city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/minutes/ccmin/2001-2050/2012/2012-01-10… · web viewcity of...

CITY OF OREMCITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, UtahJanuary 10, 2012

5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION

CONDUCTING Mayor James Evans

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFF Bruce Chesnut, City Manager; Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager; Paul Johnson, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS

The Council and staff reviewed the agenda items.

CITY COUNCIL NEW BUSINESS

Mayor Evans welcomed Mr. Andersen to the City Council. He then distributed the City Council liaison assignments.

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 James Evans

ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner

APPOINTED STAFF Bruce Chesnut, City Manager; Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager; Paul Johnson, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Chris Tschirki, Public Works Director; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

City Council Minutes – January 10, 2012 (p.1)

INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Preston Bledsoe, Scout Troop 1244

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jamison Fitch, Scout Troop 1244

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Joint Orem/Provo City Council Meeting of November 10, 2011, City Council Retreat of December 8, 2011, and the City Council Meeting of December 13, 2011

Mr. Seastrand moved to approve the minutes of the Joint Orem/Provo City Council Meeting of November 10, 2011, the City Council Retreat of December 8, 2011, and the December 13, 2011, meeting of the Orem City Council. Mrs. Black seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL

Upcoming EventsThe Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet.

Upcoming Agenda ItemsThe Mayor referred the Council to the upcoming agenda items listed in the agenda packet.

Appointments to Boards and CommissionsMayor Evans recommended Teresa Wilkinson-Horn to serve on the Summerfest Advisory Committee.

Mrs. McCandless moved to appoint Teresa Wilkinson-Horn to serve as a member of the Summerfest Advisory Committee. Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

Recognition of New Neighborhoods in Action OfficersNo new Neighborhood in Action officers were recognized.

PROCLAMATION – Human Trafficking Awareness MonthMrs. McCandless read a proclamation for Human Trafficking Awareness Month.

Mrs. Black moved to proclaim January as Human Trafficking Awareness Month. Mrs. McCandless seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the agenda.


Lee Stewart, business owner, complimented the Orem Police Department. He said he has had a business in the city for ten years, and he has always had a good relationship with the police officers.

Tyler Slade, Ken Garff Nissan, expressed concern with the City ordinance concerning signage. He stated he has banner signs at his two businesses, and they brought in over $200,000 in tax dollars last year. He noted if they lost those signs, he would have to “pink slip” seven employees. Many customers that come to their dealership say it was the banner signs that brought them in. He asked the City Council to consider changing the ordinance to allow banner signs.

Lee Stewart, business owner, agreed with Mr. Slade’s comments. He said he does not object to any of the signage he sees in Orem because they are all professionally made. He advised he would like the City to modify the ordinance to allow the banner signs to help businesses. He noted Provo spends a lot of money on buildings; however, in his opinion it is still a “dead” city. He chose to have his business in Orem because it is full of life. The Orem Police Department is different from Provo’s and the people in Orem are different also.

John Lockwood, resident, expressed concern with predatory towing companies. He said his vehicle has been towed a couple of times over the past few years by predatory towing companies. He indicated he does not like that towing companies can own several companies under different names in order to be on the rotation list more. He asked the City Council to look at regulating the towing companies even more.

Carl Thompson, Del Taco, noted his company tries to stay consistent with signage; however, they have a banner sign at their 1055 South State Street location that is attached to a cinderblock wall. It helps increase their business because the building is set so far off the street. He noted the sign is professional looking, and he would appreciate it if the City Council would allow the signs.

Mikle South, resident, noted he appreciates small businesses and expressed that he is not opposed to signage for businesses. However, he would like to make sure the signs are muted and tasteful in order to maintain a calm feel in the city.

Peter Anderson, resident, asked whether the City plans on regulating the Relief Society sisters that advertise their activities on banner signs. He recommended the City place a note in the City newsletter that talks about the problems with signage and ask for more consideration concerning what is being displayed to the public.

