CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street, Orem, Utah
June 12, 2007
5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION
CONDUCTING
Mayor Jerry C. Washburn
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Margaret Black, Les Campbell, Dean
Dickerson, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, and
Shiree Thurston
APPOINTED STAFF
Jim Reams, City Manager; Richard Manning, Assistant City
Manager; Paul Johnson, City Attorney; Jeff Pedersen,
Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury,
Development Services Director; Bruce Chesnut, Public
Works Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl
Hirst, Recreation Director; Louise Wallace, Library Director;
Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy
City Recorder
REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS
The Council and staff reviewed the agenda items.
CITY COUNCIL NEW BUSINESS
The Council and staff discussed the SummerFest activities from the previous weekend. The general
consensus was that the celebration was a success.
Councilmember Black
Mrs. Black read a letter from an eleven-year-old girl named Carolyn requesting the City Council
make it illegal for residents to bring large dogs, such as pit bulls, to parades.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to the City Council Chambers for the regular meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION
CONDUCTING
Mayor Jerry C. Washburn
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Councilmembers Margaret Black, Les Campbell, Dean
Dickerson, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, and
Shiree Thurston
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.1)
APPOINTED STAFF
Jim Reams, City Manager; Richard Manning, Assistant City
Manager; Paul Johnson, City Attorney; Jeff Pedersen,
Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury,
Development Services Director; Bruce Chesnut, Public
Works Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl
Hirst, Recreation Director; Louise Wallace, Library Director;
Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy
City Recorder
INVOCATION /
INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT
Lana Herre
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Seastrand
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Work Session of May 1, 2007, City Council Meeting of May 8, 2007, City
Council Tour of May 14, 2007, Joint Orem/Provo City Council Meeting of May 22, 2007, City
Council Meeting of May 22, 2007, and the Joint City Council/Alpine School District Meeting
of June 6, 2007
Mrs. Thurston moved to approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of May 1, 2007, City
Council Meeting of May 8, 2007, City Council Tour of May 14, 2007, Joint Orem/Provo City
Council Meeting of May 22, 2007, City Council Meeting of May 22, 2007, and the Joint City
Council/Alpine School District Meeting of June 6, 2007. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs.
Thurston, and Mayor Washburn. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.
Upcoming Agenda Items
The Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming agenda items listed in the agenda packet.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mayor Washburn recommended Steve Baugh be appointed to serve on the Transportation Advisory
Commission and Gamaliel Cancino-Macario and Anne Bishop be appointed to serve on the Library
Advisory Commission.
Mr. Seastrand moved to appoint Steve Baugh to serve as a member of the Transportation Advisory
Commission and Gamaliel Cancino-Macario and Anne Bishop to serve as members of the Library
Advisory Commission. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston, and Mayor Washburn.
The motion passed unanimously.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.2)
Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action Officers
Joyce Johnson, Neighborhood Organization Specialist, presented Mark Bishop as the new chair in
the Aspen Neighborhood. Mr. Bishop was invited to shake hands with the City Council.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the
agenda.
Lana Herre, 349 West 1410 South, advised the City owns a parcel of land in her neighborhood that
the neighbors would like developed as a park. She indicated she has a petition, which was signed by
the neighbors on the east side of the property, expressing their favor of having a park at that location.
The neighbors do not want the property sold to developers.
Mr. Reams clarified that some of the neighbors have wanted a park in that area for sometime;
however, there were access issues with some of the neighbors. They have possibly resolved those
issues. The neighbors were told that the City engineers would have to survey the property and look
at a design. It would then be brought to the City Council to determine whether to fund the park in
the next year’s budget process. This may have to be a multiyear project.
Carolyn McCartney, 326 West 1450 South, indicated that Jerry Ortiz, former Recreation Director,
had previously developed a site plan for this park. There have been some preliminary plans done.
She advised they talked with the neighbors on the west side a number of years ago about this
concept, and they were in favor of it. There will be a number of footpaths in the park, which will
allow neighborhood access from the west side. This park will provide a wonderful walking place for
the neighborhood.
Mrs. Black questioned whether this park would be mainly used as a walking path area. Mrs.
McCartney stated that due to the lay of the land, there would not be space for a ball field. The
property is too sloped. The previous design showed the park having a small playground and a picnic
pavilion.
Leo Lines, 1661 South 400 West, stated he is the chair for District 2 in the Lakeview Neighborhood.
He presented a number of suggested improvements for his neighborhood, which included:





Constructing a cul-de-sac at the top end of Hidden Hollow
Condemning the Peterson property and putting 400 West through to 1430 South
o Placing the road on the very east end so the Lakeview Condominiums are on one side
of the road and the remaining Peterson property is on the other side
Extending 1600 South to the east and then to the north to connect with 360 West
Allowing only single-family residential on the east side of Sandhill Road
Constructing a cul-de-sac south of the roundabout on 2000 South
o Sell the land for development that would not connect to 2200 South
o Construct a cul-de-sac at 2100 South from the Legacy at the Ercanbrack
Development
o Put an emergency exit between 2100 South and the old Sandhill Road
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.3)
Carolyn McCartney, 326 West 1450 South, stated that Mr. Lines proposal directly affects the
previous request for the park. She indicated that 1450 South is a much narrower road than Hidden
Hollow Road, and there are many blind corners.
Mayor Washburn commented that the City Council cannot make any decisions on the items
presented in the personal appearance portion of the meeting. The Council will look at the requests
and go through a formal process before any recommendations are made. Mayor Washburn noted
these requests would be forwarded to the Transportation Advisory Commission to evaluate.
