City Council · 2021-08-09

Are we okay?

Good.

You sit on the front row. So just something on my— Hi there, how are you? I didn't see anyone say here, so I— Good, thank you.

I can't see worth a darn, so you have to get up close to write down the names.

I'm Elva.

Hello.

That's fine.

Yeah, this is about how far down she lives from me, about 2 doors down, so this feels perfect. Yes, it does, it does.

But thank you, I'm glad my seat wasn't snitched.

Good.

This is a big deal. This is to save our city.

We would like to welcome everyone out to our City Council meeting this evening and would like to call this meeting to order. We'd like to begin with a prayer to be given by Council Member Brent Sumner and the Pledge of Allegiance, uh, by Council Member Dave Spencer.

Our kind and eternal Heavenly Father, we're indeed grateful for the opportunity we have to meet this evening, uh, as, uh, council and, and staff and citizens of Orem. And Father, we're so blessed to live in this great community and all the enjoyments that we have and prosperity. And Father, we ask thee to bless the discussion tonight, that we'll be able to come to some conclusion, that we'll be able to move forward with Orem and the growth in an orderly manner. And bless us that we'll be respectful of each other and be able to Say what is in our heart and mind. And, uh, please bless us after this meeting concludes that, uh, we'll all be able to travel home safely. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

May the audience please rise and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance. 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, Brent, and thank you, Dave. I appreciate that. This is a special meeting to consider an ordinance, and I would like to read what that ordinance is. The ordinance is to enact a temporary land use regulation, or a moratorium, not to exceed 6 months in duration, pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-9A-504, prohibiting the erection, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or structure, any subdivision approval in the City Center District, the Hub District, the Canyon Crossing District, the Arts District, and the North Village District, or in the alternative, enacting a temporary land use regulation establishing maximum building height limits, increasing parking requirements, increasing building setback requirements, prohibiting residential uses, and/or enacting other development standards in the City Center District, the Hub District, the Canyon Crossing District, the Arts District, and the North Village District zones. We're going to hold this tonight as a public hearing, and we had a sign-up sheet back there. We have a limited amount of time, so we've had 15 people sign up that we will listen to, but we will hold it to those 15 people for 45 minutes. I would like to open it up to the council right now for any discussion from the council. Anyone wishing to make a comment? Okay, Councilmember Larey, go ahead.

I'm interested to hear from Steve about the effects of this. Do you have an opportunity at all to discuss this with us?

I'm sorry, could you be a little more specific in your question?

Well, um, I guess I'm wondering what is the law related to such, such a moratorium, and is there a level we need to rise to for it to be defensible in a court?

Okay, so, uh, you know, it was kind of read in the introductory paragraph the mayor just read to you, but the proposal is For a temporary land use regulation, sometimes referred to as a moratorium under Utah Code Section 10-9A-504. And that section of the code basically authorizes the city council to enact a temporary land use regulation upon the finding of a compelling countervailing public interest. So it's a— that's a significant legal standard. Probably your next question would be, well, what does that standard mean, or what does it require? So basically, the Utah Supreme Court has, in a couple of cases where they've considered that standard, they've basically said that compelling countervailing public interest is one that seriously threatens public health, safety, or welfare, and where an application would, for the first time, draw attention to a serious problem. that calls for an immediate amendment to a zoning ordinance. And the court has basically also said in that context that the city must not reject an application because the application itself triggers zoning reconsiderations that result in a substitution of the judgment of current city council officials for that of their predecessors. So that is kind of a nutshell condensed version distillation of what the Utah Supreme Court has said uh, that compelling countervailing public interest means.

That—

did that address your question?

Yeah, because I actually personally read the case law just because I had time on Friday. So the 2 cases you provided, one was about septic tanks and, and having an issue, and then one was related to the city, a city not wanting— they're worried about fire trucks and road access and, and those kind of things. So I was just trying to determine this compelling countervailing public interest.

So, okay.

And if— and, and like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but traffic and heights usually are not considered a— maybe I'm wrong— compelling countervailing public interest.

Well, we don't—

we unfortunately, we don't have any Utah case law that has specifically looked at that. You know, whether traffic or— I'm not sure what the other thing you said.

I think I said height.

Okay.

So obviously, that's something— and I don't know what the, you know, the council or the public's concerns specifically might be, but obviously, that will be the discussion that you'll need to have, is determining if there are those compelling countervailing public interests present in this case sufficient to justify the temporary land use regulation.

Okay, and then the law says up to 6 months. We could do any length of time we could determine— 1, 2, 3?

Yeah, so you could— a temporary land use regulation could be for a maximum of 6 months, but it could be for less than that time period as well.

Okay, thank you so much.

Councillor McDonald.

Thank you. Steve, I wondered if you could go on a little bit longer. Most of these people are regulars at this meeting the last few months and know most of this, but some may not. Could you please clarify when an application is filed, when it is complete, when it's incomplete? There's been some discussion on that issue, and, and we have an application in one of these areas or one of these zones. Maybe you could give us some more clarification, both from a legal and procedural process.

Sure.

Uh, basically, you know, we're— I think what we're talking about here is an application for a site plan approval specifically. So basically, our city ordinance lays out a number of different requirements that an applicant is required to submit in connection with any site plan. Those things would include things like, you know, building elevations, a lighting plan, a traffic impact study in many cases, a sewer plan, a stormwater plan, things like that. And there, there are some other requirements as well. So those things are all detailed in our ordinance that they have to be submitted As part of a site plan application. So when an applicant submits those items, and all of those items, then we deem an application to be complete. So one thing that maybe is not commonly understood is that with every development application we receive, there's a significant staff review that goes into that, and where we review, you know, whether they've met the requirements of the ordinance, whether all the information is complete. You know, accurate, that kind of thing. And in every case, there are always corrections that have to be made. And so the fact that an application might have corrections that need to be made does not render it incomplete by any means. If it's a good faith submission of all the items that are required to be provided, then we consider that a complete application. Now, from time to time, we actually do get applications that we don't consider to be complete. You know, somebody might submit, as an extreme example, let's say, a document with just the heading of stormwater plan or something like that, but no real detail or no real information. We would not consider that as meeting the requirements. It has to be a bona fide, legitimate effort at complying with what is required and providing the information that's required. So that's— Does that answer your question?

Yes, but to carry on, whether or not they've had neighborhood meetings, etc., those can come after an application is filed, is that correct?

Yeah, so yeah, basically our ordinance says that if you are—

if you—

if the application is in or adjacent to a residential zone, then you have to have a neighborhood meeting before the application can be filed.

Okay.

So if you fall into that category, then before your application can be considered complete, you do have to have that neighborhood meeting. So that doesn't mean we won't accept, you know, the other materials that you're required to file with your application. We will accept that, but we just wouldn't deem it to be a complete application until you've also had that neighborhood meeting. Now, obviously, if a development is not within or adjacent to a residential zone, then you don't have that neighborhood meeting requirement, and you simply file the documentation that's required, and then it would become complete.

Any other comments from the council? So, Steve, a question: is the right development, um, within a residential zone that's being applied for?

So the, the right development that we're talking about is in the Arts District. which is obviously one of our State Street District zones. Now, it's, it's in a zone that allows both commercial and residential uses. So we do consider, and we have taken the position, that it is a residential zone for which a neighborhood meeting is required, and we have informed Wright Development of that. They may have a different opinion on that, but that is our position. And there is also some residential zone zoned property that across the street, I think it's 400 East, maybe Jason— yeah, okay, 400 East. So we think it also meets the adjacency requirements. So we do feel that it is an application that requires a neighborhood meeting.

All right, and it's my understanding that they have a neighborhood meeting coming up in 2 days.

That— yeah, that's our understanding as well.

How does that apply towards them meeting the requirements of a neighborhood meeting?

So if, uh, and again, if in this case the neighborhood meeting is required, which we have taken the position that it is, then they don't have a complete application until they actually hold that meeting, which again is scheduled to occur on Wednesday. So right now they don't have what are often referred to as vested rights, because once you've got a complete application, then you're entitled as a developer to approval of your application if it complies with all the ordinances in effect at the time of the application.

Okay, and is anybody here from Wright Development? Okay, tell me your name.

Stephen Morrison.

Okay, and that is correct that you're holding a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday?

That is correct, though we, we've taken a position that I sent the letter to the council and mayor indicating our view that the adjacency requirement— we do not fall into the adjacency requirement. And as a consequence of these immediate—

uh, yeah, come up here and have a seat right here.

Right here.

So just again for the record, my name is—

And turn that on. Just push the green.

Great.

So again, for the record, my name is Stephen Moritz, and I'm from the law firm of Parr, Brown, Gee, and Loveless, and I represent Wright Development Group. Uh, the neighborhood meeting is scheduled. We have taken a position— a position, by the way, which was informed by communication with staff— that the neighborhood meeting is not required because the adjacency the, uh, the adjacency requirement does not apply to this development. The development does not share a property line with a residential area. It is separated from residential areas by a public right-of-way that— by land that is owned by the city. And as a consequence, it is not adjacent. If you had a city block, for example, And you had a residential development next to a commercial development, then you would have that adjacency requirement met. And we think that that is consistent both with the prior usage of this council for the idea, the concept of adjacency. We also believe that the State Ombudsman's Office will agree with that interpretation and would provide an advisory opinion to that effect.

So, Steve, There are 2 parts, one being adjacent to a residential zone, but also being in a residential zone. And so this property is within the Arts District, and that is a zone, and that does allow for commercial and residential.

That is correct, yes.

