the item before us here this evening, and that there be no personal attacks or no effort to push people around one way or the other, that we stick to the issues at hand and our plight to each other. So anyone who'd like to come forward, please do so.

My name is Kevin Hale. I live on 1555 North, 325 West. I appreciate everything that everyone's saying, and I can understand with the map here respecting a lot of the map of the core being at a higher height. But everyone keeps mentioning that they've been trying to accommodate the concerns of the residents. I have not heard anyone accommodate or address the fact that the traffic in that area and the way that you enter that area and exit will almost require everyone to drive on 400.

And which area are you discussing?

Where the Osman property is currently at.

That is on State Street?

That's—

You're saying there, the traffic there is going to go and pull in and out on 400 West instead of State Street?

Um, what, what's the one right behind the Osman?

The—

yeah, 400 West.

400 West is on the Is over on east of that property.

Agreed, but, but if, if you have—

But if you're going in and out of Osman's property on State Street, how do you have to go all the way around to 400 West?

You, you, you can only go in.

There's—

I, I believe there's no—

You can go in and out of State Street.

But, but, but only, only if you're headed north can you go into the Osman property. If you're headed south on 1600, you cannot get into the Osman property, which will then require people to go through the residential area. So I guess what I'm saying is, is if we want to have a conversation about one of the major concerns that I've heard from the residents is the traffic in the residential area and how that corner is not sufficient for the high density. I don't know, at least I'm not— I haven't heard a major concern about the core. If you look at the rest of the area of the map, there's not a major residential area that's going to— that the high density will force people to go through residential. One of the major concerns that I've heard from the citizens is not necessarily the height. It's that area will force huge amounts of traffic through residential and is already overloaded on state. You already get people backing up with Kwik Quack. You already get people backing up with the way that you can even get onto 400. And you're going to compound that problem significantly. And it's already a problem right now. You're going to be adding more, and it's already a dangerous area to begin with. There's been quite a few traffic accidents. There's quite a few concerns from residents about safety with children, and you're just going to be increasing that. I've not heard anyone addressing that concern.

Sure. Jason, how are we traffic accident-wise, uh, the intersection of 400 West, 1600 North versus other parts of the city?

I'd have to defer that to probably Sam Kelly.

He's here, but he may be a minute I thought that we looked at that, that we, um, took a look at accidents and what the rates were in other intersections in the city. Maybe, maybe Jamie can look that up.

Mayor, I've also asked Sam to come up and address that. He's been following downstairs.

Okay.

Yeah, he's, he's been reviewing the traffic study associated with the proposed project.

Okay.

All right. All right, John, are you next?

John Barrick, 365 West 1750 North. I'd like to just take a minute or two and address— um, first, I would like to say thank you to the City Council for agreeing to host this special session, which wasn't regularly scheduled for tonight. We appreciate that. It's necessary to place important height and parking restrictions that will protect the single-family neighborhoods from high-density housing. We would like to thank Dave Spencer, Terry Peterson, Tom McDonald, and Jeff Lampson for leading on this, and we'd like to encourage all of the other members of the City Council to support residents on this issue. The North Village District zones are intended to be more residential in nature, with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development compared to the other 4 State Street districts. I might agree that the other districts may be able to have a 60-foot in the core, but smaller scale in the North Village District suggests that 48 might be more appropriate. As residents, we believe this is to be true. We are not anti-development. We are pro-responsible development. Key phrases from the Orem Code include, the preference for— is for Orem to be predominantly single-family community. It's already been stated that we are 40% rentals. If we're going to be predominantly single-family, how much more high-density housing does it take to flip that and violate the ORM code? It'll be predominantly single-family. That means more likely than not, 50%, and we're approaching that number very quickly. We are grateful for you taking up this issue to help us remain Family City, USA. We would like to once again thank you for holding this special session, and I thank you for your vote to protect single-family neighborhoods.

Anyone else wish to speak to this?

Hello, everyone. Thank you for hosting us tonight. We appreciate all your service to all of the Orem residents and our families. My name is Alice Gold. I live at 1885 North, 491 West. This project will not really significantly bother my house. My house is, like, 400 more— 4 blocks north of where this is happening. However, I have been concerned about 400 West ever since we bought our house almost 5 years ago. We have had significant accidents on 400 and 1885, where all of our children have to cross the street to go to church and to the elementary school. We have— I called the city engineer about that literally 2 years ago. And the reason I've become passionate about this development is because, like the gentleman was saying earlier, it will force cars on more cars onto 400 that have already— than have already been there. And we're also getting the temple development on 2000, so we're going to be getting more traffic that way. And this is a real concern for our children in our area because they do cross that street all the time for church and school. So I just wanted to thank the City Council for listening to our concerns about that and for calling this session.

Thank you.

and for hopefully voting for resident safety tonight, for children's safety especially. I'm a teacher, and when I heard that at your last meeting our whole corridor was called statistically insignificant, as an English teacher, I've been thinking about that for 3 days because I hate math. And I understand that you all have to love math a lot more than I do. And we do care about the development of this city. We all have children that live here who will probably want to stay here. This is the most— one of the most family-friendly cities in the whole country. It's a wonderful place to live, and I would just— we just want to keep it that way. We don't want to not have development. We understand we need to have more places for our children and their families to live, but we want to just do it in a safe way. And I think that these restrictions that are being put— that we are hoping for, which is 2.25, and the lower, not 60-foot, but the lower 40 or 35 to 40 will definitely help the traffic and the safety concerns in our area. I don't see why any place on State Street needs to go higher than 3 stories. This building is 3 stories. It's on the major crux of the entire city, and we want to put a 6-story right there by a bunch of homes? It, it just doesn't make any sense. So thank you for listening to our concerns. Really, Thank you.

from the bottom of my heart.

I appreciate all the work you do, and I hope that this will turn out the, the way that will keep the most citizens safe.

Anyone else wish to come forward?

Good evening. My name is Jonathan Guymon. I live on 1579 North 110 West. Um, as pertaining to, uh, what was said earlier About the 400 traffic on 400. If coming from the north, you cannot turn left into Osman. There's a big island in there.

You can't do it.

If you turn right or turn left onto 1600, you can't turn in there again. There's another island. You simply can't. You must, by default, turn on 2000.

2000.

go down 400 and come down this way. That is the only logical way to do it. If I were living there, that's what I would do. So traffic will be affected on 400. Absolutely.

There's—

in my mind, there's no alternative. As for the height, there are many reasons, one of which being if I lived on 400 North, I would not want somebody high enough to look down into my backyard. I'm certain I wouldn't. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't. Also, on the parking spaces, every apartment will have, I expect, at least 2 adults driving 2 cars. If a couple moves in, each one's going to have a car. If I were a single person and I bought one of these apartments, the first thing I would do is get a roommate. To defray costs. Absolutely, I would do that. We cannot have excess parking flowing over onto the street. There's absolutely no place they can park. On State Street, they can't park on 1600. The only place they could possibly park would be on 400. We absolutely cannot have excess parking flowing over into the street. It just would be wrong. And when this goes up, I really believe that the traffic problem at that intersection will become unmanageable. I would probably just avoid it altogether and either go on Main Street down to 1200 or something like that, rather than come to this intersection. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

I live on 1115 West, 1130 North. I just became aware of this issue just a few days ago, and I— so I don't understand what's going on at all because I don't understand where things are happening with traffic. It just does not make any sense. So obviously I've missed a lot of Planning Commission things, and so I need to do more research on how this would work, but I don't understand. Like that man before said, all these barriers and things. So I guess I can't ask a question here to get it answered, but hopefully somewhere I can get the answer to understand this because I don't understand it. So that's all my comment is.

Thank you.