CONSENT ITEMS
There were no consent items.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
6:15 PM PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE – Amending Sections 22-7-12(A), 22-7-12(B)(2), and 22-7-12(G)(2) of the
Orem City Code Pertaining to Development Standards and Requirements in the PRD Zone
Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director, reviewed a request that the City Council, by
ordinance, amend Sections 22-7-12(A), 22-7-12(B)(2), and 22-7-12(G)(2) of the Orem City Code
Pertaining to development standards and requirements in the PRD zone. He advised the Planning
Commission did not give a recommendation due to the lack of a majority vote of 3 to 2.
The applicant requests the City Council amend the Orem City Code to allow high-density
PRD developments between Sandhill Road, I-15, 1500 South, and 2000 South. Currently, highdensity PRDs are only allowed north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and 1200 West.
High-density PRDs allow up to sixteen units per acre and can be stacked. The height shall not
exceed forty feet and forty percent of the property must be in landscaping.
This request encompasses approximately twenty-seven acres. Currently this area is made up of two
zones, R8 residential and Highway Services.
The applicants own 7.31 acres of property in this twenty-seven acre area and would like to develop a
multi-story PRD with condominium units similar to what exists between 1200 West and I-15 north
of Center Street. If the text amendment is not approved, there is no need to discuss the rezone
application because it is based on the proposed amendment to the PRD ordinance.
From a traffic perspective, a high-density PRD obviously produces greater traffic numbers than the
current R8 zone. Traditional single-family neighborhoods generally produce fourteen trips per day
per unit. Town homes and stacked units generally produce ten trips per day per unit. Staff is
supportive of a traditional PRD zone in the residential area since traditional PRDs produce the same
or less traffic than single-family neighborhoods. Traditional PRDs produce between six and eight
trips per day per unit. Although there is a wide range of traffic numbers that can be produced from
the commercial “Highway Services” zone, a high-density PRD and the kind of commercial that
would be developed along Sandhill Road probably have similar numbers.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.4)
Staff has several concerns regarding this request. Allowing all of the properties between 1500 South
and 2000 South, and Sandhill Road and I-15 to be eligible for high-density PRDs would allow
everyone to ask for stacked units at a density of sixteen units per acre. Properties already zoned
PRD would automatically have the new high-density PRD standards (former Steve Strait property).
Staff feels the City should deal with each property independently, based on the developer’s proposal
as well as the property’s size, shape, topography, traffic production, location, configuration, land use,
and how these considerations relate to the surrounding properties.
Staff is also concerned with the request since this will create stacked units in close proximity to Utah
Valley University (UVU). Although only three students are allowed in each unit, the very nature of
this development may entice owners of these units to rent to more than three students. We have not
noticed this concern with the stacked units along 1200 West that are north of Center Street. We
believe this is due to the fact that these units are not in proximity to UVU. The enforcement issue for
student housing is an ongoing challenge for staff in proximity of UVU. For this reason, staff is
concerned about any development that might add additional enforcement challenges. Staff prefers to
see a traditional PRD development that does not contain stacked units. As mentioned previously,
this concept was recently approved by the Council on the Steve Strait property. Staff could also see
a development with town homes or twin homes but with a density less than what is requested. In
Orem, side-by-side town home or twin home units under individual ownership have generally
encouraged young couples or families to reside there as first time homeowners. Students will
generally be excluded because of the higher rent price that would be required in a town home verses
stacked units.
There are currently 205.11 acres of Highway Services in the City with 8.1 acres left undeveloped.
Highway Services is an important zone designed to meet the needs of the traveling public in close
proximity to I-15. Staff is concerned with the reduction of available Highway Services. This
property has excellent freeway visibility and is close to the University Parkway interchange.
Although housing is the hot product right now, it is important to keep a balance between residential,
commercial, and industrial.
Staff also has concerns with the design. Every developer wants a zone that allows sixteen units per
acre. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show why the current zones should be changed to
allow sixteen units per acre. There ought to be a “wow” factor or at least a very good reason before a
zone is changed to this high of density. The project is comprised of three-story stacked twelveplexes and town-homes. Although this could certainly be a nice project, there has been nothing that
has convinced staff that it is better to change the zone than to leave it as it is.
In the applicant’s favor, stacked units are more affordable and this development could assist in home
ownership for those who do not have the means for a more expensive single-family, town, or twin
home. This is an issue that is constantly being brought to staff’s attention by many who are seeking
home ownership.
The specific property the developer would like to apply the high-density PRD zone to is located
adjacent to Interstate 15. The property to the south is a single-family residence, which is then
adjacent to a PRD development with thirteen town home units at 7.7 units per gross acre. Property
to the east is a single-family residential and the property to the north is zoned Highway Services.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.5)
22-7-12 Development Standards and Requirements
A. Density. A PRD located north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and 1200 West and south of
1500 South between Sandhill Road and Interstate 15 may be developed at a maximum density of sixteen (16)
dwelling units per gross acre. A PRD located in all other areas of the City may be developed at a maximum
density of eight (8) dwelling units per gross acre. In order to encourage redevelopment of dilapidated or blighted
areas, the total number of allowable dwelling units in a PRD may be increased by three (3) additional dwelling
units for every principal residential structure that is removed from the property on which the new PRD is located.
However, the total density including any bonus for removing an existing dwelling may not in any case exceed
twenty (20) units per acre for a PRD located north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and 1200 West and
south of 1500 South between Sandhill Road and Interstate 15, or ten (10) units per acre in all other areas of the
City.