So how would you say anything as far as what we've just heard? So they're taking the stand that they are not adjacent to another zone, and I understand and find that acceptable. But at the same time, they are within the Arts Zone, which is a residential zone. Is that how you read it?

Yeah.

I—

you know, like I said before, it does— the Arts District Zone does allow for both commercial and residential uses. But actually, you know, these district zones are designed and, and really anticipated to have primarily residential uses. They're designed to require commercial uses on the main floor, but it allows residential uses on all floors above the first floor. So really, we think these, these zones are primarily residential or intended to be primarily residential. And if you look at the proposed development, Wright Development, I think they actually do have one floor of commercial development and then 6 or 7— I think it's 6 levels of residential. And so actually their own development, their own project, is really primarily residential. So we acknowledge that it's not black and white, but we think that's the appropriate interpretation in this case.

So you're, you're advising us that they are in a residential zone right now?

That, that is, that is our belief, yes. But again, we acknowledge that there's another side to that argument.

So, so any thoughts there?

Certainly. Uh, so a couple of things. First of all, I believe that residential zone is a term of art, uh, that a mixed zone and residential zone, those are different things. That a person who locates their home, who decides to make their domicile in a mixed zone, can be expected to share that zone with commercial properties, that, that I think suggests that the neighbourhood meeting would not be a requirement because you would not be upsetting the expectations of residents by developing commercial properties in a mixed zone. I think the residential requirement is that it's both its language and its stated purpose, it's sort of—

Can somebody turn their phone off, please?

Its inherent purpose is to give notice to residents that there is a potential for commercial development or a— for development to take place that will change the character of their neighborhood. I'll notice as well that while this is a mixed zone, this development will be replacing the Meadow Gold Dairy facility. It will be next door to the Zurchers and the— an orthodontist. it is in a place where people naturally expect commercial development to take place.

Would, would you agree? Can we please hold your comments down, otherwise you'll need to remove yourself, please. So, uh, do you agree though that this is a zone that allows for residences?

Certainly, it's a, it's a mixed zone, so it allows for residences. And of course, our development, the, the purpose of of the development is to provide both, you know, economic development with commercial development, but also to ease the burden in an extraordinary housing market by providing more places for people to live. And so certainly it is a mixed zone, but again, I believe those are terms of art.

Okay. Jeff Lampson, did you have a question?

I did, but I think it's already been answered. You asked it. but I'll ask it a little different way. So is it staff's opinion that this zone is next to a residential neighborhood?

So, yeah, it's our position that it's both within a residential zone and adjacent to a residential zone.

Okay. Any other comments or questions from the council? Terry, you have a question?

I do. So I'm a little confused. You're calling it a commercial development, but this is a high-density apartment, and you're going to throw in a little bit of commercial, but it's not a commercial development, it's a high-density apartment, correct?

Well, consistent with the zoning requirements, the land use requirements, this is a mixed development. It's both commercial and residential. And I'll add, a project that for the past 3 years we've worked very closely with staff to try to comply with the land use which was designated as mixed. This is— we didn't invent this yesterday. We've been working for the past 3 years to try to meet the requirements that were set by this council in order to provide both an economic boon and more places for people to live. And I think that this project would be enormously beneficial to the city. It would generate both tax revenue and ease the burden of folks like myself who are in the market for homes in an extraordinary market. And so yes, it is, it is mixed. It is both a residential and commercial development.

But you're comparing it to like a dentist office and some of the other commercial buildings there. What percent of this would be apartments?

I don't know the exact number on the percentage. The first floor will be a commercial development, will be commercial properties and The remaining floors will be residential. So it's going to be more residential space than commercial space, but I am not comparing it to, to the dentist. I'm noting that in the mixed-use zone, if you look at the map, it will be next door to a Zurcher's Party Costumes and to a Nord Orthodontics and to a Detail Garage Auto Supplies. It, it is a place where commercial development is one of the expectations of the use, which is the, the use that this council, uh, 3 years ago wanted to put this, this land to.

Okay, Councilor Spencer.

So Jason, I've got a question for you. On the, uh, application of the checklist, does it state that you're supposed to have a neighbourhood meeting?

It is required, like Steve said.

If it's required, then why wouldn't you have done that?

Well, first of all—

If it's a checklist, sir, you check it off and then you submit the application.

Thank you.

Actually, our duty is to comply with the city ordinance, and the ordinance has specific language. So the checklist is governed by what is in the ordinance, and the ordinance says that we are required to do a neighbourhood meeting When we are either in a residential area or we are adjacent to a residential area. We don't believe either of those apply.

And did you ask the City of Orem?

In fact, yes. We have worked closely with staff, and the staff—

What did they tell you?

They actually did not represent that we were required to do that meeting. They were uncertain, which is why we reached out to the State Ombudsman, who has agreed with our interpretation.

And then why are you holding the, the neighborhood meeting now?

For the avoidance of doubt is all.

Any other comments from the council? Okay, Debbie, go ahead.

So when I asked the development, when you submitted the, you know, when I started meeting, it was February of 2020, which I believe is 18 months ago, but you've said 3 years were Can you tell me the difference between the 18 months and the 3 years? Was it just coming in with ideas, or— I guess my question, I'm trying to drill down to when this was actually serious. I know that's kind of—

And I should say that I may not be the person to speak to the specifics of the timeline, because— but I can say that this is a project that has been in development in, in the works for the past 3 years, and that during the course of that development, we have been in communication with staff to ensure that the project complied with the land use ordinances that were in place.

Jason, do you have an opinion on— was it 3 years? Is it— or is it 18 months ago?

I'm—

I don't have the date, but it has been a substantial amount of time that we've been working on various meetings with the property owners So kind of give me an idea what those look like.

They come up with a plan originally, and then you say this works, this doesn't. I mean, kind of give me an idea what those look like.

It's been a while since I looked at the plans, but we met together with several staff members, including engineers and others, and went over the plans, gave them direction on what worked, what didn't work, and what our interpretation of the ordinance was. Reviewed it again and came back later, which was about a year later. So they were working at it on a substantial amount of time to comply with the ordinance after our initial review, which was probably 18-plus months ago when we initially looked at it and found that there were certain aspects that they were assuming was the ordinance, but our interpretation was a little different. So they have been working at it quite some time.

And when they purchased this property, they, they knew what the ordinance was, and, and did they meet to say, this is what we're looking at? Or— I'm trying to understand the When it was purchased, if this is what was allowed at the time. Do you know that answer?

I think they had it under contract or purchased it before the, the district was in place, or at the same similar time frame when this was presented to the council in 2018 of October. So I think they— I don't know the exact time when they purchased the property, but it was around that time.

You know, sir, what— when it was purchased?

I don't, but I could provide the council with, uh, answer to that question. I'm sure shore pretty quickly.

I'm just trying to establish, you know, what were the rules at the time. And, you know, there's a fairness issue if you're buying something and this is what the zoning is. And, you know, I mean, to me, that's important to understand when someone's purchasing the property, what can they do on this land. So, okay.

Sure. Go ahead, Terry. Do you have a question?

So just question to a couple of things you said. I hope I'm not misquoting you, but, uh, one was if you decide to live in a mixed-use zone, you need to be aware of things could happen. And then the other one was, um, that your, your firm decided that the development is not next to a residential neighborhood. Are those fair, fair comments?

No. Uh, the, the first of all, the, the statute uses a term of art. It says adjacent, not next to. Adjacent, I think, is a term of art that has been used by this council, and I think that you would find an interpretation from the state ombudsman that would be consistent with our view that it is not— does not share a property line with a residential area. I do think that there's an expectation interest. I think that there are folks who have, you know, who live in single-family homes and in single-family neighbourhoods who are concerned to see an apartment complex go up in their single-family neighbourhood, and as a consequence, the city has decided to enact an ordinance that says that you have to give those folks notice.

This—

the circumstances here are different. We are in a mixed-use area, and we are not adjacent to a residential area, and as a consequence, those concerns don't apply. As I said, we're replacing the Meadowglow Dairy facility, and we are next to an orthodontist office. The idea that there's going to be commercial development in that area is not a surprise to anyone.

So the word was adjacent then that you were using, that you're not adjacent to a residential area, is that correct?

That, that is the word of the ordinance, yes.

So when you go to sit down, look around, because a lot of the people sitting here are some of those people that are adjacent to what you're going to build. And these are all single-family residents that live in homes.

And so, um, please hold your clapping or you'll have to leave.

So your interpretation might be that you're not adjacent to these folks, but they live there. So I don't know what— I don't know, you know, we can talk about terminology, but—

Well, we should talk about terminology because we are not interpreting ordinary speech. We are interpreting a construction ordinance. And construction ordinances don't use words in the same way that ordinary people do. And so when the construction code uses the term adjacent, it may not— it uses it as a term of art. And that term of art does not include— that term of art implies a notion that there's going to be a shared property line, and that does not exist here.

Oh, one thing I'd like to comment. I, I have a neighbor to the left of me at my home. And they have a swimming pool. I have a neighbor to the right of me at my home, and they have a small plastic pool for small children. But my neighbor across the street does not have a swimming pool, and my other 2 neighbors are adjacent to me. My neighbor across the street is not adjacent to me. They are across a distance of a street. So on that point, I would actually agree with you that you are not adjacent to you actually have roads intersecting and keeping you from being adjacent to. So—

Well, I think your use of the term across there is instructive, but again, we're remembering that we are using the words that are consistently with the way that they are used in the code. And so the question is not, is there a possible shade of meaning of the term adjacent that could apply to things that are in, around, That's not what we're talking about here. In the construction code, we're dealing in the city ordinance that deals with construction, and in zoning use, we're asking, is there a shared property line? And there is not.