I'm Cindy Ogle, and I live at 1816 North 350 West. And I've been here an Orem resident for, I don't know, 10-plus years. And I appreciate you having this special council session tonight for us. I'm really super, super concerned about the traffic impact that this building is going to have on our neighborhood. There's been many times that I passed through this intersection Anybody that lives above Main Street is going to be impacted by this as well, because anybody going up to where the old campus is up there, Microsoft or whatever it is up there, anybody that's traveling up 1600 is going to be impacted on this. We've got a lot of traffic as it is right now that's congesting that whole neighborhood, that intersection there. There's times when you have to sit— I have to turn left on 1600 to go to my house, and there's times when I've had to sit through 2 or 3 lights because the turn signal light isn't working. And to just think about the increased traffic from a development like this, not to mention what an eyesore it's going to be for a residential community to have a monstrosity building of this size over there, you know, and jam-packed full of people living there and maybe merchants because of some of the things that I've heard they're trying to develop that property for. It's just, it's just not the place for it to be in this part of our little community. This is a residential community and we've got a lot of children that live around here.

There's absolutely no room on 400 West for any overflow parking.

My goodness, it used to be a 2-lane turn signal there, and they've trimmed it down to one because when 2 people were trying to turn there, one would have to stop for the merging traffic. So the road just doesn't have the capacity to support 2 lanes of traffic turning there or any overflow parking at that intersection. So I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

And I hope we see this thing, the height on it lowered and the traffic addressed.

I'm Jill Barrick.

I live at 365 West 1750 North. Orem City Code states standards are necessary to protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, and traffic congestion. We got to hear a person from SWONA, from Southwest Orem, talk about the— what those developments have done to their neighborhoods. And it also goes on to say, city code, strict standards require developments to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Tonight's the night that we need to define what strict standards are. We need to define what fits in our neighborhood, and a 6-story building does not fit in our neighborhood. Excessive cars and noise from high-density housing also do not belong in our neighborhood. So please make the right choice. It's time to get rid of the vaguety and write the parameters of exactly what our neighborhood should be tonight. Thank you.

Okay.

Please hold your applause.

Go ahead.

My name is Will Frieden, and I live at 340 West, 1890 North. I'm not directly impacted by the development since I live a little bit further north, but I've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years, and I've seen what's happened over time. And the thing that really disturbs me, from my judgment, is that this is supposed to be a State Street development, and yet, the building is set back far enough that it's almost a 400 West development. So if you're looking at raising this up to 60 feet or 5 stories or 6 stories, whatever it may be, you're imposing a little bit of angst, I guess, in the residential community. So that would be my objection to the standard that's being set at 60. I would think that it would be more realistic at 40.

Thank you.

48, um, for that section of property on 1600 North to the Osman, um, studio. Thank you.

Who would like to speak next?

It's not what I normally do. I'm going to just make your I'm so bad.

Please, please.

I'm Carol Wilson. I live at 1647 North 280 West, and I have lived there since 1977. I added onto the back of my home to be able to stay in my neighborhood. I love our neighborhood and our ward that much that I did— I could have more reasonably gone and bought a newer home and for less money, but I added on so that I could stay where I'm at. The thing that concerns me is that I am on 280 West, and there is only 3 roads from Orem to Linden. One is 4th West, one is Main Street, and then 280 is the other one. Our road is narrow. And we have people that live live there that park their cars on the street, which they should be able to. So you can have 2 on each side. But also, there's never a policeman on our street. They know that there could be one on 4th West, but there never is one on 280.

Never.

And it is a straight-through street, and it doesn't even have— it only has roads coming onto it from one side. They aren't on the other side of the road.

There are none.

So people turn that corner and they go. And the same way down on 2000, they turn that corner and they go like crazy. And our kids are not safe on that street right now. I cannot even imagine what it would be like with more traffic. I have walked at 6 o'clock in the morning and paid attention when it became school time, time for school. And to get up to the junior high— I mean, the high school, Timpanogos and Northridge— that road is where people have to line up to go.

And there are—

they're clear down to State Street backed up in those 3 lights. And that is ridiculous to think that more people are going to have to get onto 1600 North in the mornings to get their kids to school, and there's teenagers that drive their cars to school. This is just a really bad deal to put that one building there. Of course, none of us want to have any, but we can have what is sensible, and this just is not sensible.

It is dangerous.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your time.

My name is Steve LaFranca.

I live on 441 West, 1950 North, and have watched— I've worked in the tech industry for the better part of 30 years and have commuted along 1600 North now for at least the last 25 years, at various companies at the WordPerfect campus. I have watched the evolution of that intersection at 1600 and 400, and it has been difficult to commute along that route. I adjusted my schedule for early mornings and later evenings so that I could avoid the traffic along that corridor. In the last 3 years—

Excuse me.

My son was involved in an accident at 400 West, 1600 North, and also my mother-in-law.

Both were—

my son wasn't injured horribly, but my mother-in-law was hurt and required several months of physical therapy. I am very concerned about the construction on this corridor and what traffic it will cause on 400 West. The safety of my family, I can attest personally. The safety of my family is of utmost concern to me, and I believe with all my heart that this would cause serious traffic on 400 West. I would witness that, and all the children that we see, and my family especially, I worry about that, and I hope that's taken into consideration.

I thank you for your time, and thank you for having me.

Thank you.

having us—

giving us this opportunity to present our concerns, and I hope that you take them. You bet. Thank you. Who would like to speak next?

My name is Catherine Christensen. I live at 426 West, 1800 North, which is just north of the edge zone. Our family property is the far north border of the edge zone. That 5 acres from State Street to 4th West is owned by my family. And I know that you guys have to look at long-term, big picture. And when I look at this, I go, hmm, if you could come in on 1600 North and go all the way to the edge of our property and come down out on State Street, that would be beautiful and all your problems will be solved. Here's the problem. That property won't be sold, and it's never gonna be high-density housing. So there's not a development there. So the solution of— our mother died this last year, and I heard a comment that was, well, the old lady died, the kids will sell the property. It's not gonna happen. And so I don't see how you can— How you can— Protect the children and the people on 400 West without having a far enough outward access onto State Street. And there isn't one available. It's a dangerous thing the higher you go up. I understand development. I've been in construction for years and years. I get it. I understand that there's a need for high-density housing.

Thank you.

I also understand that this is not the place. Financially, I get for it to be financially feasible, the more you go up, the, the better it is for the developer, but that's not for the residents. And I am asking that that be put back down to the 48 feet and the 35 feet, and that it goes with the way that it's been proposed for the safety of the community and to keep Orem City a family, family city. And I appreciate it so very much. I want each one of you to know, I know you've spent a ton of time. I know that we have been a royal pain, wherever you want to say. And we have because we're passionate about it, because we want to protect We wanna protect the people there. We wanna protect our children. And that's our number one priority. And so I want you to know how grateful I am, how grateful the people that I've talked to in my neighborhood, how very grateful we are for the many opportunities we've had to speak, to express. We feel like we've been heard. And we're hoping that, obviously, that—

Thank you.

the majority of you agree with us, but I want you to know how grateful we are. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next?