B. (2) Height. Areas north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and 1200 West and south of 1500 South
between Sandhill Road and Interstate 15. Structures in PRDs located north of Center Street and between
Interstate 15 and 1200 West and south of 1500 South between Sandhill Road and Interstate 15 shall not exceed
three (3) stories above grade and shall not exceed a height of forty (40) feet above grade
G. (2) Landscaping. At least fifty percent (50%) of the net acreage (area of the development less public and
private streets) of the entire development shall remain permanently landscaped. However, for a PRD located
north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and 1200 west and south of 1500 South between Sandhill Road
and Interstate 15, the minimum landscaped area shall be forty percent (40%) of the net acreage of the entire
development.
Mrs. McCandless stated the proposed language allows up to twenty units per acre with density
credits. Mr. Sainsbury clarified that the standard density is sixteen units; however, if the developer
tears out existing houses, they can receive a density credit for up to twenty units per acre.
Jay Henrie, applicant, introduced the members of his development team--Andy Davis, Curtis
Livingston, Mark Hampton, Roger Dudley, Laren and Kelly Little.
Mark Hampton, Rimrock Construction, indicated he is excited about this project and asked the City
Council whether they had questions for him about the construction. Mayor Washburn advised that
the Council is hearing the request for the PRD ordinance amendment at this time, and the actual
project is the next item on the agenda.
Mr. Henrie addressed some issues in the staff report. He noted that when he initially brought this
request to the City, he wanted to apply for a PD zone, so this application would only affect his
property. Staff told him the requirements for the PD zones had changed, and he would have to apply
for a PRD. Mr. Henrie also stated that he does not want this development to turn into student
housing, and the economics are not conducive for student housing. The developers will add
whatever they can to the CC&Rs and bylaws to keep the students from living in this development.
Mr. Henrie then briefed the Council on the benefits of the proposed project, which included:
 Combining five separate parcels for a total of 7.31 acres
o 2.61 currently zoned R8
o 4.85 currently zoned Highway Services
 Condominium/Town home development – all units will be sold
o 84 condominiums
o 20 town homes
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.6)






Large amount of open space
Retains residential nature of neighborhood
Provides affordable housing for young couples
Less traffic impact on neighborhood than commercial development
Visual benefit
o Beautiful project
o Well maintained landscaping
Enhance the property values of the neighborhood
Mr. Henrie advised that reducing the density for the project is not a viable option for them. It is a
difficult property to develop, and the location is not the greatest location for a residential
development. The City Council has approved other developments at this density. The developers
would have to reduce quality if they were forced to reduce the density. He expressed his opinion that
this is a “win-win” situation for the developers, the neighbors, and the City. Mr. Henrie advised they
would be willing to enter into a development agreement with the City, and they would add
restrictions to their CC&Rs prohibiting students from living in the development. He also proposed
establishing a neighborhood advisory committee to invite neighborhood input.
Mrs. McCandless asked Mr. Sainsbury to explain why the applicants were directed not to apply for a
PD zone. Mr. Sainsbury explained the Council changed the requirements for PD zones and directed
staff not to have requests come to them for a residential PD zone with a higher density.
Mayor Washburn questioned what the advantages are for the applicant applying for a PD zone as
opposed to the PRD language amendment. Mr. Sainsbury explained the PD zone applies to a
specific property, while the PRD amendment would apply to numerous properties.
Mr. Johnson read from the ordinance that indicated the PD zone cannot be used to increase density.
Mrs. Black questioned whether the main purpose for PRD developments was to provide more
housing options for senior citizens. Mr. Sainsbury noted that most of the PRD developments are
geared for the senior population. They were designed to reduce the traffic impact on neighborhoods.
The evidence has shown that most of the PRDs in the City do house the senior population. But there
is also a high density PRD designation that is not meant to attract seniors.
Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing.
Mary Johnson, 434 West 1840 South, stated that she respects everything the developers are trying to
do in maintaining the residential feel of the neighborhood. She indicated she represents the
neighbors that surround the proposed development. She said they agreed with Mr. Henrie that they
do not want anymore commercial in this area, and they do want a quality residential housing project;
however, they would like a lower density for the following reasons:
 They received a guarantee from the City that the remaining property on the west side of
Sandhill Road would be developed at residential.
 The proposed density is in violation of the Orem City Code, which currently allows eight
units per acre.
o The proposed development is asking for sixteen units per acre.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.7)





o This could set a precedence for the neighboring property owners
The proposed development would increase the traffic in the area
The higher density housing proposal would attract student rentals
o It would be difficult to control who would be living in the units
o The higher cost of the units will not deter people from renting them to students
The high-density development would lower the value of the existing homes
The current student housing in Orem has never been at full occupancy
R8 developments have proven to be viable in this area
o The City Council could require a twin home development on the property
o It is not the responsibility of the City Council to make sure the developers make as
large of profit as possible
Ms. Johnson requested the City Council say no to the higher density and no to more commercial on
Sandhill Road.
Mr. Seastrand stated the City Council does not have the option to dictate that the developer has to
build twin homes on the property. The parcel is zoned R8 and Highway Services, and the City
Council cannot prohibit someone from requesting a commercial development on the Highway
Services portion of the property. He noted the property owner could place anything allowed in the
HS zone on the property if the City Council were to deny this request. When he asked which option
Ms. Johnson would prefer, she commented they would prefer the Council say no to the PRD
changes, and they would have deal with the commercial later.
Rich Melville, 1890 South Sandhill Road, read a letter from Mike Whimpey, who is out of town. He
requested the City Council say no to the project. The Development Review Committee has
determined this application is not consistent with the General Plan. The PRD zone was developed to
attract the senior population; however, this proposal would attract student housing. Orem staff has
also recommended denying this request.