Well, I understand that, and I agree with you. The part that I don't agree with is the fact that the Art District zone is a zone, and this project is to be built within that zone. Which is a residential zone. So I believe that you are actually in a residential zone. It allows for commercial and residential, but I believe you're actually within a residential zone. I wanted to talk for just a minute. What we're here to discuss, um, is actually doing a moratorium. So that's a moratorium upon moving forward with any construction or work done within the zone. The Utah Code 10-9A-504 states, a plan— a municipal legislative body may, without prior consideration of or recommendation from the Planning Commission, enact an ordinance establishing a temporary land use regulation for any part or all of the area within the municipality if One, the legislative body makes a finding of a compelling countervailing public interest that seriously threatens public health, safety, or welfare. So my question to the council is, could someone please explain to me what the compelling countervailing public interest is that is seriously threatening public health, safety, or welfare by building this particular project of right development. And the reality is this would also apply to all the other zones that we've taken up. And I would object to having the hub zone in there, which is where the mall is. They're in the midst of building a 9-story building and office building and parking garage. This would stop that and halt that. And I don't feel that that's right or fair to them after having invested $350 million in our community. They have property rights. We need to respect that. Second of all, I don't believe that we should be putting the North Village District back in again. We've had a discussion. We took a vote. I think that is done as far as the things that are being recommended. And so we should move forward with the other zones, but those 2 zones should not be in there. And I personally don't believe that right development should be in there either. But I would like to hear any other comments from the council specifically to my question: what is the compelling contravailing public interest of the zones that seriously threatens public health, safety, or welfare? Well, I think that's a very good question. Steve, I'm sorry.

Sorry, Mayor, just a quick clarification. The mall is actually in its own PD-34 zone. It's not part of the hub zone. The hub zone is very near and around the mall, but it's at the— the mall is actually a separate and distinct zone. So we're not proposing any kind of temporary land use regulation for the— it's the PD-34 zone, which is the mall.

Went right up to it.

I wasn't sure.

Yeah, it's right in the same area, but it doesn't actually include the mall.

Okay, fine. So anyone from the council wish to make a comment? I mean, so I have a question.

Okay.

I want to know what is the compelling contravailing public interest that seriously threatens public health, safety, or welfare by allowing these zone— zones to be where they're at and specifically right development. One thing I should make mention, we have before the Planning Commission for the 18th to discuss the different zones and to look at the heights and the parking parameters of those zones. And typically, if we were discussing this issue, that is how we would do it. We would go through the normal process of taking this to the Planning commission and then to the city council. By doing a moratorium, we exclude all that and we take on a serious legal challenge of trying to show exactly what I've asked for, what the compelling reason is that threatens public health and safety. And we would have to defend ourselves in a legal court of law And if we lost, we would have to pay our own attorney's fees and the attorney fees of those who challenged that or went ahead and sued us. So this is a very serious matter. We have a method in place to go through the Planning Commission and through the City Council in a matter of several weeks to go ahead and accomplish the same item. But if we—

Mr.

Mayor, take this on, this could cause serious problems for the city. Okay, let's hear from David Spencer.

Okay, to answer your question, Mayor, first is for the safety of the citizens of Warham, it's going to increase traffic.

We have—

we don't have the proper infrastructure for that facility at Meadowgold, the capacity of our roads. This whole master plan was figured out because of the BRT was going to be coming down State Street, and that's where we were going to get the additional taking traffic off the road for safety reasons. Increased traffic on State Street and on 4th East. I drove around there the other day, and the in and out, to me, I don't think that the State Street can handle. We're already at max capacity on State Street as it is. This, I think, will cause emotional stress to the neighbors and also to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

So that's my 2 cents. Okay, Councilmember Pedersen. Please hold your applause. If you wish to be here, hold your applause, okay?

Whatever.

Don't want to be here, go out in the hall.

Can I applaud?

No.

I'll do what I want. Okay, so a couple of things, uh, in answer to your question, Mayor. One, as a city, we are currently facing a drought, not only as a city but as a state, and we're talking about building 350 apartments. What's that adding, 1,000 people? Traffic is a major concern. I had a lady— I hope she's here tonight— that called me. Her concern is the curbs are painted red where she's pulling out of where she lives But to make a left-hand turn— but the people still park in the red curb. And she calls the police and calls the city, and they come and give them a ticket, then they park there again. To make a left-hand turn out of where she lives, she can't see to make a left-hand turn because the cars are parked on the road. And every high-density apartment complex we have in the city, just drive around and look at the parking issues. They all are parking on the road. Ask the people that live next to them. So that is a major concern, would be parking and traffic. And I just think— and also what Councilman Spencer said, the mental health of the folks that live there. This all happens to be my neighborhood also. And this is a neighborhood that's already been greatly impacted by the University Mall and what's happened.

Thank you.

You actually had one ward of that stake that was gutted because of what happened. And now we're going to go to these people and say, now we're going to hit you on the other side. We're going to build a building over here on the other side next to— so I think safety, peace of mind, and respect of citizens that have rights also.

Councilmember Pedersen, I'd like to answer a couple of those items. You brought up the word drought and that we don't have enough water within the city to handle the infrastructure and the people who live here and who are going to live here. The reality is we only use 62% of the water that we have available. We have water available from Jordan L. We have water available from Deer Creek. We have surface rights on the Provo River. We have 11 deep water wells, and we have 4 natural springs. In fact, we only use 62% of our water, Our city is built so that it can handle the city being built out, and the city is not built out for a while. And so we are actually fine that way. We are— hopefully everyone is working hard to use less water, to follow what the governor has said. But the reality is we have plenty of water and it's available to us.

Well, the only thing, Mayor, is we're not the only ones drawing from the Jordan L. And so we're saying we have plenty of water and other cities are trying to reserve, you know, have—

So everyone, everybody has water rights, and so each city has their own water rights as to what they can draw from where they can draw. We are within our own water rights drawing that, and we're only using 62% of what's allowed to us.

Well, I hope that works because there's other cities that have no water and we're drawing from the same source.

So they have their own water rights. We don't control how Spanish Fork gets their water, nor do we control American Fork or Saratoga Springs. We control the City of Orem. The City of Orem has enough water, and it's been reserved for us to do what we need to do. And we try to, to conserve water. We've put in a system of tiers to conserve water, and I think we're doing a good job. As far as the left turn, anytime somebody wants to make a left turn, that is not easy. And I don't care what road you're trying to make a left turn out of, it's not easy. But the reality is to— please hold your comments. The reality is we have plenty of people who make left turns and do so accordingly. And this particular— for example, this project has 2 entrances and exits out onto State Street. They have one on 4th South— I'm sorry, 9th South, and they have one on 4th East. So there are 4 different entrances and exits to this project, which I believe is ample. And our traffic study has stated it's ample, and our traffic engineer and our planning people have looked at it. Traffic is an area that we in the city are concerned about. Looking for ways to help move traffic with a better flow. We've been working hard on that. As an example, on 1600 North, we have secured $30 million from the state legislature to widen 1600 North to 2 lanes going each direction. We have other areas in the city that we have some parking allowed on the street, and that if that parking were moved, you could actually double the amount of cars on those streets. So I'm looking at it saying, are there ways that we can help our traffic congestion go through? One of them was our BRT, our UVX. That's taken like something like 6,000 cars a day off the road. And the reality, other mass transit will do the same. So it's an area that every city works on, and we go forward Anyone else wish to make a comment?

Could I add something to that?

Yes.

If that's permissible. The temerity to argue that drought is a reason not to build more high-density housing is astonishing to me. The thing that is causing this drought is not—

Hold your comments.

Is not high-density housing. The idea of the water consumption from single-family homes being replaced by people living closer together and not spending water that could be spent on agriculture on their lawns. The thing that's going to save water for this city is giving people more homes that have less of a water demand on the city. That's one issue. The other issue is with respect to the Utah Code, uh, the moratorium code, the notion of a compelling countervailing public interest. We have been in talks with staff for 3 years. Uh, to the extent that there were traffic concerns, they have been addressed in our planning. Uh, I would add that the Utah— that language of a countervailing public interest, the, the notion of a health or safety or general welfare of the city and citizens. Actually, it said health, safety, and moral and general welfare of the citizens. Those sort of extraordinary issues that allow this council to declare a moratorium on development. The Utah Supreme Court, as has been mentioned, made clear that the city is required to act in good faith and not reject an application because the application itself triggers zoning reconsiderations that result in a substitution of judgment of current city officials from that of their predecessors. The moratorium—

And the court does not allow that?

The court does not allow that, and the moratorium at issue here does not have a compelling interest, and it is merely a substitution of the judgment of officials for their— of the It's a substitution— excuse me— the judgment of current city officials for that of their predecessors, or would be if it was enacted, and it does not have a foundation in that statute or the case law.

Thank you. Steve, tell me what your thoughts are. If we were to go to court and we have no real compelling reason for the safety and security of our residents, would we win?

Well, you know, I can't predict what would happen in this particular case. You know, all I can say is that's the standard. You have to show a compelling countervailing public interest. If you can show that, then you would prevail. If you can't show that, then you would not prevail. I mean, that's, that's, that's the standard, and I think that's, that's what the, the decision would be based on. So impossible to, to predict at this time how it would come out.

Yeah.

Brent Sumner, did you have a comment?

Yes, thank you for all your comments. Uh, you've been on this about 3 years or 2 and a half, a long time. Do you have a ballpark on how much you've invested to this point?