Stephanie Visnaw, 399 West 1560 North. When I bought my home in 2006, I was aware of the C-2 zoning behind my home. Alpine Credit Union, a pre-2018 45-foot commercial building, looks over my backyard into my bedroom window. With the 2018 master plan came the potential for an unlimited height, high-density building also behind my home. This is not appropriate and not what I bought into. I have personally spoken to commercial property owners that agree that buildings of this height are not appropriate next to single-family homes. Commercial property owners. I realize that there are other commercial property owners who feel otherwise. Here's the deal. With the C-2 zoning before 2018, these commercial property owners could not include high-density housing in their developments but they could go 60 feet tall. Now with the master plan zoning, they can have both a 60-foot-high building and high density. Why do commercial property owners get to have both? If commercial property owners really want to keep the 60 feet, then they should go back to C-2 and concede the high density. It is just too impactful on residents to have a 60-foot-tall building and high density by their homes. If a developer wants to include housing in their development, then they need to concede something like height. Bringing it down to 48 or 35 feet to lessen the impact on nearby residents. Give me a 60-foot commercial building behind my home any day over a 60-foot high-density housing building. Commercial owners have rights too, but they cannot have everything. A 48-foot height maximum still allows for a 14-foot commercial story and 3 additional residential stories on top. This is a compromise and much more appropriate for the North Village District than allowing unlimited height or even 60 feet. The North Hills District is very narrow. Single-family homes are very close to— in proximity to State Street and the core zones. The traffic— I've personally reviewed a recent July 2021 traffic impact study, which gave 1600 North and State Street a near-failing grade at current existing statistics. The master plan's purpose for the district is to have smaller-scale development. Parking, being the other item on the agenda, hasn't gotten as much attention. I hope you've all had a chance to read the email that I recently sent regarding parking. If not, then you get to hear it now. Current ordinance requires only 3 stalls per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Other commercial zones require 4 stalls for 1,000 square feet. This reduced parking requirement in the district is under the assumption that developments will be mixed use, which is not actually a requirement. Developments in the district can still be up to 100% commercial with still only 3 stalls per 1,000 requirement. This reduced commercial parking will hinder the ease of patron parking and drive business away as parking becomes a frustration. Using reduced shared parking ratios under the assumption hurts future commercial development. Increasing to 4 stalls per 1,000 will ensure that businesses have adequate parking. The parking of 2.25 per residential is also a great improvement. Reduced parking has been justified with the expectation that mass transit will one day go down State Street. This is many, many years out with a lot of hoops to still jump through. Orem City cannot plan current development based on infrastructure that is not in place nor guaranteed. Thank you for holding this special session, and please commit to representing these people and protecting neighborhoods.

Thank you. Who's next?

Hi, I'm Lisa Hale. I live at 1555 North, 325 West. My children are now 33, 31, and 33— I have twins, 33 and 29. When we've lived in our house over 23 years now, and my children went to Oak Canyon Junior High. Now, nobody in my neighborhood goes to Oak Canyon Junior High. Why? Because I'm sure the city council or somebody in the city said 1600 is too dangerous to cross. Way too dangerous.

This is—

and this was back when my son, who is now 29, was starting junior high, okay? That's when it was changed. As you know, it's gotten worse and worse and worse. Again, I'm more concerned about traffic. It's not gonna— the only thing that this building's gonna impact me is the sunset. We won't be able to see the sunset from my home. You've already ruined it with the power lines, so. Thank you for your hard work, and please listen to the citizens. That's what the city council is supposed to be there for, right? Listening to us. I know you have to jump through hoops, but because of this master plan that was planned years and years and years ago, maybe it's just not right for us. Maybe it needs to change. Maybe it's just not logical. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Millet, 288 West, 1500 North. Over 5 years ago, I volunteered to serve on the neighborhood preservation committee in my area. We met once a month for over a year and collaborated together to create a plan that would improve and beautify our Orem neighborhood. We were told that the neighborhood plans would be compiled throughout the city by residents and that our opinions and feedback would be considered in put— putting together a larger plan. One of the statements we placed in our plan was a recommendation to maintain current residential zoning with an emphasis on single-family dwellings and to maintain appropriate setbacks, buffering, and height restrictions in residential and commercial zoning. Unfortunately, the time and energy that we spent giving these recommendations was not translated into the State Street Master Plan that we have today. I attended the open houses and charrettes introducing the State Street Master Plan. I remember seeing beautiful drawings of State Street— not 1600 North, not 400 West. These drawings had the same 3-lane State Street Highway with 3 or 4-story buildings Streetside dining, tree-lined streets, and protected bike paths. I liked it. It was pretty. That's not what was put in place in 2018. The stated purpose of the North Village District was that it would be more residential in nature with neighborhood retail and smaller-scale development. That is what we expected. I was engaged in this process. I agreed with what was being shown to me.

Thank you.

That is not what happened. There were no unlimited heights even talked about back then. I'm sorry. Our neighborhoods— Windsor, Northridge, Heather Ridge— have spent the last 9 months working and communicating with you all and with the city staff in an effort to get this right, to get the zoning in the North Village District to align with its purpose. Thank you for calling this special session, and thank you for working with us to get this right. We truly appreciate it.

Thank you.

We look forward to your vote to limit height in the North Village core to 48 feet and in the edge zone to 35 feet. This will provide the needed buffer for the homes, and it will help us to preserve our neighborhoods. Regarding parking, everyone— I repeat, everyone, even people who live in apartments— everyone has a right to be able to park near their home. Increasing the mixed Shared commercial to 4 per 1,000 and requiring 2.25 parking stalls per unit will help to facilitate that. We hope you will vote in the affirmative for that tonight. Those who live in apartments should be able to park their car next to their homes. We ask that you stand with us and that you help us preserve and protect our neighborhoods. Thank you for your service. Truly, truly, thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Who wants to speak next? Anyone want to speak next? Sure, next to Jason. Go ahead to the podium there and give us your name.

Um, I'm Summer Davies and I live at 1823 North 490 West. I'm here representing my little neighborhood because everyone's out of town, so I'm the vote— voice for them. But, um, one concern— a lot of great points have been hit on the traffic. One concern for us, we always know when there's an accident on State Street because we get our kids, um, make sure they're inside because cars come zooming down our road because we are right there at the turnoff with State Farm and Meadors.

There's a road right there.

Thank you.

they come zooming from there to hit 400 West because traffic gets backed up, obviously, on State Street. And that is one of our concerns because you can't really turn out of that area. They will use our road, again, as has been mentioned, to enter into that facility. Because there's a median, you wouldn't be able to turn into by Osman Design. They would just turn onto our road to get in.

get around.

That is one of our concerns. Another one of my concerns I was thinking about, there's a UTA bus stop that is right by Osmond. Osmond doesn't have a huge traffic flow ongoing, but when that UTA bus stops, if you'll notice, there are— it causes a huge traffic stop right in that lane. My concern is if when cars are coming home to this development, when work gets off or cars are pulling out to head to work, to head to school, and that traffic lane slows down, it's going to block all of State Street, causing problems every day. And it also affects when you're coming up 1600 past the Vasa and Del Taco and turning onto State Street. You can't really turn right there if that UTA bus is stopped, or you have to be very conscientious, as you should be, but turning into those lanes.

Thank you.

to make sure, because those— all those cars are stopped right in that lane because of the UTA, which would also cause stopping if people are turning into that development right there. So those are just some of my concerns. We appreciate you listening. We know you're not the ones who have passed down these restrictions, so we appreciate your time.

Thank you. Who's next?

I'm Sharon Mitchell, 1923 North, 280 West. Traffic on 280 West, 400 West, um, 2000 North is terrible. I try to go no faster than the speed limit of 25 miles per hour on any of those 3 streets, and it doesn't take long before I have some cars in back of me trying to Sometimes often honking their horns. I am very concerned about this. I'm glad that my children are mostly married and have left Orem, and because they— one, it's too expensive to live here. I have one that lives here now, and he's already bought a home out in Lehi.

Thank you.

And I have another one in Eagle Mountain, another one in Provo, and only one child living at home who's a full-grown adult. And I'm glad that I don't have small children wanting to go to school or wanting to have friends play, and they really don't have many places to play. We're not allowed to have speakers. speed bumps, as I understand, anymore going on 400 West or 280 West. And I don't see the traffic slowing down. I don't— I see more and more traffic every day. And it's sad. And I'm worried. And I'm wondering if maybe even if this development was to go through, Is there some way of putting a high fence between it and 400 West people and all the way down 1600 that it's by so that no one's tempted to use 400 West or 16 to actually get to the development? Is there any way of creating a block? a turning lane on State Street instead of having islands or something like that. We need to come up with solutions for allowing safe entrance and exiting safe entrance to State Street and not 400 West or 1600 North. Thank you.