Marion Baxter, 466 West 1640 South, advised she has lived in the area for twenty-five years. The
property in this proposed request has two different zones. She had asked many of the residents on the
east side of Sandhill Road whether they would choose a commercial or residential development with
sixteen units per acre. Many of them said they would choose the higher density residential because
they would rather have that then the unknown of the commercial. She recommended having a
development agreement and establishing a neighborhood architectural committee assigned to this
project that would be involved in every aspect of the development and possibly continue for other
projects.
LeAnn Swanson, 1756 South Sandhill Road, advised that she has lived in this area for ten years and
has continually fought for the preservation of her neighborhood. She indicated the City Council
recently approved a nice residential development on the Strate property and questioned why the
Council would zone the property one hundred and fifty feet to the north from a R8 zone to a
commercial zone. She advised that would not be fair to Mr. Strate. Ms. Swanson indicated she has
lived by commercial developments and prefers residential. She noted she would prefer a twin home
development like Tanglewood to the proposed development; however, she would prefer higher
density to commercial.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.8)
Ms. Swanson then said she has a business behind her home that is in the county. She was told that
she could not use her residential property as an access to the business behind her home. She
indicated that the front part of the Davis property is residential and the back part is HS. She
questioned whether he could access the HS portion from the residential.
Mr. Sainsbury indicated he would be allowed access to the back property.
Teresa Pond, 1785 South Sandhill Road, stated that she would rather have R8 on the property rather
than commercial. This development will affect the homes on the east side of Sandhill Road the
most.
Reza Santi, property owner 1735 and 1745 South Sandhill Road, expressed his opinion that Utah
Valley State College is going to continue to grow, and there will be more of a need for student
housing. He advised that it would be good to have the housing spread out to the south of University
Parkway. Mr. Santi stated that most of the concern he has heard has been the traffic impact. He
advised that most of the traffic on Sandhill Road is accessing I-15. He suggested the City talk with
the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) about putting an entrance to I-15 south of
2000 South at Provo’s 1700 North. Mayor Washburn stated that the City has already recommended
that UDOT construct a collector/distributor road along the freeway to help with the traffic in that
area.
Leo Lines stated that Mrs. Swanson does not want to live next to commercial; however, she has a
commercial business behind her home. Mr. Lines indicated the property was brought in as R-1-8,
and it was said that the property would never develop as R-1-8. He indicated that the Council should
not have any more residential on the west side of Sandhill Road because of safety issues with
children crossing the street.
Alvin Witt, 1611 South Sandhill Road, expressed concern with the high-density of this request;
however, he said he understands it is not feasible to require single-family homes. He stated this
development is straight across the street from his home, and he would prefer the residential idea to
commercial.
Mr. Henrie commented that Bill Rouse, Lakeview Neighborhood chair, had mentioned that he is in
favor of this application.
Mayor Washburn questioned how many unit credits the developers could receive by removing the
homes on the property. Mr. Sainsbury explained the developer may receive three extra units for each
home they remove. Mr. Sainsbury advised that could increase the maximum density of this project
to sixteen and one half units per acre.
Andy Davis, applicant, read two letters from residents on Sandhill Road stating that they do not want
commercial on the proposed property.
Mayor Washburn closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.9)
Mrs. McCandless thanked the neighbors and developers for their efforts in working together. The
developers took on a difficult situation when they purchased this property. She said the applicants
have done the best they could with their proposal and presentation. She expressed the market may
change and rents may be competitive, which might allow students to live there. Mrs. McCandless
stated she understands Mr. Lines’ comments about children getting hurt crossing the street; however,
there are many busy streets in Orem that have homes on both sides of the road. She commented that
she likes the idea of having several pieces of property developed at the same time. Mrs. McCandless
advised that the proposed ordinance would affect many parcels of property in that area, and she has
to look at the big picture. This request does not comply with the General Plan; however, the General
Plan can be changed depending on the nature of the area. Many property owners could come to the
City Council with a high-density request, and the Council would have to approve them based on this
application unless the Council could find a valid reason to deny the request. This is a beautiful
proposal; however, she voiced concern with the wider applicability of the zoning.
Mr. Seastrand stated he is struggling with the unknown. He expressed that he was impressed with
the individuals that spoke this evening because they showed a true understanding of the challenges
involved with this area. He thanked the developers for working so hard with the neighborhood. He
stated he agrees with Mrs. McCandless and her concern for the high-density and future applications.
Mrs. Black stated she is uncomfortable with the density, and that is the bottom line. She said would
feel better if there were two less buildings and more open space.
Mr. Dickerson noted he was uncomfortable with the density until he spoke with Mr. Henrie and Ms.
Baxter. He indicated he would like to see residential developed on this property rather than
commercial, and this project is probably the best the city will get in regards to this property. He
echoed Mr. Seastrand’s compliments on the neighbors and developers working so well together.
Mayor Washburn asked staff what options the Council has in terms of negotiating density for this
project. Mr. Johnson noted the City Council could approve sixteen units per acre or anything less.
Mrs. McCandless asked whether this application would affect the neighborhood north of University
Parkway if the Council wanted to lower the density. Mr. Johnson stated it would have the same
application that the sixteen units would have had.
Mrs. McCandless then said that would not be fair to the property owners on the north side of the
Parkway because they would not have known their density could have been reduced.
Mayor Washburn questioned whether they could limit the density for this project only. Mrs.
McCandless commented that she thinks they could; however, they would have to change the
language in the ordinance. She suggested adding a sentence that would only limit the density south
of 1550 South between Sandhill Road and I-15.