Charlene Prettyman, Bead Fairy, indicated her business is located in an older home. She stated she has an A-frame sign on the lawn that advertises her business, and she has a banner sign along the walk way. She has had five different sign companies come out to see how to attach a sign to the building, and none of them had any idea of how to do it. She said if she has to change signs, it would be a big challenge.


Maggie Beasley, resident, thanked the City Council for approving the Human Trafficking Proclamation. She invited the City Council to attend an event that will be held on Saturday, January 14, 2012, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Sweet’s Island Place.

CONSENT ITEMS

There were no consent items.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

6:00 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-14-14 of the Orem City Code to Permit Agricultural Sales in a Residential Zone

Mayor Evans commented that in reading the minutes from previous meetings, this application was important to the late Mayor Washburn. He expressed appreciation to staff and the neighbors for their work in bringing this application forward.

Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director, presented an applicant request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-14-14 of the Orem City Code to permit sales of agricultural produce in a residential zone.

For several years, the applicant has been selling pumpkins and other produce from his residence at 112 West 1600 North. In 2010, Staff received a complaint about the sales causing traffic congestion and presenting a public safety issue. Staff met with the owner at the time and informed him the ordinance required at least two acres for produce sales. In addition to the lot size, the produce had to be grown on site. The applicant was allowed to finish the sales for 2010 but was told he would be prohibited in the future until the Code was amended to permit the use. The applicant then came to the office in September of 2011 to get a business license for sales but was told since he never applied to amend the ordinance he could not sell produce this year. However, the City again allowed him sell his produce this year after he applied for a text amendment to permit such use.

One major change to the current ordinance is to eliminate the minimum of two acres for a lot on which sales take place. The proposal removes any minimum lot size. The second major change is to allow produce grown off-site to be sold. The applicant currently grows his produce in another community and brings it to his Orem residence to sell.

Parking issues caused the complaint to be filed with the City in 2010. Changes to the ordinance would also require the driveway and any adjacent street frontage to remain free of the owner’s vehicles during business hours. This would allow as many parking spaces as possible for the customers.

Positives: Permits secondary income for a short period of time Typically a low impact use Gives legal status to several other lots with produce sales


Negatives: Traffic congestion may occur depending on the intensity of the use Home occupations are not allowed to show items or advertise their business but

produce sales will be permitted to do so Brings commercial activity into residential neighborhoods May open the door to the sale of non-agricultural products Unfair competition with brick and mortar retail uses in commercial zones

Mrs. Black asked whether the business license would require the charging of sales tax. Mr. Sainsbury replied yes. That is one of the main reasons for requiring the permit.

Mrs. Black then wondered why they would allow an eight foot sign. Mr. Sainsbury explained that size was listed in the original ordinance that had the two-acre requirement. Staff did not change the size of the sign for this proposal.

Mrs. Black suggested they change the language to allow for a smaller sign that is not so intrusive in the neighborhoods.

Mrs. Black then questioned why staff removed the requirement that the produce had to be grown by the seller. Mr. Sainsbury advised they tried to keep it open to allow for people to sell items such as pine nuts, which are not generally grown or sold in the city. They tried to make it broad enough to cover all agricultural products. He stated he is also not sure there is a good land use reason to require someone to grow the products themselves.

Mr. Earl agreed that there is no rational basis or land use reason to allow someone to sell products they had grown versus someone who wanted to sell apples that they had bought in Santaquin. There is no difference in the impact those two scenarios have in the city.

Mr. Sainsbury indicated there is also an enforcement issue that goes along with this. It would be difficult to determine what products were owner grown and which were bought.

Mrs. Black said the applicant’s proposal was to have a seasonal market, which would help limit the impact in the city. Mr. Sainsbury explained the challenge with the timing is that the applicant’s proposal was geared for pumpkins. Cherries come on the trees in the first part of July, and they would not be able to be sold. The Council could put a six-month limit on it if they wanted to.