Thank you. Someone who wants to speak?

Sorry. I'm Wayne Barney. I live on 1949 North on Rivenwood Road. I know many of you personally. I've sat alongside the field coaching your kids in sports, and Noem is a great place to live. I want to express my humble gratitude for you guys being here tonight and hearing the concerns of the citizens. I appreciate a number of things that have been said, and some very well-spoken people have spoke to you openly, honestly, and sincerely tonight. A couple things. First off, this is not a State Street development. There is not a piece of gravel on this development that touches State Street, without question. Secondly, parking— 1.75. Am I going to rock-paper-scissors you for the 0.75, and do I win this week and you start— park on the street next week. It does not happen. Right now, I drive down— we've been here since 1983, my wife Laurel and I— excuse me, 1993. I can probably name you the cars that park on 400 West right now, and there are very few. Without question, there will be cars that park on those streets. There will be children that cross those streets. We've had a child killed because they crossed between 2 cars on 2000 and were run over, even by a person that was obeying all the laws and going the speed limit. The other thing, too, is I appreciate the height limit, but I don't know that it's going to reduce the pressure as far as the parking on the street in any way, shape, or form. I know the landowner's trying to do their best, and I appreciate that as well, but this is not the place for it. Mayor Brunce brought up another point, too. Osmond also wants to do high density just north of this in the future. I've seen the plans in the master plan. That is kicking the can down the road. And eventually, you're gonna have this exact same problem with, I don't know, 400 or 500 more people who will eventually park on 400 West, because there is zero parking on State Street. There is zero parking on 1600 North.

Thank you.

And you can only get into this development, not on State Street in any way, shape, or form. I appreciate that Summer brought up so well the problem with the UTA bus stops. I come up and down that street every single day, and if you're not watching, you're going to get stuck in the middle of 1600 North and State Street if that bus is there. And it's there every single day on a regular route, and it happens all the time. There are wrecks there all the time from people not paying attention and they rear-end each other. Please do what's right. Listen to your neighbors. Listen to those that voted you here to be the people's voice. And please put these restrictions in place or altogether eliminate this because Osman will just make it worse in the next few years. Thank you.

Thank you. Please hold your applause.

I'm Brett Seal. One of the comments that was made last council meeting is, you guys should have paid attention to where you built or where you moved in and known you were next to commercial. And that took me off guard because I've been here for 42 years and that whole area was Murano Lumber with the Sounds Easy Pizza next to it. Then it was Anderson Lumber and then it was Stock Lumber with the 7-Eleven car wash on the corner that we'd go and get gas from and get Slurpees from. So it's always been that height. And these last couple weeks that I've drawn down or driven down State Street, The tallest building right now is the Midtown 360 at 7 stories. And so as far as setting a precedence for what the rest of State Street is going to be, you know, having these 7-story buildings all the way down is not what any of us are used to. Now, the development is good, but again, those lower height restrictions need to be put into place. And how it was passed unlimited when this master plan was put in place surprising to me given what we've all grown up with in this valley and what we're used to. And I think we can do it more responsibly.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else coming forward?

I told myself that I wouldn't.

But I am.

I'm sorry. My name is Lillian Simmons at 1717 North, 320 West. This building development isn't going to directly affect my house. It's not going to be looking into it, but it is going to affect the traffic flow. Now, um, I am— like I said in the last one, I lived in Cambria, which is in Pleasant Grove, We have a lot of high-density housing there. I was the board president there, and we exited on Proctor Lane. There was not a tremendous amount of traffic increase there on Proctor Lane, in my opinion. We— Proctor Lane goes out to State Street, and I know that the residents here would like to believe that we're going to have a gazillion million cars, but people really do not when they're in high-density housing. They're in school or they're working full-time or, you know, they just don't have the kids. In my cul-de-sac, I probably— I have 8 kids now, 7 teenagers. We probably leave, come and go 20 times in a day. And it's just not the case in high-density housing because they just don't have the means to do that.

Thank you.

There's not stay-at-home moms and a ton of teenagers. But my point is, I don't believe in segregating the rich from the poor. I don't believe— you know, there are cities like Highland and Alpine that believe in segregation. I don't believe in that. I believe that, as a community, we need to build and lift each other and be there for each other. But we also need to do that in a wise way.

Thank you.

So how, how can we mix in the high-density housing with residents who are there to lift their neighbors up, to teach them a better way? It's going to help with crime rates. It's going to help with— I was a single mother for almost 10 years, and I had to raise 4 children by myself, and it was the community that helped me do that. I wouldn't have been able to raise my 4 children without that community base. And I couldn't have done that without the residents that were solid in the community. So in my opinion, we need to look at it as a whole. Also, do we have structure or plans in place to do something about 1600? Are we going to be widening it? In Arizona, where I was born and raised, and I lived there for 35 years, they made master plans where they would tear out houses, a strip of houses, and build a freeway. That caused a lot of problems. So what is our long-term plan for this 1600 development? Are these plans—

is—

thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, gentlemen, I live on 1684 North, 400 West. I'm about a hop, skip, and a jump from this mess we're creating. I got up this morning at 7:30, went to get my Diet Coke, pulled down to the road, could see from our house on 400 West through Linden into Pleasant Grove, right where it goes up onto the hump. Steady cars. Took me 5 minutes to get out on 400 West. So I went over, went down, crossed State Street, had to wait there for 2 lights, got across State Street, went and got my drink. I thought, I'll go over and up 200— or 2000, I'm sorry. Went up 2000, Got to 400 West. There was a traffic deal put up there by Orem City to see how fast the cars are going. I slowed down to 25 miles an hour, got passed 4 times before I could get to my house. Now you're creating a traffic problem that is going to be ridiculous. In the evening, it's a reverse. You guys are destroying our life. You can't keep doing this. You can't— you want to put it downtown, put it downtown. But what is it, 1.5 units parking spots per house or per— There's no way. Who do you know Husband and wife that have jobs that have 1.5 houses— cars? Can you name one? You guys all have kids, grown kids, right? How many cars do they have in that household? How many old people only have 1 car? This whole thing is turning into a nightmare. The problem is going to be we can't reverse this nightmare. Understand? I mean, has anybody got a question for me that would make any sense or give me an explanation on how we're going to fix this? Anybody got an answer?

No.

I appreciate it. I went there this morning. When I was going to tell you, when I come by and I seen that big sign that Orem City put out that said 25 miles an hour, like I said, when I slowed down to meet that, I got passed 4 times. How come Orem City isn't putting up—

You'll have to end. Can you give—

That's, that's enough.

Can you give us your name, please?

Greg Jacobson.

Thank you.

I'm 4 doors in on that side.

Got it.

Visit anytime.

Got it.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nancy Jeffries. I live at 1691 North 50 East, just across the new— the addition to the Northridge Elementary School. I've lived out here 43 years. We moved out here when 1600 North had barely been paved, and the street up to our house was still a dirt road. I am concerned about the traffic pattern. One child has been killed at least on 1600 North, and that boy was hit twice. He lived through the first one, and then A big truck got him the second time. So, um, I don't think we need any more children killed on these busy streets, and apparently that has happened on 2000 North also. I'm very concerned about the height. Another gentleman said that the property at 360 South is 7 stories. It did not begin as 7 stories. It began as 3 stories. the part that we could see on State Street, and then it sat half-finished for a long time. And whoever came in and bought it then, the part that goes off to Orem Boulevard, they built that up to 7 stories. It didn't look too bad when it was just 3 stories. And then there was another place, I think, finished even before, you know, that went up to 7 stories. So maybe then the 3, 6— 7, 7, 7. South, people thought. But at least that was a business area. That was not home, you know, homes. I think if you're gonna insist on building this, it shouldn't be over 3 stories. I know there's another one going down 1600 North that it doesn't appear as tall. It's, I think, 5 or 6 stories, you know, because it's going down towards the old former Geneva Road. If you insist on building this, I think a wall should go all the way around that no car can possibly get through onto 400 West or onto 1600 North. That would be the only solution, that they just absolutely, um, cannot do that.