Mayor Washburn asked Mr. Henrie whether they would be agreeable to the limited density. Mr.
Henrie said they could look at the numbers; however, they had previously decided they would not be
interested in anything less than sixteen units per acre. They would be interested in limiting the
density to their property only, which is what they had wanted from the beginning.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.10)
Mr. Seastrand advised that Mr. Henrie had indicated earlier that they could not decrease the density
without reducing the quality of the development. He asked whether the developers could look at a
few minor quality enhancements that would make the lower density more feasible. Mr. Henrie
advised they did not anticipate this type of discussion. They were just prepared for a yes or no vote.
Curtis Livingston, applicant, stated the purpose of this application was for the applicant’s lot. The
important thing to note is the City Council has the ability to limit this request to just this property.
Mr. Johnson noted that they could do that; however, the Council would have to approve future
applications at this same density unless they had a very good reason to deny it.
Mr. Campbell questioned why the Council could not allow a PD zone on this property. He asked
whether they could go back through the process and approve this request as a PD zone. Mr. Johnson
clarified that even if this were to be a PD zone, other neighbors could request a PD zone with the
same density. The Council would have to allow those also unless they had very good reasons for
denial.
Mrs. McCandless moved, by ordinance, to amend Sections 22-7-12(A), 22-7-12(B)(2), and
22-7-12(G)(2) of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards and requirements in the
PRD zone with the changes that a PRD located north of Center Street and between Interstate 15 and
1200 West may be developed at a maximum density of sixteen dwelling units per gross acre. A
PRD located south of 1500 South between Sandhill Road and Interstate 15 may be developed at a
maximum density of twelve dwelling units per gross acre. The density bonus for removing existing
homes would be removed. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Washburn noted the Council is struggling with the global impact of this application. There
would be a huge impact on this area if all of the undeveloped parcels were to go high-density
residential.
Mr. Reams stated when staff looks at the impact they first look at traffic. This application would
have approximately the same impact as a commercial development at this density. The traffic impact
would be lower with a smaller density. It is hard to be exact without knowing what commercial use
would go into that property.
Mayor Washburn suggested changing the density to a maximum of fifteen units per acre and
removing the density credit.
Mr. Campbell moved, by ordinance, to amend Sections 22-7-12(A), 22-7-12(B)(2), and
22-7-12(G)(2) of the Orem City Code pertaining to development standards and requirements in the
PRD zone. Mr. Dickerson seconded the motion.
Mrs. McCandless expressed concern with the other properties along Sandhill Road. The City could
end up with hundreds of units in that area. This change would realistically affect the entire corridor
along Sandhill Road.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.11)
Mr. Seastrand stated the Council could deny the other applications if there is a legitimate reason to
deny. Mr. Johnson clarified that there could be valid reasons for denial; however, none readily come
to mind.
Mr. Dickerson questioned whether Mr. Campbell’s motion was for this property only. Mr. Campbell
stated he would prefer to have it specific for this property.
Mr. Campbell made a substitute motion to include that the amendment was for this property only, the
density would be limited to sixteen units per acre, and the density credit would be removed. Mr.
Dickerson seconded the substitute motion.
Mrs. McCandless expressed her opinion that it is bad public policy to do this.
Mrs. Thurston indicated this reminds her of another part of town that a developer said was difficult
to develop unless there was an increased density. She said she agrees with Mrs. McCandless that the
Council will be opening this up to problems.
Mr. Campbell noted Orem is running out of areas for affordable housing for young married couples
to get started. He said he sees this as one of those opportunities. Mrs. McCandless responded she is
not against affordable housing. She said she is very much in favor of providing affordable housing,
but she is concerned with the wider implication of this application.
Mr. Seastrand expressed there is a greater potential of having a sound barrier wall placed to separate
the area from I-15 if there is residential development rather than commercial. He stated he does not
like the sixteen units per acre; however, he would prefer residential to commercial.
Mayor Washburn called for a vote. Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dickerson,
Mr. Seastrand, and Mayor Washburn. Those voting nay: Mrs. McCandless and Mrs. Thurston. The
motion carried with a majority vote of 5 to 2.
6:15 PM PUBLIC HEARING – Brampton Park
ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of
Orem City by Rezoning Property Located Generally at 1700 South Sandhill Road from
Highway Services and R8 to PRD
Mr. Sainsbury reviewed a request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-5-3(A) of
the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning property located generally
at 1700 South Sandhill Road from Highway Services and R8 to PRD. He advised the Planning
Commission did not give a recommendation due to the lack of a majority vote of 3 to 2.
The applicant request the City Council amend the Zoning Map by changing the zone on 7.91 gross
acres located generally at 1700 South Sandhill Road from R8 and Highway Services (HS) to PRD.
The purpose for this PRD zone is to construct 114 units of condominium housing. Applying the
PRD zone to this property will allow a high-density PRD development with up to sixteen units per
acre.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.12)
The applicants’ proposed development consists of seven buildings of three-story stacked units and
seven buildings of town home-style units. The total number of units is 114 on 7.31 acres or a density
of 15.6 units per gross acre. The applicants desire to condominiumize all units for individual
ownership.
The subject property is located adjacent to Interstate 15. The property to the south is a single-family
residence, which is then adjacent to a PRD development with thirteen town home units at 7.7 units
per gross acre. Property to the east is single-family residential and the property to the north is zoned
Highway Services.
Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the
Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning property located generally at 1700 South Sandhill Road
from Highway Services and R8 to PRD. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion.