I don't have that number, but I could get it for the council.

Okay, but is it a lot of money?

I mean, of course, yes, yes it is.

Okay, Councilmember Dave Spencer.

I think, uh, for your information, the moratorium came up when we were dealing with the North Village District. So we had no clue about a Meadow Gold, what you were going to build, until the day after we got something from the city. So it had nothing to do with Meadow Gold. It was the whole thing about the North Village District that we were making it right because the Stacy Master Plan overstepped its bounds, and we made sure that it was corrected in North Valley— North Village District. And that's what we're doing here today to check all the districts in— on State Street Master Plan.

Thank you.

Councilmember Pedersen.

So I'm just trying to do the math. I think 1,000 people added to the city would increase the water use. Maybe I'm doing that wrong, but— and, you know, it's interesting. I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the trends now And maybe Wright is, you know, ahead of the trends. But most major cities, people are moving out of the city because of what happened with COVID You don't need— location's not as important. You now can work from home. You can have your computer and you can live other places. So a lot of people are choosing not to be piled up on top of each other and go out where there's more space. And the last comment I wanted to make about high density, it's not affordable. So if people say, oh, we need more affordable housing, yeah, that'd be great if we had more affordable housing, but what you're doing is not, you know, it's not helping people that are having problems with affordability. You mentioned you're looking for a house or something, but this doesn't solve that problem. You know, I don't know of any high-density apartments in our city that are— that would be on the low end of cost.

Councilmember Laree?

Yeah, can you explain, are these owner-occupied? Are these apartments? And do you have an idea what they would go for? Because I am interested to see what the value of these are.

I don't have that number. It's a number that I can get for the—

Well, you're just— you're legal counsel, right? You're not the actual developer.

That is correct, and received notice of this moratorium on Friday. And so we— there are some numbers that I don't have before me. I want to respond to the notion that 300 people are going to add to the water draw of the city. Those people are coming, and they can live in places with lawns, or they can live in apartments. And the water draw will be added to. The question is, how are we going to add to it? And the idea that we're— that we are going to issue this moratorium because of a drought, I think, is pretextual, and I don't think it'll pass muster in the courts.

So one thing I'd like to mention is that the facility that was there previously was the Meadowgold facility. So, Metal Gold actually made ice cream, and they made ice cream for 31 Flavors and for other outlets. They supplied ice cream for 31 Flavors from Texas to California. My question would be, in a manufacturing plant running 24 hours a day manufacturing ice cream, how much water did they use? So, Councilmember Lamson.

I appreciate the fact that you don't, you don't know what this looks like as legal counsel, but do you know if—

Can we have it quiet, please?

Do you know if these— if the builder is intending to build apartments or condominiums?

Will those be rented My understanding is that these are for purchase. And I should say, when I mentioned I was retained as counsel to respond to this moratorium, all of the numbers, to the extent— I've sent my email address to the council members. To the extent that there are questions about the details of the project, I can reach out to the developer and obtain that information. So I apologize that I don't have specifics. Again, this is sort of— it's an emergency meeting. And so I'm here on an emergency basis. But I'd be happy to answer any of those questions to the extent there's any information that this council needs that I don't have at my fingertips. I'd be happy to provide it.

So Jason and Ryan, could I maybe call on you to answer that question if these are condos or apartments? At this point, there is not a plat that shows them as condos from what I understand, so as far as we know, we, we can't answer that question, but they look like apartments with the site plan that's been submitted.

Okay, Jason?

I, I will add that the units along 9th South on the main floor are what I believe are work-live units where you have a business on the main floor and you live above them, so I've not heard of those being a rental product in the market, and maybe those are condominiums, but can't give you a for sure answer. Okay, could you get an answer for us on that? Maybe not right this minute, but anyway. Okay, Councilmember Pedersen.

So it's 335 units?

That's my understanding.

So it's less than 1 person per unit? You said 300 people. Aren't we talking more like 1,000 people?

Councilor, you said 300 people. You said that—

No, you said 300. You just said 300.

I was— you, you said that.

Uh, no, I'm sorry, I didn't.

You said 300. Oh, I, I must have misheard then.

You did mishear it. You just said 300, and I'm just wondering where that number came from.

If it's 300— Oh, I, I was simply responding to a number that you gave. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

Because we know it would be, you know, 1,000. 800.

Okay. Okay, any other comments from the council? So this is a public hearing. We're going to go ahead and open it up to the public. We'd like to have you give us your name and hold your comments to 3 minutes. We have 15 people that have signed up, and we would ask that you—

I got it, I got it—

we would ask that you be considerate. of those in the crowd. So we'd like to start with Lenee Millett and then go to John Berg.

My name is Lenee Millett. I live at 288 West 1500 North. First of all, I want to express my sincere thanks to— for allowing us, the residents of Orem, to have this special session to meet with you. I realize the hours that you have put in. I personally have had many hours of communication with you all, so I know the time that you've invested. Thank you for listening. It's been a long journey for all of us. As a legislative body, you oversee the orderly growth within this city. I'm currently running for Orem City Council, and as I have walked the neighborhoods, Orem residents have tremendous concern regarding the lack of orderly growth. We've discovered that the State Street Master Plan allows a 60-foot-tall building to be built 60 feet from homes. It allows buildings to be unlimited in height and would allow a development like this with 335 apartments to add over 2,000 cars per day to State Street and the surrounding streets. These results are not orderly growth. We cannot have orderly growth without protections for homes and without the infrastructure in place to support it. A moratorium can be approved when there is a compelling countervailing public interest. Resident safety is a serious and important public interest. This is a new circumstance where public interest definitions exceed typical moratoriums of water and sewer infrastructure. Being able to safely drive in Orem is a compelling public interest. Increased traffic increases accidents, causing personal injury, injury, and even death. I was rear-ended 2 years ago on State Street. I know how bad it is. Increased traffic causes drivers to seek alternate routes into our neighborhood streets where our children are. All of this endangers residents' safety. The State Street Master Plan relies on mass transit being built down State Street. There is currently no bus rapid transit on State Street. Orem cannot build high-density housing without infrastructure in place to handle it. The plan needs to be adjusted for today's circumstances, not for circumstances that may exist in 10 years from now. We can't build housing that allows State Street to fail a traffic study and then, then try to fix it. Please don't allow the State Street Master Plan to continue. It will increase deadly accidents. Death is a serious public interest. The State Street Master Plan doesn't fit current-day State Street. Please put in place a 6-month moratorium so we have the time to change the zoning on State Street so it can be carefully adjusted to fit today's circumstances. Let's get this right. Thank you very much.

John Barrick, 365 West 1750 North. Orem residents have been telling you for months that a compelling countervailing public interest existed not only in the North Village District but across the entire State Street Master Plan. Height loopholes, traffic safety, parking nightmares, neighborhood preservation— those are all compelling countervailing public interest for the residents of Orem. We commend you on your 7-0 vote to protect the North Village District and ask you to protect the rest of Orem and Orem's residents as well. Let me tell you a story about non-compliance. Find a developer, tell them to file a site plan application, hold a neighborhood meeting, if you want to. The North Village District story. A developer filed an application, paid fees a few minutes before a city council meeting, filed an application the next day, had a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks later. They never complied with Orem City Code 20-14-20. The applicant for a site plan within or adjacent to— and the right Plan is both of those, within and adjacent to— shall hold a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting an application. That means the application they turned in isn't an application yet. They haven't held a neighborhood meeting because they didn't want Orem residents to know what they were doing. The applicant for the site plan shall hold a neighborhood meeting. As residents in the North Village District, we've been asking those same questions about the lofts at 1600. They never held a neighborhood— they never filed an application after the neighborhood meeting. That means their application was invalid, never complete, and never vested. That's a story in the North Village District. On the 27th, you voted 7 to 0 to protect the North Village District. The day after, and at the end of that meeting, asked Terry and David— specifically asked about a moratorium to prevent things like that was filed the day after that moratorium was asked for. Is that a coincidence that the next day an application was filed? Was it a coincidence? I'm in business. That's called insider trading. Most cities call that— most cities call that a preferential treatment. The Orem City Development Services Office often calls that standard operating procedure. File an application, then hold a neighborhood meeting if you want. Please support the state street master plan moratorium. My advice, don't listen to people who tell you that the application's been filed and you can't stop it. It's not true. Please contact David Spencer, Terry Peterson, Jeff Lansum, and Tom McDonald, who will save Orme residents. Thank you for your, your time and for your vote today.

Okay, we'll now have Stephanie. Please hold your applause.

Stephanie Visnot, 399 West 1560 North. We just heard a representative from the developer take a lot of time at this meeting And I hope you'd give the same time and attention and credibility to the residents as well. We need the same respect in considering our side as well. A huge thank you to all of you for voting for height maximums in the North Village District and for calling this second special session to discuss a moratorium on all the districts in the State Street Master Plan. All Orem city residents deserve the same attention you've given to us in the North Village It has taken 9 months of residents, staff, and the council trying to communicate and work together to make changes to the North Village District. It is clear that there are issues with the State Street Master Plan that need addressing and adjusting. Taking the time to have open discussions with staff, residents, and property owners will ensure that the master plan is improved upon and done right. There are elements of the master plan that have gone unnoticed or misunderstood. Building height, parking, land use, as well as how small businesses can update and improve their property. Council and staff must work together to ensure that the plan is fully understood by everyone. This will take time, more than 30 or 60 days. A 6-month moratorium is an appropriate amount of time to give something as important as the State Street Master Plan the attention it needs. It is my hope that residents and property owners will be given the opportunity to provide input to gain a balanced perspective of what citizens want for Orem City as it continues to grow. A 6-month moratorium and nothing less, involving an open discussion between residents, staff, and the council is necessary and appropriate for all districts, including the North Village District, because there is more than just height and parking that needs adjusting. Legislatively, you are well within your legal abilities to enact a 6-month moratorium for all districts.