This—

I don't understand the thinking of the Yes. You know, the people who are in charge of this, why, when there's almost nothing left in Orem to build on, why is it— why must we put high-density housing? Why don't you put some twin homes in there? Why don't you put some duplexes, you know, for— that the old people could live in or something? I think that would be a lot better than what you're you're talking about right there. And if you do that and you call that a State Street development, then it should, it should only open onto State Street. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, who's next?

My name is Dave Young. I'm at 173 South Countryside Lane. So I'm not in this neighborhood, but I do have experience with having high density dropped on my neighborhood. All up and down Orem Boulevard, we've got high density that's been dropped in there the last few years, and it, it's made traffic so you basically cannot turn left coming out of Orem Boulevard unless you want to take your life in your hands. You've got to turn right. They've talked a lot tonight about the traffic on 400 West and how it's a problem. People have talked about all kinds of reasons it's a problem. So the question is, if it's a problem, is the conversation really about going from 60 to 48 feet? I mean, is that gonna fix the problem, or is that just a change of conversation? The real question, I think, is, does any high density at this location make sense based on the traffic issues? It seems obvious to me, based on what's happened in my neighborhood, that the master plan is wrong. And the reason I say it's wrong is because if you have a situation where residents' values are going down and developers' values are going up, that's not equal. The right master plan would have residents' values going up and developers' values going up. If you can make that happen, you've got something that makes sense. And this It's very obvious to me, being at this meeting, that these people are statistically significant, and you've got to listen to them.

So that's my— yeah, listen.

Thanks. Thank you. Who would like to speak next?

Hi, my name is Robert Farr, and I live at 1720 North, 210 East until the city council decides their vote. No, I'm going to be like Debbie. She lived in our neighborhood and then she moved south a little bit, but anyway, she's still in Ormond, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

George.

Oh, when my wife's in a bad mood. I've heard some of our council members express, where was everyone's voice when the new commercial zoning was proposed? I regret not being more involved. My mistake. But myself, with many others, what commercial zoning implied to me was additional retail and office spaces, not high-density housing. Even tonight, I've heard the term from members of the council use the word commercial businesses, which still implies the term that was used. Businesses, to me, is not high-density housing. It seemed to slip in without a lot of attention. I ask, why was something as significant as this was not on the ballot for us to be better educated on? Naturally, when something's on the ballot, you want to become informed before you vote. and weigh the two sides when you do have that opportunity to vote. We did not have that opportunity. At the planning meeting, statistics were brought up by a member of the commission that 200 is not significantly significant. 200 is statistically significant, incredibly significant. Why is it significantly significant? Because there was no one there that voiced voice their support of this high-density project. I've heard that when somebody writes a letter in about their opinion at a restaurant or something, that it can represent thousands more people that feel that same way. We have a problem that could get much worse in Orem. The easiest and best way to solve a problem is to prevent it from happening. The next option is if you cannot eliminate the problem, and what can be done to minimize it. I believe that reducing the height and following what has been proposed with the increased parking and setbacks will help minimize a problem. Like myself, many of us in here have heard how many people are leaving the West Coast— California, Oregon, Washington— to move where they can find a better quality of life for their families. We, the Orem residents, the Planning Commission and the city leaders need to make sure we do not erode the culture of our city and create incentive or reasons for the caring residents to move away. Shortening the height and modifying these codes will show your support. I hope that you as a council listen to our council, the residents, and have the courage to do what has been significantly expressed tonight We want to be proud of you and how you represent us as citizens.

Thank you. Okay, who's next?

My name is Dale Pomeroy.

I live at 1725 North 240 West. I am a recluse, but I'm here tonight to voice my opposition On 2 items. One, you stated that you had looked at the 400 West, 1600 North. I drive it almost every day, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day, and I'm telling you, that one block scares me as much as driving in downtown Berlin, Germany, where I lived for 8 The people cut from the right lane after making a right-hand turn or coming across on 1600 North and jam into the through lane in order to get to that left lane.

It is such a short space.

I object to it on that.

Number 2, this is something I know you can't do anything about, but I know that Orem uses artesian water. I'm against putting any type of a high density, especially that close to our residential area, that's going to use a lot more water.

And we're in a high desert. We're in a severe drought.

I've had people explain to me, oh, Orem will never run out of water.

That's a bunch of hogwash.

We can run out of water.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

I live in, uh, 1930 North 496 West, and, uh, you know, there's over 5,000 people per square mile already in Orem.

It's a concern that we're putting Yes.

Right on the corner of where we live.

Also, Haysom Sakar, he lived on 400, and I'd like to invite him to come up and talk about this because it's concerning that the traffic is going to go down 400 West.

Haysom. Before you start the clock, I just want to make sure we're good as far as my service in the Planning Commission does not conflict as in the public hearing. We're good? Okay, so we've been through this once. Most of you have with me a few years ago when the development tried to come in here. Debbie, when you used to live in our neighborhood and you voted against that development because you rode your bicycle in front of my house and you came and talked to me when we're doing a barbecue, you said that that's too much. I'm like, thank you.

I'm sorry.

Some of you are running for reelection, some of you are not running again. And those who are not running again, so grateful for your service, but might as well benefit the citizen before you leave, before you get out. So the rest of you need to understand this. I lived in 1736 North 400 West. I moved out of that neighborhood because of the traffic. I had children, I couldn't control them. I couldn't tell them not to run out in the street even though I had enough property to not get there. But at the same time, it's a logistical nightmare. We know that. Anybody coming back from work from I-15 is going to have to make a left on State Street and a quick, fast right through the Osman design to get to their— to get to their house. They can't have an entrance and an exit on 400 or 1600, and there will be a median where they cannot make a left from 1600 into the development. We know that. So it's been approved. The developer has his property right. He's going to go there. They got it, and the fact that it was once decided not to go through, and now the zoning change, and now is going to go through—it's disconcerting. Now we understand we have to grow, but we have to grow responsibly. You all know that. Nobody said no, we don't want any more residents in Orem, but we have to have checks and balances. And if you think that's too much. I mean, every single citizen from that neighborhood is here today. And this today will be remembered if you will do what's good for the citizen or what you think is good for one entity. Now, if it's good for the city, explain why. Explain why. Tell us why. Why is it good for the city? We'd love to be informed. We want to be involved and informed. These are reasonable people. They came and said we're not anti-development, we're anti-overdevelopment.

Thank you.

We're against that much traffic. And they're right. I mean, right now, Debbie, the traffic is about 10 times more than it was when I lived there 8 years ago when you went against that project. So, and I understand traffic is not a concerning thing to the city when it comes to development, is, you know, but however, the people are. The people are a big concern. These are your people. These are the people that voted you in. These are the people that love you. So if you want to be pragmatic about the traffic, let's look— I want to see how many accidents the officer is going to have to go help clean up when those people make a left from 1600 North to State Street and cut out through 3 lanes to go through Osman Design. Would love to see the statistic because that will happen. And then we'll make a decision on how many more we're going to put around there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

Hi guys, sorry, I'm really small. Hopefully you can see me. Thank you very much, you guys, for holding this meeting.

What is your name?

I'm sorry, I'm Emily Peterson. I live at 1950 North and 413 West, which is right on 400 West.

I live—

my house faces Not 400 West, but it's on it. And thank you for holding the meeting. I wanted to start by saying that here in Utah, we serve other people. That's something that we do. It's like part of our culture. It's who we are. We serve other people. And when you're looking at that map, like, the street that I'm going to talk about is barely even on it. It's this little road for Orem. It's called 400 West, and it just goes from 1600 North to 2000 North, and then Orem City ends.