Mr. Sumner noted this addresses residential zones, and he has noticed pine nuts being sold in commercial zones. He asked whether these products can be sold outside of businesses in commercial zones. Mr. Sainsbury stated yes, they can sell whatever they want in commercial zones. The site plan might have to be changed, but that is a separate issue.

Mr. Sumner then indicated the cost of a regular business license is $30.00. He asked why this is only $25.00. Mr. Sainsbury stated staff just picked a number and left it up to the City Council to decide on the actual cost.


Mayor Evans noted the Council can look at the cost while going through the budget process and adjust it if necessary.

Mr. Seastrand advised part of the issue for him is that they typically try to retain a residential feel in the residential neighborhoods and a business feel in the commercial areas. They expect higher traffic numbers in business areas because they are on bigger streets, and there are greater sign issues and parking issues in the commercial environments.

Mr. Sainsbury stated they do allow a lot of home businesses; however, they are typically smaller in nature, and there are restrictions placed on those businesses. He said those businesses have specific limitations such as having no outward appearance of a business. This application is different from those because it is visible to the public.

Mr. Seastrand asked at what point they say a business is too large to be in a residential area. Mr. Sainsbury noted staff understands that this can be an issue; however, they did not know how to limit it.

Mr. Seastrand then questioned how this application helps or hurts other who have a brick and mortar business and does this provide an unfair competition for them. Mr. Sainsbury gave an example of a nursery business many years ago. There was a garden shop in the old Grand Central parking lot that sold trees and flowers. There was also a brick and mortar garden shop on north State Street who paid for the building, put in restrooms, and operated year round. The parking lot business took the cream of the crop off and did not have to go through all of the “hoops” and expense of having a building. That situation was the catalyst for the current ordinance.

Mr. Seastrand wondered whether the current ordinance has some limitation as to the traffic generation or is the only limiting factor that it has to be grown on the owners two acres. Mr. Sainsbury stated it is just requiring it to be grown on the property. There are no traffic limitations.

Mrs. Street asked whether there is anything in the State Code that differentiates between a business and a hobby. Mr. Johnson replied he is not aware of any, but there may be. He said he would be surprised if State law got down to that degree.

Mrs. Street then questioned whether it would be treated different in regards to collecting sales tax. Mr. Johnson replied it might be listed in the sales tax section of the State Code, but he is not sure.

Paul Washburn, applicant’s representative, stated the selling of produce does not have a high mark up, so it does not make a lot of sense for someone to buy it wholesale and then resale it at their home. The heritage of Orem City is agricultural, and it does not hurt the youth to understand that produce is grown locally and does not have to come from a grocery store. He said the Council could approve this application, and they can always change it back if it does not work out.


Bud Durrant, applicant, noted he understands the City wants a business license, and he is not complaining about that. He said he already pays sales tax on the items he buys. He indicated the State Code reads that farmers are allowed to sell their products. He thanked the City Council for their support and for visiting him at his home to discuss this issue. He stated they have not had any traffic problems or accidents from this use in eighteen years.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing.Mark Allen, applicant’s friend, noted Mr. Durrant takes his potatoes to those in need, and people come from different areas to buy his produce. Mr. Allen advised the City should not micromanage the residents, and they should not charge the farmers $25 to sell their pumpkins. He said Mr. Durrant is a magnet in bringing business to the Chevron down the street and the local Dennys restaurant.

Jim Jacob, resident, stated most of his life he has lived on a farm. They raise produce on their farm and sell the produce out of their garage. They have over five acres, so they still have the greenbelt status. He expressed his opinion that people should be able to sell their products without the City regulating them.

Melodee Andersen, resident, said she encourages her children to grow pumpkins during the summer to keep them busy and to help them earn money. She said if they have to buy a business permit for $25 it will be difficult to have them do it because they only make $100. She asked the City Council to reconsider requiring the business license. She asked whether the City was going to charge the lemonade stands and garage sales the $25.

Mayor Evans closed the public hearing.