Thank you. Can we have Malia Gifford, please? I can't speak to you if you're all clapping. Would you please stop clapping?

Wait till we're done clapping before you speak.

Well, we're trying to call the next person up, and we can't hold the meeting if you're all just clapping and yelling and screaming, okay? We need, we need to have you, we need to have you All right, we'll stop until you're ready to be quiet and so we can hold a proper meeting. And I can't hold a meeting with you unless you can be quiet so people can say what they want to say. Let's get it on. Okay, so our next speaker is Malia Gifford. Melba, sorry.

With my penmanship, it's kind of scary.

I understand.

Thank you to the 4 of you who responded to my email. I appreciate it. I'm going to give you 4 non-emotional reasons for my concern about having the apartments built in place and 4 emotional ones. High turnover can cause apartment Weathering accelerated, declining apartment value, and here is my neighborhood. I am 4 houses away from Derry. Here's the apartment complex. It just doesn't look very purdy. Now my 4 emotional reasons. Some people in our neighborhood has a hard time stopping at the sign At 930— 900 South, 400 East. Almost accidents frequently. Slam on your brakes. We have a problem obeying that law. Having more people in the area is causing more issues. When I would try to go to the Ashland?

Ashton.

Ashton Apartments. You can't visit people, you're locked out. These apartment complexes may not lock me out. And then when I was acting as a donation— as a volunteer for neighborhood preparedness, why are you here in our apartment complex? Excuse me, for living. I was trying to do a neighborhood thingy and I, you know, they got mad at me for doing city stuff. My final reason, which is very traumatic, I won't be able to see the fireworks anymore. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have now Bruce Kelly come forward?

Thank you for holding this meeting and considering our comments. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in a very important civic responsibility. It's clear that counsel representing the developer did not endear himself to the neighbors of Orem today.

I'm sorry.

It was a moot point even arguing that we didn't have to have a neighborhood meeting when one's already been scheduled, wasting a whole heck of a lot of time. But the thing I think that shocked me the most, Mr. Mayor, was your comment about the developer putting $350 million in the past into our city, therefore buying influence. You didn't say it that way, but you just as well have. I didn't say it that way.

That was constructive.

I'd like to say, as a longtime resident of this city, that what I viewed when I moved here with my wife and young family is an investment into other things other than just money. We invested in a home. We invested in a neighborhood. We invested in a school. We invested in Ward. We invested in All of those things and other things. And we bought permanent residency here in the Orem Cemetery where I have 2 sons buried, 2 in-laws buried, and where we're going to be buried. This was our investment. And these people have invested likewise. We didn't buy our homes to flip them over. We bought our homes to raise our families here and to invest in, in like things. Now, I served on the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics for several years. Every fire code that governs the use of pyrotechnics in all 50 states have my fingerprints on them. I'm well aware of how you can take statistics Regarding traffic, regarding water usage, what have you, whether it be energetic material storage, fireworks, safe distances from, how those things can be spun to fit whatever narrative you want. Regardless of how you spin water usage and traffic egress and ingress in all those surrounding streets, it is going to be a mess. And we all know it. Thank you.

We have Jim Evans now. Thank you, Mayor.

For the record, my name is Jim Evans, live at 1920 Heather Road. Terry, Tom, Dave, Mayor, Brent, Debbie, and Jeff, when you all ran for office, as as everyone does, people are doing now, as you've done in the past, I'm sure that part of your platforms were, I listen to citizens, I take input, I communicate. I just wanted to point out that's what we're doing tonight. And, uh, as we look at this, we need to get this right. And I, as has been said, I appreciate you making the time with the staff tonight to be here and talk about that, take input, and to make sure that we're, we're making the right decisions for the future that impact our kids, our grandkids, and our great-grandkids. So thank you for listening to the citizens tonight.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Stefan Mortensen?

That's Stephen.

Stephen, okay, that's you.

Sorry.

Okay, Justin Showers.

We're talking about private property rights. I want you to know how sacred of an issue that is. If you own property, you need to be able to do what you'd like to do with that property in regards to the zoning. I'm not going to sit here and stick up for the developer, but we are skating on thin ice when we take somebody's private property rights away. I own a property on State Street. I own another property in the Arts District. Commercial and residential can coexist. Tom McDonald, you should know that better than anybody.

I do.

You have ownership in millions of square feet of commercial space in a primarily residential area. And yes, it has caused traffic, but I think that the old WordPerfect campus, Canyon Tech, has been an asset to the community. So when we talk about private property rights, it is our responsibility with as little real estate as we have left to find the highest and best use for every piece of property that we have. I would rather reimagine properties, remodel properties, repurpose properties, rather than try to build on every tiny property that we have. Today we're not talking about a tiny property. It's 4 acres. I'm not sure what the residents would rather see with 4 acres. I would like to know, and I'm surprised that zoning doesn't know and the attorney doesn't know and the The developer doesn't know, are these apartments or are they condos? If they are condos and you're building housing for people to get on the housing escalator, because newsflash, Orem is a very expensive place to live. If we're denying families the opportunity to buy a condo in a nice safe area, then shame on us. We need to have that housing stock, period. So I would like to ask the residents, what would you rather have? What would you like to see? Would you rather stare at a vacant lot? If this was a situation where the developer had bought, you know, 30 homes and demolished them all to build a new development, I think it's a different issue. But I cannot believe that we're discussing a commercial venture going to another commercial residential mixed-use venture and this being a very big problem at all. You know, when this property sold, who Who did they hire? A prominent commercial real estate broker, and so that should have given you a heads up that something is coming. And so it's it just it befuddles me a little bit that we're that we don't see that something is going to happen to that property, and at the very last minute after the developer has spent hordes of money, I'm positive they have, that we would deny that private property right. to that owner. And I think it just— we've got to be very careful because, you know, they might be coming for your private property rights. I cannot stress that enough, how important that is constitutionally to us and to our community.

Thank you. Move on to Sharon Anderson.

Looks like—

yeah, Justin just spoke. That one's crossed out.

My name is Sharon Anderson. I live at 1615 South Carterville Road.

Welcome back.

I'm sorry?

I said welcome back.

Oh, thanks. It's been a while.

Been about 6 years.

Yes. Um, I had concerns with the State Street Master Plan when it was first approved, and I think a lot of the citizens of Orem in the last several years have been quite distressed with the results that they've been seeing. And some of my concerns at that time, I didn't feel like it really represented the citizens and their needs and desires. I know they had open houses, 6 of them, but only a handful of people attended them. I went 3 times and there was hardly anybody there. So I felt like the citizens Voices were not heard. Maybe they had the opportunity, but the open meetings were just kind of a, let us show you what we think we should do. The company that drafted the plan was not a local company. It was in Salt Lake City with international connections as well. There were just a lot of things about it that were problematical. The plan was interesting because it— in the plan itself it said we can't expect the change to happen organically because of the culture of Orem with the pioneer frugality and the laissez-faire capitalism and the expectations of limited government. Therefore, we have to—

Intervene.

to do this plan, and then it followed with ways to convince the people of Orem that this was their idea and how to get them to accept it and make the public— make it appear that it had the public backing. Anyway, those are concerns of mine, and I hope that we will have this moratorium, that we can revisit some of these issues that are of great concerns to the people, that as a council you'll give an opportunity to hear what the citizens have to say, the concerns about the traffic, the— what's the impact on the schools of all these high-density developments. And a lot of the State Street Master Plan, I guess some of the buildings can go up to 150 feet in elevation. It's— and the traffic and— anyway, please consider this moratorium and let's hear the citizens and revisit where we can and make Orem even better than it is. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we hear from Elisa?

My name is Elisa Bruff. I don't live near this development, but I live actually in Northeast. I'm just getting so concerned as a grandmother, and you know, I finally reached a joy being grandmother to 7 grandchildren, and I worry about what's going to happen to them if they continue to live in this Orange City that I absolutely love.

Thank you.

But it's kind of starting to get out of control. Everywhere I see is high density, high density.

Why?

Can any of you later on explain to me what does it benefit legal taxpaying legal voters of City of Orem by bringing all of this high density? Because somebody said it's because paying their taxes. My property taxes have only went one way. continue to go up. So you put all this high density, what is it that we can count on benefiting? I don't know. I thought about it, thought about it. I could not come up with an answer. And I really appreciate all of you because I know I've been in your shoes in other cities. It's a thankless job. But I sure hope you give it some serious thought. High density in my family, my neighbors, is not the solution for Orem. It's only going to deteriorate.

Thank you.

more traffic. Crying out loud, I don't dare to get into State Street if I can help it. I stick with 400 East, 800 whatever. I don't get on State Street. So you guys are going to try to get this thing imposed on these people that can hardly get out right there? Because I, I go in that corner all the time. I really respectfully ask that please Please think very carefully. I do have an answer for that, for that man that just spoke. I have a proposal. My husband and I used to have 3 cars. Now we have 2 cars. Build a 55+ single housing there, and we're going to go down to 1 car. Thank you.

Good. Can we have Steve Black come forward?

Hi, I'm Steve Black. I'm actually part of the development team for this project.

And—

Steve?

Yeah.

Can you tell us if it's apartments or condos?