Mrs. McCandless commented that she is going to vote aye on this because the Council approved the
previous request. There is a law on the books that states this can happen here, and she said she feels
bound that she needs to do this.
Mrs. Thurston noted she is going to vote no because she wants to stay consistent.
Mayor Washburn called for a vote. Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dickerson,
Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, and Mayor Washburn. Those voting nay: Mrs. Thurston. The
motion carried with a majority vote of 6 to 1.
6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -Northgate
ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of
the City of Orem by Rezoning Property Located Generally at 1023 North 900 West from the R8
to the PD-22 Zone
ORDINANCE – Amending Various Sections of 22-22-35 and Appendix “Q” of the Orem City
Code Pertaining to the PD-22 Zone
Mr. Sainsbury presented a Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council, by
ordinance, amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem
by rezoning property located generally at 1023 North 900 West from the R8 to the PD-22 zone, and
by ordinance, amend various Sections of 22-11-35 and Appendix “Q” of the Orem City Code, as
specified in the ordinance, pertaining to the PD-22 zone.
The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 1,689 square feet of property from the R8 to the PD22 zone. The property is located in the northeast corner of the PD-22 zone. The applicant also
proposes to modify the concept plan in Appendix “Q” to show the additional property.
In addition to the rezone, the applicant proposes several changes to the concept plan and to several
sections of the PD-22 zone. The changes are outlined as follows:
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.13)
1.
Amend the concept plan to add additional property to the residential only area. The
current line separating the residential only area from the commercial area will shift
165 feet to the west to create the additional area. The proposal is a way to offset the cost
of incorporating the large detention area within the open space of Sorrento Village
requested by the City.
2.
The concept plan will also show an access on 900 West between 800 North and
880 North. The current concept plan does not show an access.
3.
Amending a portion of Section 22-11-35(D) of the Orem City Code eliminating
SLU 4712 Cellular Communication Antennae from the permitted uses in the PD-22 zone.
Currently, Article 22-13 Wireless Telecommunications regulates cellular communications
and it is not necessary to list SLU 4712 in the PD-22 zone.
Section 22-11-35(D)
Standard Land
Use Code
-
4.
Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the PD-22 zone:
Category
-
Amending Section 22-11-35(L)(1) of the Orem City Code which shifts thirty-four
residential units from the mixed-use areas to the residential only areas, but will not
increase the overall number of units allowed in the PD-22 zone.
Section 22-11-35(L)(1)
1. Allowable Density for Residential Units.
A maximum of seven hundred (700) residential dwelling units shall be allowed in the PD-22 zone.
These units may be located in the development as follows:
Unit Location
Residential Only Area
Mixed-use Area
Mixed-use Towers Area
# of Units
Up to 430
Up to 112
Up to 158
If the “Residential Only Area” is developed with less than 430 residential units, the difference
between what is developed in the Residential Only Area and 430 may be moved to either the “Mixeduse Area” or the “Mixed-use Towers Area”.
5.
Amending Section 22-11-35(2)(a) of the Orem City Code by allowing the owners of
preexisting cellular monopoles within the PD-22 zone to obtain a conditional use permit
in order to enclose or camouflage an existing monopole and exceed the maximum height
outlined in appendix “Q”
Section 22-11-35(L)(2)(a)
a. Heights. No building roof structure shall exceed the height limitation specified in Appendix Q.
However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may grant a conditional use permit to allow
a stealth facility (as defined in Section 22-13-4) enclosing or camouflaging a pre-existing cellular
monopole to exceed the height limitation otherwise applicable to structures in the zone.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.14)
6.
Amending Section 22-11-35(L)(2)(b)(3) of the Orem City Code by allowing covered
parking closer than twenty feet when the top of the covered parking structure is below the
top of the fence located on the property line.
Section 22-11-35(L)(2)(b)(3)
(3) Parking. No parking area shall be closer than twenty (20) feet to any dedicated street. No parking
shall be located closer than twenty (20) feet to an outside boundary of the PD-22 one (other than a
dedicated street) except in locations where the parking is located at least two (2) feet below the grade
of the adjoining property, in which case the parking may extend to the property line. Covered parking
may be located twenty (20) feet from an outside boundary of the PD-22 zone. However, covered
parking may be located closer than 20 feet to the outside boundary of the PD-22 zone provided that
the top of the structure is lower than the top of the required masonry fence.
7.
Amending Section 22-11-35(L)(4)(b) of the Orem City Code by changing the parking
requirements from a gross floor area calculation to a gross leaseable floor area
calculations.
Section 22-11-35(L)(4)(b)
b. Non-residential Areas. Buildings containing only non-residential uses shall provide five (5) parking
spaces for every one thousand (1000) square feet of gross leaseable floor area.
8.
Amending Section 22-11-35(L)(14)(b) of the Orem City Code by allowing a portion of the
storm water drainage (up to twenty percent) to be located in non-landscaped areas.
Section 22-11-35(L)(14)(b)
b. An overall Storm Water Master Plan is required with the first site plan submitted for approval. At
least eighty percent (80%) of the required storm water detention areas (as measured by capacity) shall
be located within landscaped areas.
Mr. Campbell questioned whether there could be collocators placed on the existing monopole. Mr.
Sainsbury stated that they could add collocators; however, they could not have any new monopoles
in the residential area.
Mr. Seastrand asked whether shifting the residential units would give the applicants more
commercial space. Paul Washburn, applicant, stated they originally planned to have the master
storm detention basin on this portion of the property. Fifty percent of the basin capacity is for the
City of Orem. Shifting those units gives them more money to work with. It is a creative way of
financing the project. The overall density of the project will not change.