Thank you.

But this tiny little bit of 400 West, with it Orem City serves several other cities in Utah County. We serve Lindon, we serve Pleasant Grove, and we even serve some of the citizens in American Fork. Because as State Street juts out into the middle of the valley, everybody that lives close to the mountains would rather take 400 West. And you can ask me how I know, because one of my windows is on 400 West, and I hear all the cars And I have for the last 5 years. And we're happy to serve other communities. But as such, the intersection at 2000 North and 400 West is incredibly dangerous. My children take that intersection every day to go to school. And last year, on the first day of school, I was walking with my 3 daughters and we look, we know it's dangerous. I have bright red hair. And I was in the middle of the intersection, and somebody didn't even look. They didn't even see us, and I had to call my children back to keep them from getting hit by a car. And by the time this lady noticed, she had gone through the stop sign, and she was, like, down the road. People don't pay attention. People see it as a through street. People see it as a means to State Street, as a means to 1600. They don't pay attention. Already, this is already a problem. The intersection is so dangerous that most of the moms in our neighborhood encourage their children to cross at 1885 where there is no crosswalk because people will actually pay attention to children who are sitting on the side of the road better than they will at a crosswalk. And they're right, it's a lot safer. But even so, in the 5 years I've lived here, there has been a kid hit by a car, and hopefully With what everybody else has said, we can just all agree that 400 West will absolutely be impacted by the development. Once again, I want to say I am not opposed to development. I am all for it. I just want to do it responsibly. I've lived in communities where it was expanded irresponsibly and traffic became an absolute nightmare. So I moved to Orem. So please don't do that to my house here in Orem. Thank you very much for your time, guys.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Jody Chowen, and I live at 1933 North 460 West. I'm Emily's neighbor. And I don't actually have a lot of expertise here tonight. I didn't grow up in Orem. I moved here 6 years ago. So I can't speak to what it has always been. I guess my only expertise is that I use 400 West and 1600 1800 North on my commute to BYU every day. And I'm an avid walker, and so I'm on it for those reasons. But aside from that, I can't speak to a lot of the other issues that have been raised. What I wanted to share with you today is a process, this process, which I'm really grateful for. And my husband and I have participated in processes like this in 2 other states. In one instance, and it was days of testimony for this particular ordinance that was going to be passed. Days of testimony. And we participated in that. When public testimony ended and the vote was taken and it was immediately unanimous against what had been voiced for days, and it was very clear to us in that moment that it— the fix was in. The fix was in before all the public testimony.

Thank you.

testimony was taken.

And, um, one of the reasons why— uh, one of the things that we've loved about living here is that it doesn't feel like business happens that way here. And so my, my testimony, I guess my plea to you is, there's been a lot of objection, and I, like so many, will also voice— I have adult children who are trying to make their first purchases. I understand the need for Housing options, rents, everything, I get it. But there seems to be enough about the way this particular development has come together that it needs to be rethought. And so my request is that you hear and consider and know that we're watching and frankly praying.

Thank you.

that the right thing will happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next?

Ken Hoan. I live at 238 West 1950 North. I don't want to be redundant.

I would just like to echo the same sentiments of many of the speakers that have come before me. Let's be responsible.

We have finite space left in Orem. We're nearly built out. For the record, I don't think anyone's gotten up here tonight voicing that they want this. Please put in height limitations.

Please up the parking.

Let's do responsible development. By profession, I am in the construction industry. I am the one that sells this— these materials. I stand to make money doing this.

Thank you.

But let's put limitations on this. Please do the right thing. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else wanting to come forward?

Tanya Pearl. I live at 1420 North Amaranth Way. Um, I am on the board of the HOA. I've been here before with many of you for a fence issue. We came to fight before for the Mill Creek that wanted to build major high density behind Ameron, and our community fought hard against that. I live in high density and I don't want it. We don't need any more of it. Parking from my complex goes out onto 1360 North, which blocks Rock Canyon Bank and Mountain America. You can't get out of just my little tiny intersection without almost getting hit because the cars are blocking your view. You add this north of us on State Street with that teeny tiny little space, and all the parking's gonna flood out onto the residential streets. It's impacted my family. It's impacted our neighborhood just with duplexes and twin homes being built behind us. Having a Mountain America Credit Union that was put in, That's a business, yes, but it increased significant traffic onto our tiny little road there. Listen to your residents. Respect us. We voted you in. We do not want this. But if we have to compromise, lower it down and give the 2 parking stalls so that we can eliminate the parking that needs to be put in residential areas. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to make a comment?

Hello, my name is Brent Chown. I live at 1933 North 460 West. My wife Jody previously spoke. Thank you for being here tonight. I know listening to this is not always easy because it's a tough decision. Many of these stores are personal to us. My personal story is driving home from work down 1600 to make a right turn onto 400 West. Had I come 15 minutes earlier, I would have seen one of my cars on its side. My son coming to turn left, coming up east and turning left, overcorrected, hit a bumper, went across. To this day, I do not know how he went through without hitting any other car.

Thank you.

Because the traffic at that intersection is always blocked. These are personal stories to us because the traffic is real. I know that somebody can come out and sit and watch the traffic for a few moments or for a day and count cars. Those patterns may vary, they may change, but they're always there. Having an exit on 400 West that close to 1600 creates a nightmare. I know we've used that word a lot, but that's the reality. It's personal because that's where our kids drive. You know, I have, like my wife said, we have kids in college. We try not to have too many cars, but we're going in different directions. We are part of that traffic problem. But we do the best that we can to limit and to not create more. And as other people said, people use it as a through section. I will not drive on State Street unless I absolutely have to.

Thank you.

Because I've seen worse accidents on that road. I know you have a tough decision in that regard. But in this case, making more traffic on a side road that is continually used as an alternative to State Street is just not the right choice. So thank you for your time, and thank you for your decisions and your efforts. But please keep this in mind. There are reasons why this is important to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Deanne Jacobson, just east of where this is.

You want to pull your microphone down?

Just east across from this proposed development.

From what I know, and I've watched it because I lived just a couple blocks up 1600 North my whole life, and what I've heard everybody say, everybody feels the same way.

The problem is there.

We're not talking about a future problem.

It is there now. It's awful. So doing this is just going to compound the problem.

I mean, I wish it could just go to commercial or have them put more storage units or something.

I mean, any size of building is going to compound the problem.

So thank you.

And another thing is the ditches along 400 West.

I mean, it is so narrow through there because some of the ditches are not covered. Those people need to be responsible to cover those ditches because the houses have been purchased and purchased, and I thought they were supposed to be responsible to cover them.

It would make the road a little bit wider. Maybe it would accommodate more parking. Our house is about the only one that there's going to be any room for parking, and we can't get out of our driveway now to look right with—

without the cars being parked there.

We can't see around them.

So thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to come forward? All right, we'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of our public hearing and bring it back to the council. Councilmember Sumner has a comment he'd like to make.

Yes, thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate all of your comments tonight. It's really been peaceful, and I'm sure all the council appreciates that. I have a couple of questions. Are any property owners or commercial businesses that's in this district present and would like to make a comment?

Property owners?

Not the property owners residential, but commercial property owners that this would affect. I've heard from one and one only. Jason, did you send cards to all these owners here?

We did, yep.

One property owner on that that I've already spoke to.

Well, property— I meant that this will affect commercial people that are doing business now. The other is our friend Clint, the other is Mr.

Craft.

Okay, yeah, okay.

No comments from property owners then, commercial property owners. That's all I wanted to ask.

Thanks. All right, before we go any further, uh, Sam, I wanted to check with you and see what you've learned as far as traffic study goes and accidents at 1600 North State and 1600 North and 4th West.