Apartments.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

So first of all, I just wanted to say, you know, I totally get it when people— residents anywhere they live When they hear about apartment buildings going up, whether they're adjacent, whether they're a block away, whether they're 2 blocks away, nobody likes to hear that. Where I live, if I hear of one coming 10 blocks away, I don't like to hear about it because of some of the reasons you guys have talked about. Okay? That's a typical reaction that you get from providing more housing when you don't like the type of housing that is being suggested. But I stood here 3 years ago, and I watched the districts be put in place to stop random developments from popping up all over your city. The understanding was that they didn't want them popping up in neighborhoods. They didn't want them popping up in— they didn't want houses being torn down like happened down at UVU. And so they wanted to find a place where they could say, this is where we want them. This is where you're going to build them. And that's why these location— this location was chosen for multifamily. And no one here is asking for any changes of the rules or changing zoning. When the property was initially purchased, we sent in an application in 2018 to develop a bank on that property, and it was denied. And the reason it was denied is because they said you have to comply With the new zoning, which is what we're doing. And, and since that time, all we've been doing is complying with those zoning ordinances to build a multi-family mixed-use development there for 3 years. And what kind of precedence does it set when somebody buys a property, complies with all the current building ordinances, works with the city for 2 and a half years through COVID, I might add, Spending all kinds of time and resources following all the rules and over $250,000, I will say, to answer your question, to just have it ripped away. Everyone here in this building has known about this project for a long time. It's no surprise.

No.

I don't think it's fair to try to change the rules in the 11th hour. This debate, in my opinion, should have happened 3 years ago, and it did. And to sit here and say that this is like a totally new revelation— we were told Friday, you know, we were told Friday on the spot that there's going to be this moratorium. And it's clear to me that the whole purpose of it was because of this, and someone's trying to rip it away in the 11th hour when all we've done is comply with all the rules that were initially set.

Thank you.

So I just don't think it's fair that— I mean, put yourself, you know, in, in our position. We haven't done anything wrong.

Thank you, Steve. Okay, we'll move on to Spencer Wright. Pass. Okay, move on to John Walton.

I live on 545 East. Make this a little personal, I was born here. My first 10 years of being married in Orem with my wife, it was an entirely different community 30 years ago. When we moved out of state, I was proud to tell people that I was from Orem. It was a community. It was wonderful little neighborhoods where there were orchards lined the roads.

Thank you.

When we moved back here.

That's—

it's changed. And I recognize that growth is important, but I also recognize that growth needs to be sustainable. And that's all I'm asking. I'm asking that you make the growth sustainable. A road between a house and a high-rise is not a buffer zone. And if you go over there and walk that property along the church and along the homes there, People are gonna be living next to a high-rise, and he can say all he wants that they were fair. They did not have a neighborhood meeting 3 years ago before they planned this. Nobody knew this until recently, what was gonna go on. Yes, we knew it was gonna be a commercial development. We did not know that it was gonna be a high-rise. I would invite any of you to come and stay in my home for a week. I'm lucky if there's 50 cars a day. that go by my house. Our children and grandchildren play on those streets. It is a danger to put a high-rise this big with the traffic that will be going in our community and in our neighborhoods. We will change our lives because of this, not for our choice, but for somebody else's choice. You have the opportunity to limit the growth. I'm not saying that you can't put something there. I want sustainable growth. 1,000 people is not sustainable on that small lot. I welcome 3 or 4 stories, but it's excessive to have that many. I walk past the Ashtons and I see their parking problems outside. That's going to be my neighborhood. We're going to have cars lining the streets.

Thank you.

Vying for parking spaces. How would you feel if that was your neighborhood? So consider that when you're voting. Everybody has that happening to their neighborhoods, but just think, what if it was happening in your neighborhood? What kind of difference would it make in your decision as to how you would have that growth go forward? I am pro-growth. I want sustainable growth, but I want it to be sustainable and safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now hear from Jason Jolly. Well, everybody was clapping. I guess you couldn't hear me. If you're ready, I'll ask the person to come forward. Jason Jolly.

Hello.

I would like to thank you for your time, especially how much you've put in, and over the years you've responded to emails and other things. I think that I represent a good chunk of Orem that Based on who's here, isn't represented, I would say the younger crowd and those that are renting. Um, I actually hear what people are saying here. A lot of my concerns are what they have, but also those of the businessman that spoke and those of the developer. The reason I mention that is because I've looked at Orem's history. The city council has routinely tried to compromise, but also chosen at times not to hear the residents. There was a petition about 40 years ago not to carve up an orchard. Center Street went through that orchard. Because of that, some people were upset, but also my grandmother was able to move into one of the condominium complexes that was one of the first first here, and she was recently divorced at the time. My mother grew up here. I have spent a good time of my life here. The housing, Terry, is not affordable, as you say, and the high-rise apartments are not. But having a lack of housing is not an option either. And while traffic is an issue and we do have infrastructure, there are issues. I am a UVU alumni, proud of it. And I definitely get having housing next to the campus works. I also understand that if my children were going to Lake Ridge Elementary School, I would want some accommodations so that road can handle traffic. There's a reason you can't rent a car until you're 25. And so I think that speaks to the accidents. My family, my wife, My mother-in-law will not go on State Street. Those neighborhood roads are becoming the back roads. I also hope as you move forward to respect the property rights, but also hear the voices of those who do not have property. They are here too. We're living here right now. Orem City has hovered roughly above 90,000 for over 2 decades. We are a landlocked city. And so we need to compromise. Part of the strategy for not raising everybody's taxes was to bring in other businesses. So if we want sustainable growth, we can't say no to everyone. So I don't know what the answer is, but I hope that we allow for people like me to live in Orem and have an incremental way of of getting housing, but also respecting the rights of those that live here and own single-family homes. Thank you.

Thank you. Now move to Devon Ogden.

I'm Devon Ogden. I live in the area that we're talking about. I drive down that street just south of the old Meadow Gold property almost every day, and also on the one west of it— or on the one east of it. That street south of the Meadow Gold property is very narrow on the State Street end, and I don't see how anybody could expect That to handle the traffic that will be generated. If you've got over 300 apartments coming up, plus business traffic, you're probably talking about 800 cars. You're gonna have to park somewhere. And I hope that they're not all on the streets like in so many neighborhoods. We've enjoyed living in Orem. And I'm not opposed to progress, but I think the City Council needs to reach back a little bit and reanalyze this and see, is this the best way to use the land? Is there a compromise that can be made here? And so I ask the City Council vote to put this off for a while. We've been known as the city here, the Family City USA. If we keep going for big projects like this, we'll be known as Apartment City USA.

Thank you. Murray Lowe.

Thank you, Mayor and Councilmen. Murray Lowe, 904 South 725 West. Thank you so much, all of you, for your time and attention to this. I very much appreciate your opening up this discussion and getting our input. I was involved in the master plan discussion. I was actually in the council member meeting when it was passed. At the time, I opposed it for a number of reasons, and I still oppose it and think that you need to fix it. The first reason I opposed it is because I believed there— at the time, there was an agenda for high-density housing. I gave all my feedback and asked them to incorporate the feedback into the plan, and a survey came out and none of my feedback was incorporated. It was medium-high or super high or unlimited. Those were the 3 choices. There were not choices that allowed people to say, you know what, this— the State Street Master Plan isn't— none of these things that you're proposing are what we want. Secondly, I think it was a little bit of a bait and switch. I remember seeing pictures here of this downtown in Oregon with 2 or 3-story homes or businesses with apartments above it and little 4-lane streets. It looked like a quaint little downtown. And that was kind of saying, we're going to make State Street into something that looks like this. And then when it gets passed, when the survey comes out, it's all high density. I felt like the way it was sold, that we're going to revitalize the businesses and this street, the way it was sold was not the way it got implemented. And I don't know how that happened. I'm not saying I'm not sure that was done intentionally, but at the time, I thought it was being rushed and not well thought through. And so I do think you do need to spend some time and fix that. The third thing is, I never saw a plan that made sense for a 7-lane highway owned by the state. 45 years ago, I was 15 years old, I was driving down a very similar highway. It was a highway, there was an interstate built next to it. I drive this road today whenever I go home. And it's not this quaint little 4-lane thing. Highways don't get smaller, they usually get bigger. And I do think we need a plan that really does take into consideration what is going to happen to State Street long-term and what do we want there. I had a conversation with Mike Lee, a friend of mine, many of you know him. And Mike said to me, if we tell developers what we want to have happen, we should go get them and tell them to come and work. Right now, our planning process is very reactionary. A developer comes and proposes and we react. And if we like it, everything's good. If we don't, we get hundreds of people here that are frustrated. I think there's another process you could use which says, here's what we want in State Street, and then invite developers who will make that happen so that we don't get into these problems. And finally, the developer is going to make money. Land prices have gone up 30% in the last 3 years. If they sold their land today, they would make far more than the $250,000 they have spent. Again, thank you for considering this, and I really do think we need to fix the State Street Master Plan.

Thank you. Our last speaker will be Haysom Socker.

Haysom?

Did you want to speak? Thanks so much for having me.