Mr. Seastrand questioned the benefit of changing the parking requirements. Paul Washburn noted he
does not like rows of covered parking because it obscures the ability to see the units. The property
has a large grade, and moving the parking cover closer to the fence would make it more “invisible”
to the neighbors looking out their back windows. Paul Washburn then noted it is difficult to
determine the number of needed parking stalls for office buildings. They have found with other
developments in the city that they have an excess of parking. Rather than having empty parking
spaces, they could have more retail space. They only want to change the gross leasable space on the
larger commercial structures.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.15)
Mrs. Thurston asked about the additional access on 800 West. Paul Washburn stated the people
accessing from 900 West would still access it from 880 North. It makes it easier for fire access.
They had a traffic study done with this access and it remains at an “A” level.
Mrs. McCandless questioned what conditions the City Council would put on the camouflaged
monopole. She stated that she does not like conditional uses. Paul Washburn noted they are just
looking at a way to decorate the monopole to make it more attractive.
Mrs. McCandless notes she does not have a problem with allowing this; however, she would rather
have it as a permitted use with the condition that it matches the architectural style of the
development.
Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the Mayor closed
the public hearing.
Mrs. McCandless moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the
Zoning Map of the City of Orem by rezoning property located generally at 1023 North 900 West
from the R8 to the PD-22 zone and to amend various Sections of 22-11-35 and Appendix “Q” of the
Orem City Code, as specified in the ordinance, pertaining to the PD-22 zone with the change that
camouflaging the cell tower is a permitted use, and the architectural style has to match the style of
the PD-22 zone. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston, and Mayor Washburn. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Council took at break at 9:27 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:40 p.m.
6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
RESOLUTION – Approving and Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, Adopting
Compensation Programs, Adopting Fees and Charges, Setting the Property Tax, Franchise Tax,
Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax, Telecommunications License Tax, Transient Room Tax
and E-911 Fee Rates, and Amending the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget
Jim Reams, City Manager, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by resolution,
approve and adopt the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget, adopt the compensation programs, adopt the
fees and charges schedule, set the property tax, franchise tax, municipal energy sales and use tax,
telecommunications license tax, transient room tax and E-911 fee rates, and amend the Fiscal Year
2006-2007 Budget.
On April 24, 2007, the City Council received the tentative budget for the Fiscal Year 2007-2008. A
budget work session was held on May 22, 2007, to discuss the budget. In addition, two public
hearings were held to review CDBG budget requests.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the budget for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 along with the
compensation program and the fees, charges and tax rates of the City. Additionally, the City Council
is reviewing amendments to the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.16)
The national and local economies have continued to follow last year’s healthy upturn, which has
allowed staff to propose a cautiously optimistic budget. With the exception of some minor
adjustments to miscellaneous fees and charges, the only proposed fee increases are in the Water Fund
and the Water Reclamation Fund. Property taxes are not increased, the franchise tax and municipal
energy sales and use tax rates remain at six percent, and the transient room tax stays at one percent.
The telecommunications license tax is reduced from four percent to 3.5 percent and the E-911 fee
drops from $0.65 per month to $0.61 per month. Both decreases are made in accordance with
changes in State statutes.
A $1.00 per month water rate increase for a ¾” meter service (and a proportionate increase for all
other meter sizes) as well as a $0.05 per 1,000-gallon increase is proposed in the Water Fund. This
rate increase is necessary to address the anticipated bond debt service cost for a proposed $4 million
revenue bond proposed in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget and to pay the Jordanelle water
assessment increases.
An inflationary increase of $0.07 per month and a $0.01 per 1,000-gallon in the sewer rate is
proposed in the Water Reclamation Fund to provide additional funds for the Sewer Capital
Improvement Master Plan.
The Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget includes funding for:
 A Development Service Technician to assist customers with zoning and building questions
and applications
 Four Public Safety Officers with paramedic training to staff a fourth ambulance on a fulltime basis
 A part-time benefited Assistant Librarian for the Library Outreach Program Section
 Public Works Technicians for the following functions:
o Street crew
o Concrete crew
o Water distribution crew
o Storm sewer crew
o Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPI) enforcement
Since the presentation of the Tentative Budget, the following changes have been proposed:
 General Fund
o Ambulance Billing Services
$72,000
o Utah Lake Commission
$20,100
o Utah Lake Commission
$1,000

Water Fund
o Increase Water Bond Amount $200,000
The Water Fund is proposing a bond issue to apply $4 million to water line replacements specifically
in areas where road improvements are scheduled. In most of the areas targeted for road
improvements, the corrosion in the soil has led to breakdowns and leaks in these old water lines.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, the City must repair the water lines before the roads are improved in
order to avoid costly, unsightly, and inefficient patches to newly overlaid roads.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.17)
Because of the City’s conservative estimation of anticipated revenues, additional funds are available
in the current year budget (FY 2006-2007) for some one-time building projects. This public hearing
also considers changes to the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget.
Some of the significant projects are:
 Traffic signals
 Renovation of Fire Station #2
 New sidewalks
 Roadside landscape improvements
 Cemetery building, road, and sprinkler upgrades
 Park fence upgrades and replacements
 Park parking lot maintenance
 Miscellaneous facility repairs and equipment
Mr. Reams briefed the City Council on economic conditions.