So in, in reference to an email that you guys received earlier from Jamie, and I think you guys all received this Attachment. What we really have in that area, according to this map, is there's about 500 accidents that have happened in this area. And I don't know what the time frame is. It's about a— it's about a 10-year period. So it's a 10-year period. The hard part about finding out specifically what has happened at that intersection is we would have to look at all of these accidents. Some of them— I mean, some of the, the residents spoke— some of these accidents could have been caused by UTA buses because of the bus stops. Some of the accidents could have happened because of quick quacks. Some of them could have happened for all kinds of reasons— left turns on State Street going to 16th North. So to find out specifically 4th West and 16th North, we would have to actually get into all that data, and, and it's a long process because typically I'm not, um, I guess cleared in a sense to actually look at all that data because there is some personal info. But I could get those specific numbers to find out exactly what is happening at that intersection and why. But, but right now there are 500 over a 10-year period. And, and to that point as well, these accidents are considered more of a moderate type of an accident, meaning maybe not as much property damage. It's not to say that that damage isn't significant, but it's just a, a metric that we use to kind of classify some of these intersections.

Okay. All right, thank you. I was just going to mention, I was in an accident at 1600 North State Street. I was in a turn lane to turn south, sitting there in my large truck, and all of a sudden, somebody rammed into me from the side. And it turns out it was a girl in a car on her cell phone and didn't notice what direction she was going, and she took out part of the side of my truck. Pretty crazy. So I would like to allow each council member to give us their comments or the thoughts on this issue, as it's very important, and then I would like to finish up and make my comments. So, Jeff, would you like to make some comments?

I'd love to. First of all, if I can just say thank you for being here. We've had a lot of people saying thank you to the city council for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for being here this evening, and the mayor, thank you for being here this evening. It's the citizens of Orem that make Orem the place that we all love to live. I also want to say thank you to the Orem City staff. They've done a marvelous job at giving us information, at preparing information, helping us to look at different scenarios and situations from different angles and perspectives and viewpoints. And, and so I want to say thank you to them as well. I'm thankful for the prayer that we had at the beginning. I'm grateful to live in a city that we start a public meeting with a prayer and a Pledge of Allegiance. That means a lot to me. I remember as a boy, I grew up here in Orem, and I'll never forget the day that I came home from school I grew up on a dead-end street. Our house was the last house, and then there were acres and acres and acres of orchards. And I'll never forget the day that I came home from school and there were bulldozers parked at the end of our street. And I had no idea what that meant. I thought it was cool that there were bulldozers, but it wasn't long until our acres and acres of orchards were gone. I understand the pain that comes from change. Orem is growing, Utah County is growing, Utah State is growing, but I honestly believe that our responsibility is to make sure that we monitor that growth, that it's done responsibly, and I believe that this particular area, this North Village District, as was stated in the State Street Master Plan is— should be smaller scale. And I think that keeping it a smaller scale development is the responsible thing to do. I feel like it's a good compromise between the citizens that we've heard from. And again, thank you for all of your comments, your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and for all of the meetings that we've been able to attend together. It's I'm starting to know some of you on a first-name basis, so that's a good thing. And Mrs. Christensen, you're not a pain. Thank you for— thank you for voicing your opinion. Um, anyway, I, I know that, uh, you know, the mayor commented earlier about, um, you know, the state legislature forcing these things on us, and, um, You know, I know that, that may be a possibility and a reality, but I think, speaking for myself, my responsibility is to the citizens of Orem. When I ran for city council, I told myself and I told many people that I wanted to be your voice, and I have heard loud and clear your concerns, the things that you're concerned about. And so I, uh, plan on voting in support of, of the shorter, um, the, the shorter restriction on the building.

Thank you, Jeff. Debbie, would you like to make a comment?

Sure. So I've—

I was part of this State Street Master Plan and the neighborhood plans and everything, and I've always been one who wanted to protect our single-family neighborhoods It was very important to me to maintain the quality of the lifestyle.

And one of the ideas was to move any sort of density to State Street. And I think that still has a good idea exactly how tall they are.

I think that's why we're here to tweak that.

And I'm certainly willing to do that. And I've always tried to balance the rights of the property owners with the neighborhoods because I think they both have an equal say.

And so I've done that.

Ideally, I'd like to— have a 60 feet on State Street and have it, have it taper back to the 48 closer to the neighborhood.

I believe in strong buffers between neighborhoods, and I'd like to see all the height on State Street, but that's not what—

that's not what's before us.

And like I said, I was comfortable with 60.

I don't have a lot of consternation for the 48 either.

Um, and so for me, I do feel like I need to represent you. This is my old neighborhood, as many of you have known, and so I will probably— I'm going to be voting in favor Thank you.

Brent, would you like to make a comment?

Thanks, Mayor. Um, like Jeff stated, change is difficult for all of us. I was a couple of years ago sitting where you are, only I was on the council with the UVU 1,600-bed project, and I know how— I live right by that within a block. And I know how vocal the citizens in that area were at that time, and it's affected that area quite a bit. And I do have compassion for you, but at the same time, I've got somewhat feelings for the property owners and their property rights. I know some of them invested Hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars in their property along State Street. And I, you know, I'm trying to be fair on both sides and if there is such thing as fair. But going back to change and— Story, but I used to ride my horse where the University Mall is. And I've seen that much change over the years, and my kids always ask me, how'd you get across the freeway with a horse? And of course, that freeway wasn't even there either. But change is going to happen, and I too want to do what's right for the citizens or their desires.

Thank you.

Uh, but there seems to be some equal ground with the property owners, uh, and their rights. So I, I think currently right now, because I've only received one comment from a property owner in that entire area, and there's no comments tonight from those property owners that may be affected, commercial business or whatever. Uh, I think I, I will vote to support this, uh, recommendation.

Thank you, Brent. Councilmember Spencer.

Thanks, Brent. I, I love that story that you rode your horse to the mall. You know, I— that was a little bit before my time, but, uh, we're glad you're here. So, um, if we look at the State Street Master Plan, the, uh, North Village District is NVD purpose. The NVD zones are intended to be more residential in nature with neighborhoods, retail, and smaller-scale development. So that's my key— that is my key thing, because if we look at the other districts and it's unlimited height, which I have a heartache over that too, but smaller-scale development is not 60 feet, it's 48 feet and 35 in the, in the edge and 2.2 parking. So I'm definitely voting for the height restriction and the parking.

Thank you. Councilor McDonald.

It's a light evening. My guess is you'd rather I talk less and vote more, and I'm almost ready to do that. But I wanted you to know what got my thoughts going. I knew this was a hot issue, and I have a lot of friends in that area, and I knew it was a hot issue to them.

But before I could get 100% behind it, I wanted to make sure I was for it not politically forced to be for it.

And, and that was my nucleus for making this decision. And once I understood that I wouldn't want to live there, that I thought that, that we needed to— I've said before that plan is both a noun and a verb. Once I learned that we needed to operate the verb of the plan on Master—

on that part of Master State Street Plan, I got 100% behind it.

I think the neighbors would speak to that end, and I'm looking forward to voting in favor of this motion as soon as we get through this Thank you, Councilor McDonald.

Councilor Pedersen.

Well, I have about a 45-minute presentation, Mayor. Is that okay?

That's fine.

Um, no, a couple bullet points, uh, that really touched me and, and are emotional to me. One was Dale, a retired, uh, U.S. Army veteran, lived in, uh, um, Germany, and he says he's a recluse. I think that's a big deal for Dale to show up tonight. to try to have to defend his property. Now, Mr. Jacobson, your comment about it's really tough to reverse a nightmare— boy, that's a strong statement. After we make a mistake, sometimes those mistakes can't be reversed. There are some mistakes we make in life we just can't fix. His Diet Coke thing, he might start buying a quart instead of a smaller can if he can't— it's hard to get. But okay, that's another story. We're not even talking about the Linden Temple, which will certainly add a lot of traffic to that street. We're talking about children walking on 4th West. They could walk on the sidewalk on the west side of 4th West, but there isn't a sidewalk there. It just, you know, that's just not a— okay, so a couple more comments. There's a sweet lady that was here.