I really appreciate it. Now, we all know that this has been a hot topic, and it looks like we're always trying to fix a problem after it happens. Let's just go quick on that. When the State Street Master Plan was introduced, just like Mr. Lowe here said, I spoke to all of you, and you told me that was Plan to have 3 stories over commercial property. It was great. Like he said, the pictures were awesome. We all went for it. There was not a lot of hiccups. And then suddenly when it passes, it passes with unlimited heights. I'm not going to call it bait and switch, but I think you guys were sold on something that different that like when it was, when it was planned. So that's a, that's a big issue. That's why we're having a problem, because look at the 1600 North when it was put back into the 48-foot height limit and the 3-story with commercial, the citizens were happy. They were really happy. They didn't say no, don't put apartments in there. They didn't say no, the developer is not going to make money. And as far as the development pencils out, as I shared with all of you, I have a couple of friends that are— have over $3 billion and $9 billion worth of high-density funds across the country. I can bring them over. They'll talk to you about what pencils out, what doesn't pencil out. We'll be happy to explain it to you. But right now we're kind of playing reaction. We're just reacting to what's happening. And I walked that neighborhood yesterday and the day before, and it— I used to own a business right next to them, and I moved out because Meadowgold really stunk at the time. So we know, we understand that the city needs housing. The developer has a right to have housing. We're confusing everybody. I think we should fix that confusion. Are they going to go unlimited, or are we going to go the way we were sold out in that city in Oregon? Because I think the citizens here would agree if we go back to the original plan that the state street master plan proposed, as you travel to Oregon and looked at those places, I don't think the citizens here will have a problem with that at all. And they'll still make money, they'll still build. I love the idea where we can invite the developers to come in I mean, I am not going to call the developer bad people. They're good people. I like to make money. It's just where there's a bit of confusion. And I think we should put a pause, reevaluate, and reintroduce. We're not going to go tell them don't build. They're going to build. And it's going to pencil out. And I can prove it. So it's that simple. It really does not need to be complicated. I know there are a lot of emotions going on. And a lot of people heated up. It's just unlimited height is a disaster. I volunteer with the Orange Police, as you know, and I can tell you, you can go to the record, look at the statistics. Let's be pragmatic, no emotions. Ask them about the amount of calls they get in Midtown 360, the Village Apartments, Courtland, Axis, and Wolverine Crossing. I mean, Debbie, I love you. You voted well for those last time. But even in your street, there are 5 cars in front of your house. Busy.

Thank you, Hayes.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. We'll now go ahead and close the public comment portion of our meeting.

Sir, I respectfully ask you to remind us that we didn't have 15 speakers, and I have a different spin on it. Could I please have 3 minutes?

All right, but then we're going to close it. So, uh, we're not going to continue on asking and asking and asking. I mentioned that we had 45 minutes and we had 15 speakers, so go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Kathy Minster. I live at 1577 South 705 East. My husband and I bought a home and raised our 6 children and loved it. It was in such a wonderful area of Orem. I loved Orem. We moved here as a newlywed couple and for the last 49 years have loved it. However, Woodbury wanted to build the Astons, and we kept saying no, no, no. And finally we decided we didn't want to be the only home looking up at a very high thing. So we did sell, and we still live in Orem, and we love where we are even though the home that we built doesn't last anymore. But you can ask the leaders and the people around where we live, because we still live in the area that we were, that the Astons and the other one do not stay full.

They don't.

Ask the ecclesiastical leaders of any church. They're in and out and in and out because they are so darn expensive that once they get in, they find out that they're having to pay for this and this and this, and they're just being nickeled and dimed. So we aren't actually establishing— we aren't actually establishing people living in this family city. They're coming and going. They are coming and going. Our daughters now, some live out of state, but they say, Mom, Dad, this isn't— this isn't what we moved to. This is not where we grew up. They're going to call this ugly, ugly State Street of the United States. I drive down University Avenue and man, it's beautiful. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. We'll now go ahead and close the public portion of our hearing and bring it back to the council. Um, I'd like to allow time for each of the council members to say anything they'd like to say, so I'll start with Jeff Lampson.

Well, first of all, thank you everyone for being here. Thank you, staff, for all of your work as always.

Mr. Bruns.

Fellow council members and Mayor Bruns, thank you for this opportunity in participating in this meeting. I think it says a lot when the citizens of Orem show up to voice their concerns and their opinions. We all have other things that we could be doing tonight. My daughter at the moment is in labor, and we're We're expecting our 8th grandson.

My—

I guess the thing that I want to say is thank you for expressing your thoughts and your concerns. And as Jim Evans said, 2 years ago when I was out knocking on doors, When I was campaigning, I said that I would listen to you and give you a voice, and that's my intention. I do, however, Mayor, if it's okay, I did receive a phone call the other day and a perspective that has not been shared yet. Would that be okay if I shared that?

Sure.

This came from one of our citizens who lives in an older part of Orem. one of our, our older neighborhoods that's been there for a long, long time. And his concern— and he's not here this evening, so he's not able to express this, these thoughts— but his concern was that, you know, as we kind of navigate the challenges of growth and development that his feeling was that sometimes if there's not enough housing, then there are less homes in those neighborhoods that are purchased and more become rentals. Now, we've all rented. I mean, when you start out, you rent and kind of build until you're at the point that you can build a home. His concern was that Um, the, uh, I guess in some instances the quality of our neighborhoods, uh, tend to be going down in the amount of care that's taken. And so his concern was that he would like to see more, uh, more opportunities to purchase, um, and more opportunities for young families to build— or excuse me, to buy Those homes rather than those homes turning into rentals. So I share that perspective, a little different than I think from what we've heard this evening, and I hope that my paraphrasing of his thoughts are adequate. You know, as we've looked at the State Street Master Plan, There's no doubt that there's a lot of work and a lot of blood and sweat and tears that have gone into that. But as we, as we started looking at the North Village District, it became very apparent that each, each district in each zone is different and that there are different idiosyncrasies and different, you know, different applications in each of those areas. And, you know, we've heard the word compromise a lot this evening. And I think if we can— if we can take some time to review the State Street Master Plan, to look at each of these areas, to do a deep dive into each of these areas, and see what's going to be beneficial to the neighborhoods as well as the businesses in each of these areas, I think that we can come to a place that's a good compromise, that's good for business, that's good for the future. But I intend to support a moratorium this evening with my vote.

Okay, Debbie.

I'm kind of in the middle of a compromise, and in my mind, I think the City Center District and the Canyon Crossing District and even the Hub could certainly go to moratorium and be looked at. I know we've submitted an application lowering those heights to 62.25 for parking and 4 per 1,000.

But I—

as I've been reading and studying legal for the Arts District, I don't think drought, I don't think traffic or mental illness is a compelling countervailing public interest. And while I'm not a lawyer, I fear that we would be setting ourselves up for a legal challenge. And I don't think this was an inside deal. This was something— I've known that there was a plan coming forward. I don't know when I knew that, but it was not a surprise to me. But I talk to Development Services all the time. I ask them questions. I call them all the time finding out because I don't know everything and I want to make sure. So I don't believe that the Arts District should be under the moratorium. Obviously, we just finished the North Village, and I think that one seemed like a good compromise. I was comfortable with that. The Hub, I could certainly go either way on that one. So I'm willing to do a moratorium in 3 of them, but I think the Arts District does does not have the legal muster, and I'm not interested in spending thousands of taxpayers' dollars on, um, on a lawsuit that I don't know if we would win or lose. I mean, obviously I'm not a jury or attorney, but I don't think the 3 things we've said would, would be enough to, to win a case. So that's my opinion. I'm willing to compromise on those other 3, but don't feel like, um, those other 2 would merit that. So that's That's my take.

Thank you, Debbie. Brent, we'll go to you.

Thanks, Mayor, and thanks for everyone participating tonight, and it's a good crowd, and, and thank you for coming out. Uh, just a couple of thoughts. We all know that we're in a housing shortage, apartment shortage, or whatever you want to call it. Just my own experience with my kids, they had to move out of Orem because they couldn't afford it. Now my grandkids are trying to find an apartment to rent, and that's very difficult at a reasonable price. So I— my heart goes out to the developer too. He's spent a lot of money, $250,000, is that what he said?

Yes.

That's a lot of money to this point, and I don't know how— if the city would be responsible for that if it did go to trial, or— but that's a concern to me. Just a personal experience, I had one apartment available the end of August. Last week I put, at 8 o'clock at night, I put an ad in the paper The renter section. I went to bed, at 7 o'clock in the morning I had 28 texts that wanted it. 28, and I had to shut it down. So there, that's proof there is a housing shortage and apartment shortage as well. Um, 6 months. Um, I've talked to other council members and they, they want If the moratorium passes, they'd like the 6 months. And I, I would just like to maybe have them address what they're going to tell staff to do, because 6 months goes by pretty quick. I'm not sure what direction we're going from, from here. Is it, is it every place is C-2, which is 60-foot, or do you lower it to 48? I mean, I think there's a lot of questions that need to be answered. ASAP. So I, I'm not sure if we're prepared as a, as a council to give direction to staff at this, at this point. So the Meadow Gold property, it sounds like to me, and from what I've talked to individuals, they, they had their application in I don't mind maybe taking a look at all the other districts, but— and I think Debbie addressed this as well— I, I think we might be asking for legal challenges. I don't know if we will or not, but, uh, I, I would support looking at the other districts, but I, I really have a question about the property rights of Wright Company, and, uh, the process they've gone through right now for 2 years, 3 years, whatever it is. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilmember Spencer.

Thank you, Brent. Uh, you didn't talk about riding your horse to the mall, so that's a good story. So, uh, thank you for everybody coming out tonight. Um, seems like we've been doing this quite often lately, but, uh, the bottom line is we need to get this right, and When the state surpassed a while ago, um, I thought we were getting something different. But now, as we looked at the North Village District, we did a deep dive and we got it right because the citizens came and we all compromised. So I think that's what we're doing right now, is we're pushing the pause button. We're going to step back, take a deep breath, and look at each of the districts and see what fits. Because if it's encroaching into a neighborhood or whatever. It needs to be right. So I'm in favor of moratorium for 6 months moving forward, and I think that's the pause button that we can breathe and everybody can take a look. Instead of looking at 30,000-foot level, we can get down to the nuts and bolts and where the rubber hits the road or meets the road. We can get it done right. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McDonald.