 Statewide Highs and Lows:
o Record high job growth
o Record high residential and nonresidential construction
o Near record high retail sales growth
o Record low unemployment statistics
o Manpower Employment Survey released June 12, 2007, revealed that Orem
businesses expect to hire at a vigorous pace
 Orem’s expectation of fifty-seven percent of business projecting increases in
their work force outpaces both Salt Lake and Ogden
 Orem placed fifth in the nation in the expectation of hiring
o Sales tax collection growth remains above twelve percent for the second straight year
 Sales tax represents forty-one percent of the current General Fund revenues
Mr. Reams noted staff uses a conservative practice of underestimating income and overestimating
expenditures. Last year they estimated sales tax at just over sixteen million; however, they brought
in over nineteen million.
Mayor Washburn stated it would be interesting to see a report, which shows that the City has
consistently used this as a business practice. He said he would like to see the results of this practice.
Mr. Reams advised they could compile a report for the last three years.
Mr. Reams then reviewed the budget with the City Council. The proposed budget is as follows:
2007-2008 Proposed Budget
2007
General Fund
$42,393,792
Road Fund
2,310,000
CARE Tax Special Revenue Fund
2,150,000
Debt Service Fund
3,569,273
CIP Fund
470,000
Water Fund
7,572,139
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.18)
2008
$45,708,966
2,550,000
1,805,000
3,578,706
470,000
12,439,371
Water Reclamation Fund
Storm Sewer Fund
Recreation Fund
Solid Waste Fund
Fleet Maintenance Fund
Purchasing and Warehousing Fund
Self-insurance Fund
Community & Neighborhood Services Fund
2007
5,938,000
2,635,000
1,506,450
2,975,299
592,995
316,606
1,187,521
____695,674
$74,312,749
2008
6,110,000
2,709,824
1,632,748
3,119,248
618,311
332,809
1,286,144
___721,061
$83,082,188
The major adjustments to the General Fund include:
Personnel
HAY Adjustment
Health Insurance
Development Services Technician
Public Safety Officers (Paramedics)
Assistance Librarian (1/2 Time- Shared with CARE Tax
Total Major Adjustments – Personnel
Operations
Elections
Building Maintenance Costs
Miscellaneous Computer Equipment Replacement
Postage
CEDO Contribution
Total Major Adjustments – Operations
Equipment
Fire Engine #1 Replacement Lease Payment
One-time Cost – New Public Safety Officers
Special Traffic Construction Signs
Vehicle Replacement
Total Major Adjustments – Equipment
Total Major Adjustments – Expenditures
$937,000
345,000
48,822
252,216
__28,260
1,611,298
100,000
90,000
33,000
20,000
_10,000
253,000
80,000
40,000
20,000
128,500
268,500
2,132,798
Mr. Campbell asked how low the annual increase for the employees has been in previous years. Mr.
Reams noted that the increase has gone as low as one percent.
Mr. Campbell questioned whether the four and one half percent increase was for every salaried
employees. Mr. Reams noted this is an average. For some it is a little more and others it is a little
less.
Mr. Campbell then inquired how many salaried employees the City has. Mr. Reams responded they
have approximately 400 full-time and 30 part-time employees with benefits.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.19)
The major adjustments to Other Governmental Funds include:
Road (Excise Tax) Fund
Public Works Technician
Construction Technician
Total Major Adjustment Road Fund
CIP Fund
Fiber-optics Network
Ongoing Tennis Court Rehabilitation
Existing Park Projects
Miscellaneous Building Maintenance and Repair
Total Major Adjustments – CIP Fund
$48,824
__53,477
$102,301
$20,000
75,000
100,000
__49,562
$244,562
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
Revenues
Bond Proceeds
Water Sales
Total Major Revenue Adjustments
Public Works Technician
Mountain Oaks Drive and Miscellaneous Projects
Bond Projects
$4,000,000
__300,000
$4,300,000
$48,824
300,000
_4,000,000
$4,348,824
Water Reclamation Fund
Sewer Service Charge
$50,000
Storm Sewer Fund
Public Works Technician (2)
Solid Waste Fund
$97,648
Appropriation of Surplus
$85,848
Mr. Campbell stated that some advisory commissions spend money for lunches and others do not.
He questioned whether there were guidelines that govern the use of funds. Mr. Reams responded
that it is up to the commission members how the money is used. Some would rather use the funds
for brochures or flags for the cemetery.
Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing.
Seth Perrins, 536 North 1080 East, advised the City Council has done a great job with the budget.
Mayor Washburn closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.20)
Mr. Dickerson moved, by resolution, to approve and adopt the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget, adopt
the compensation programs, adopt the fees and charges schedule, set the property tax, franchise tax,
municipal energy sales and use tax, telecommunications license tax, transient room tax and
E-911 fee rates, and amend the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion.
Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston, and
Mayor Washburn. Those voting nay: Mr. Campbell. The motion carried with a majority vote of
6 to 1.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS
There were no comments on the communication items.
ADJOURN TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Mr. Dickerson moved to recess the City Council meeting and adjourn to a Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Orem meeting. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Black, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston, and Mayor Washburn.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 10:22 p.m. and reconvened at 10:34 p.m.
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS
Mr. Reams noted that Telos has an agreement for open space and they would like to put in a sand
volleyball set in the open space area. The Council agreed to allow the sand volleyball on the
conservation easement.
Point of Personal Privilege
Mr. Campbell noted that he has always been disturbed by elected officials giving themselves a raise,
and that is something he determined that he would never knowingly do. He said his opposition to the
budget is nothing against the other Councilmembers or staff. Mr. Campbell indicated the increase he
receives would go to a charitable organization.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
Mr. Dickerson moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting
aye: Mrs. Black, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dickerson, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston,
and Mayor Washburn. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.21)
Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder
Approved: June 26, 2007
City Council Minutes – June 12, 2007 (p.22)