I'm sorry.

that was having a hard time talking because her hands were shaking so bad. I, I wish you could have seen the emotion and how scary that is to stand up there and to share her opinion. Bless her. Um, another gentleman— I mean, I can go on and on. Obviously, I think you know where I'm at. There's 3 words that stick out in my mind: safety, traffic, and protect children. 4 words but 3 topics.

Thank you.

Safety, traffic, protect children. I, of course, will support the amendment that has been proposed.

Thank you, Terry. This has certainly been an emotional issue, and I wanted to first of all thank everyone who is here, who has come to participate in this political process that allows us as citizens to speak about our concerns in our areas to the City Council. I want to thank our Planning Commission. I want to thank Jason Bench for the amount of work he's put in. It's not always easy being the point man, so thank you. And I appreciate everybody on the council putting forth the effort to study the issues. As I mentioned earlier, We're all facing— in all the cities in the state of Utah, we're all facing the same issue. That is growth, and that is high-density housing. And how we deal with it and what we do with it depends upon us. As I've looked at it, again, on State Street, we have worked hard as a council, and I hope that you appreciate the different laws that we have passed to keep our neighborhoods in good condition and to keep high density out of the core portions of our neighborhoods. And we have done a lot to get that taken care of. And you can see, like I say, that happening right now with the Jones property, with 26 new residential lots going in instead of a high-density development which was proposed and which we fought against and were able to see success come out of that. There's some other developments within Orem that you may or may not be aware of if you don't drive around, but we have other residential lots going in within our city and making more room for homes for our kids and our grandkids, and that's important. At the same time, again, 60% of our city is residential, 40% is high density, I think almost everybody here has probably lived in an apartment at one point in their life. If there were no apartments for us to live in, I know that when I was growing up and when I was in college, it would have been pretty tough. So there's a need, and there needs to be room for different types of housing. And so I think it's important that we consider what we do and we look forward for the future. We have designated as a council that State Street, with the amount of room it has for traffic, be an area that we could put high density on and not affect the neighborhoods. Again, I'd like to point out, we've been trying to protect the neighborhoods and to keep high density out of the neighborhoods, and this is actually another part of that strategic plan of how can we protect our neighborhoods and still allow for apartments for young people, for retired people, for single people, for disabled people, for people who need those apartments. So this is not an easy decision, and the reality is in the future we're going to have to continue to face this issue in our city. And on State Street, we have again 5 zones that we have strategically put forward as areas that we can put high density. So we will again be addressing these areas. Now, some of these areas do not have a lot of homes around them. Some of the areas have a lot more commercial around them. But we do have to look at and do have a need for additional high density, and I would like to see it in areas on a major thoroughfare and not in the neighborhood. As I've listened to you this evening, I very much appreciate everybody's comments. I believe that these comments are heartfelt and of great concern. I certainly understand that our families are most important, safety is most important. We are facing additional traffic issues in the city, and that's one of the areas that we as a council Yes. One of the things that we need to address in the future is how do we deal with additional traffic and traffic congestion within our city. I've heard some people talk about mass transit. Just so you know, the mass transit that's gone in on University Parkway has taken away a lane and a half of cars. It's helped traffic congestion. It's taken away pollution. It's taken away wear and tear on the roads. It's actually transporting 10 times the amount of people that buses were transporting on that road prior to our UVX line going in. So it's a real help, and it's going to be a strong help in the future. Anyway, with all of that said, I've listened to what everyone has brought forward, and to me, the overriding decision-making is The neighbors, the people, the residents of our city, I've heard you loud and clear. I think I've made my particular desire known that I would rather see a 60-foot-high core, and I'd rather see development be able to go in there for high density and for mixed use. But again, to me, I've heard loud and clear the feelings of those who are here, and and many others who have written. And so I'm going to vote for this as well. And I just want to say again, thank you for all of you who have come to participate in the process. I love the process that we have where we can speak up and we can be heard. So thank you. With that, I'd like to turn some time over to Councilmember Spencer. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

That, uh, the City Council, by ordinance, amending portions of Section 22-24-5F of the City of Orem Code pertaining to the overall height standards within the North Village District NVD zones and portions of Section 22-24-5H pertaining to parking standards in the North Village zones, NVD zones, that it's 48-foot in the core zone, 35-foot in the edge zone, 2.25 parking, and 4 per 1,000 commercial parking.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Mayor, before you vote on that, the, the 4 per 1,000 on the commercial is not before you.

I don't think you can go there. You can do all the rest of it, but doing that, I think it's not been noticed.

It's not part of the application.

But isn't it? It's a parking— it's a parking issue.

But well, the parking standard for residential was being proposed to modify from 1.7—

not 4.25 for residential. There was never any application to change the commercial parking standard. I mean, if you want to do that, then we could file another application to do that, but it just wasn't part of the application.

It's not part of this, and it has not been noticed, so I have to eliminate that.

Okay, so then we'll, we'll put in another application. Okay.

All right, so pull that out of his motion, uh, and we've got a Do we have a second?

I seconded.

Yeah, I just didn't know with that.

Okay, I'll second with that taken out since it can't be— it can't be in there.

So, all right, we'll start with, uh, Councilmember Lamson.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the ordinance passes. We appreciate everyone being here.

Mayor, can I ask you a question?

Sure.

Um, so on the 4 per 1,000, can we ask the city to file an application on that now? Would I do that?

Probably not.

If the council directs, we'll amend the ordinance.

So, so that's one thing I'd like to do. But also, um, you know, when we went to Hillsboro, Oregon, I finally found my pictures on my phone, and the, the projects that we were shown was commercial on the bottom and 3 stories high, and I didn't see 70-foot-high buildings. So my concern moving forward, and hopefully I have support of the council, but I would like to see that we put the State Street Master Plan on hold and do a moratorium until we look at each district and make sure that we don't have to go through this mess and get it right the first time. So I'm not sure if—

All right. Yeah, so you can make an application and we can work on that, but not in this meeting at this point.

But we— can they, can they start an application then?

Um, they can start an application.

So we're going to do an application on 4 for 1,000 in North Village and then look at the different districts, um, with the height, parking.

Just so you're aware that we have commercial and High-density residential developers who already have purchased ground. I understand, I understand that, but my point is— Have already made—

Right in the North Village District, so let's make sure we have it right in the other districts.

Right, but they already own the property and they're already planning on making application with the way that zone is listed.

And the other point of that, Mayor, is there's also residents in the city that have bought and bought their homes, so Sure.

I mean, I'm, I'm not saying we're not scrapping this thing. I want to look at each zone like we did, or district, and say, you know what, did it— does it make sense? I'm concerned on 800 North that it goes and, and, and comes as VASA, which I don't want a 70-foot high, high-density housing there next to where VASA was. So they can't build it, I think. Well, I think we just need to look at it and make sure that we are checking, we're crossing our T's and dotting our I's, because I don't want to do this again. You know, this, this This has been a lot of 9 months of, of this, and I know, you know, the station master plan was passed, but I think we need to make sure that we are going back now because things always change and we can tweak things. But I think we need to look at each district and move forward that way. So—

Jeff and I weren't even involved with going and seeing the city in Oregon, so I mean, there's— but we were involved in hearing a lot of citizen input.

Well, we'll send you up there.

I mean, so can we, can we So we can start that process on the 4 per 1,000 and on the commercial, and then—

We can make the application. We can look at that for the future.

Okay.

Uh, is there a move to adjourn?

So moved.

Motion.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned. Thank you.