This is not a stop button to David's comment. It's a pause button. We want to try to get it right. I think you are much more interested in my vote than my chatting, so let's just wait and we'll do that soon. Thanks.

That's the shortest I've ever heard out of you, Tom.

They want to go home.

So, Councilmember Pedersen.

So it's confusing to me when we keep calling it commercial It's not commercial, it's high-density apartments. And I don't think any of us are opposed to great commercial projects coming to our city. It helps keep our taxes down. I think we all support commercial. Here's kind of a problem, though, that we're having now with how busy State Street is. It used to be Costco, the only Costco you could go to was in Orem. Now, my daughters, a couple of my daughters live in Lehi. They go to the Costco in Lehi. And especially as we get more and more traffic on our State Street, it's not like we're the only place in town now, or the only place in the county you can go shopping. So I think we need to be really careful and support our businesses, but let's don't hurt them by loading up State Street with so much traffic that people will decide it's not worth it to drive to Orem. It's too much traffic. Someone mentioned the Word Perfect project and pointed to Tom. That's not high-density apartments. That's not— so, I mean, I don't know what they're talking about. That's commercial. And, and again, I support commercial, but, uh, and they talked about their, their $250,000 investment. There's not a home in that neighborhood that would sell for $250,000. They'd all sell for more than that. So we're worried about a high-end developer's $250,000. How about that homeowner's $250,000? That's their life. They're like— we hear some people say that's where they raised their children, that's where they want to retire, that's where they're going to be buried in the Orem Cemetery. So I strongly support a moratorium. I'm not against high density. It has to be done the right way. And I think, like Dave Spencer is saying, let's put— this gives us a pause so that we're not having to do this with every different node in the city. Let's put a pause and let's work through this, the whole master plan. And say, what's the appropriate thing for the city? And remember, we want commercial/apartments, not 90% apartments and throw in a little commercial. That's misleading. That's not fair to the citizens to call it commercial. So I strongly support a moratorium.

So I want to thank the council for all of their comments. I want to thank all of you who are here and are concerned. I think all of us here love our city and love what we've grown up with in Orem and would like to keep it Family City USA. Here on the council for quite a few years, we've worked very hard to keep high density out of the neighborhoods, and you can see that in various parts. If you go to Cherry Hill neighborhood, there was going to be a high-density development. We stopped it. There was going to be a high-density development to the east. We stopped that. There's another one to the west. We stopped that. And we've kept the neighborhoods in good condition. We've tried to protect them and to watch out for them. We want to watch out for our children, our sidewalks, our schools. If you'll notice that a lot of effort's been put into good roads, good sidewalks, LED lights in the, in the lights in our neighborhoods, and the Yes. The interesting thing is, with a strong economy in the city of Orem, we have been able to purchase 3 fire engines, 2 ambulances, 70 police cars, put in 5 new parks, put in a new water tank, and do all of this without raising your taxes. And when I first ran for mayor, the idea was to raise taxes at that time, our property taxes. We have not raised any taxes, any property taxes, except for $1 for 4 additional policemen in 8 years. And we can do that because we have a strong economy. I don't know whether you realize it, but Provo has a 25% bleed-in into the city of Orem for purchasing. Linden has the same thing. Vineyard has the same thing. The reality is people come here to shop. We have 8 department store grocery stores, where most of the cities have 1 or maybe 2. We are expanding roads to help with traffic, both on Geneva Road and on 1600 North. So a lot of good things have happened, and you've not had a— you've not seen an increase in your property taxes from the City of Orem. Now, I know you have from the Alpine School District. We have no control over that. But from the City of Orem, we have not raised your property taxes. So the reality is we want to keep Orem a good place. I can see and feel the passion in everyone to do that. When we went ahead and put in the State Street Master Plan, at that particular time, we thought we were getting all the communications out to everybody possible and listening as much as possible. Our intent was to listen.

Uh-huh.

To have events where you could come and draw, you could come and picture, show what you're concerned about. But it was interesting when we did that, when we looked at the height, the 2 things that we looked at for limiting height was the setback and then also the parking. So the setback is that you go in 10 feet, go up 10 feet, go back 10 feet, up 10 feet, We felt like that would actually limit how high the high density would be. We also felt like the amount of parking that's available would limit what the high density would be. I think probably what would have been better is if, in fact, we had put in, like we did with the C-2 zone, that the height on the apartments would be 60 foot and the parking would be at 2.6 Zero. And, and come to a number like that that everybody was comfortable with and understood. And, and we didn't do that. We did do what we thought was correct to limit parking and to limit height, but it appears that that probably is not the case. Also appears that many people, while you've received notices, you've come to events, you've done other things, you haven't really seriously considered what's happening on State Street. And our biggest desire was to try to keep apartments on a major thoroughfare so that they stay out of our neighborhoods. And I've seen that over and over again where we've actually been able to accomplish that. One person mentioned they'd like to see Orem strategically built out. Well, strategically building out is what we've been trying to do. And again, if you drive around our city, you will not see a lot of high-density apartments in the middle of protected neighborhoods. You will see them on major thoroughfares. So I believe it's important that we get the height right and we get the parking right. I don't believe a moratorium is the way to do that. So a moratorium is going to limit this, and it's going to put us at risk. So we don't have a compelling reason to do it. We don't have the safety and welfare that we can point to. We as a city will most likely end up spending $300,000 on a lawsuit, and I don't think that's been— going to be beneficial. And I'm being honest in that. You probably don't realize it, but we actually end up fighting lawsuits every year on multiple cases, and most times Uh, we are not found liable. In this case, I think we would be. But with that being said, I feel like that the height ought to be looked at, the parking ought to be looked at. We have an application in before the Planning Commission that will come out within 9 days. They will consider it, and then it will go to the City Council meeting. There will be no problems with lawsuits. There will be no problems Uh, with somebody who feels like that they have a project and they're going to sue us to get it through. The reality is we can go back to each one of the zones, check the height, come together on what the height ought to be as citizens and as council and as staff, do the same with the parking, and, and get it done in a proper manner, in the normal manner. of going to the Planning Commission and then going to the City Council. That does not put our city at risk. So you probably say, well, we don't care if the city's at risk, but the reality is when you start to lose and spend money, that actually will come back in the form of higher taxes. And we've worked very hard to keep your taxes low at the same time that we've got our economy growing 70 new police cars we've purchased. Okay, those cost a lot of money, and we haven't had to raise your taxes to do it. So again, I would encourage that we not do a moratorium. I would vote against that, and I would vote that we go ahead and follow the Planning Commission and City Council program, which will take us 30 days, and then we can have all the time we need to sit there and determine what's the proper thing we want to do. So those are my feelings. With that being said, uh, we'll go ahead and start with Jeff. I'm sorry, you're going to make them?

Yeah, I need to make a motion. So can I make a motion?

Sure, go ahead.

Okay, uh, the city council— I'll make a motion the city council by ordinance enact a temporary land use regulation moratorium not to exceed 6 months in duration pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-9A-504 prohibiting the erection construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or structure, or any subdivision approval in the City Center District Zones, the Hub District Zones, the Canyon Crossing District Zones, the Arch District Zones, and the North Village District Zones.

Is there a second?

Second.

One, one thing I want to mention, um, by voting for this, that means that any construction, any improvements Any building that wants to go on in the city is stopped.

In, in the State Street districts?

In the districts you just mentioned.

Correct.

All of those 5 areas along State Street, everything is stopped. And it's 200 feet— or 2 blocks this way, 2 blocks that way, and 2 blocks to the north, 2 blocks to the south. So just so you realize that there are a lot of wonderful businesses that are trying to take care of what they do and want to make improvements, and we will stop all of that. So with that being said, Jeff, I will start with you.

Uh, Mayor, sorry.

Yes.

Just to get a clarification, I know obviously we have to, you know, find the compelling countervailing public interest. You, you stated some of those reasons at the very beginning, but they weren't cited as part of your motion. I just want to clarify, perhaps you want to adopt and incorporate, uh, the reasons that you stated at the beginning as well as perhaps the the reasons that were provided by Councilman Pedersen and anyone else you want to incorporate.

OK, so I'll, I'll do what I said. So I said, for the safety of our citizens, um, we, we have— we need to have proper infrastructure on State Street that can handle the capacity of our roads. Um, the State Street Master Plan included the BRT, which is not being built for quite a few years, so that's absent. Um, increased traffic on State Street and 4th East into the, into the neighborhoods, added congestion, and this will cause an emotional stress on the neighbors and the neighborhood. Terry?

Anybody else?

Anything else, Steve, or we're good?

No, I just wanted to make sure that we got all of the reasons that you're, you're using to support the motion.

So do I need to renew my second then?

Second.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay, Jeff, we'll start with you.

A second. Second. Uh, I am going to vote aye.

Nay.

Nay.

Nay.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, the ordinance for the temporary moratorium passes for 6 months. Uh, I would accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, thank you all.

Yeah, pretty much.

Yeah.

Children put in danger.

I call that a gesture.

Will you quit throwing rocks?

Will you quit throwing rocks?

We'll help the police out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, people.

How are you?

Thank you so much.

So yeah, I'll put that in an email to you and the entire company.