Mrs. McCandless thanked the applicant and staff for the work that has gone into this application. She stated when this came up, she thought the intent of the ordinance would be to allow people to sell what they grow. However, she understands staff’s reasoning for not requiring that. Mrs. McCandless noted she appreciates the agricultural heritage of the community because she grew up in an area that was very agricultural. She said she is willing to give this ordinance a try, and they can go back and make changes if there are problems. She said she does not think there will be many problems.

Mr. Andersen asked whether businesses selling produce are required to have a business license. Mr. Sainsbury replied they are required to, and that is why staff is proposing the license for this use. It is important for the City to treat everyone the same.

Mr. Andersen asked how many businesses will be getting these licenses. Mr. Sainsbury replied there is no way to know that. This is not a new requirement. The City has always required a business license to sell products in the city. The actual cost for a business license is $70. Staff chose $25 for this ordinance with the thought that the City Council could change it to whatever they wanted.

Mr. Durrant indicated the fruit stands do need to have a business license, and the owners of Verd’s told him that they had to shut down because they were no longer able to make it because


all of their profit was going to the City and State. He expressed his opinion that Orem City has run the fruit stands out of business.

Mr. Andersen indicated something diminimus might be suggested for people who do not sell a lot of items, such as the lemonade stands. Mr. Sainsbury replied the diminimus use is a legal principle that the City follows. The City does not worry about children selling stuff in their own yards. This ordinance is for people who make thousands of dollars from their sales and cause an increase in traffic because of their use.Mr. Andersen asked whether there is a specific amount used to determine a diminimus use. Mr. Sainsbury advised there is not; however, they would know it when they see it. Two children selling lemonade is an obvious example.

Mr. Andersen indicated he needs to know what to tell his wife so they know not to go over $100 if that is the diminimus amount. That is what he is looking for because he will have to go home to explain this.

Mr. Sainsbury stated to him $100 is diminimus. If Mrs. Andersen’s children want to sell $100 worth of pumpkins, he is not going to look at it twice.

Mr. Andersen then joked with his wife in the audience that she would not have to ask him about this later.

Mr. Evans asked why the City requires a business license. Mr. Sainsbury explained State law requires it. Anyone that is going to sell items has to obtain a tax identification number from the State. If Cities did not require businesses to obtain a business license, the State would not have access to their sales tax. The cost for the license is simply the cost the City has in keeping track of the records. It is a fee that the City does not make money from. It just pays for the regulation of the business.

Mrs. Street stated she is still struggling between what is a hobby and what is a business. She would like to do something to distinguish between the two, but she does not know how to do that. She wondered whether there is a State requirement that the City be able to track all of the recreational or hobby sales of agricultural products, yard sales, or selling of the flower bows people make for the hair. She wanted to figure out a way to permit things without discouraging them. She said if a fee is going to be required, she would like it to be nominal. She agreed with Mrs. McCandless that this is an area that she would like to error on the side of doing what makes sense and permitting as many of these activities as they can because they make the community interesting. If it is something that they will have to come back and revisit because they have created an overabundance of these uses, they can look at it at that point.

Mr. Chesnut suggested they define a hobby as something that is done on personal property. One thing they can do with this ordinance is to say that anything that is grown or created on an individual’s own property is exempt from paying the licensing fee.

Mrs. Street stated that is a good idea. The only thing she can see that is outside that boundary would be the selling of pine nuts, which is not a high volume activity.


Mr. Sumner expressed concern that there are many home businesses in Orem, which may be a hobby or a business, that wanted to do things legally so they paid for a business license. He said there should be some sort of equalization and questioned where staff would draw the line.

Mr. Seastrand indicated these things are typically enforced on a complaint basis. He said they could make a determination at that point whether the use is diminimus or not. He then asked Mr. Andersen whether the IRS has a definition that differentiates between a hobby and a business.Mr. Andersen replied for tax purposes, the State Code follows the Federal Code, and if a person has a loss two out of three years, it is defined as a hobby loss, which can be carried over to a year when a profit is made. He noted that does not really help with what they are looking for with the city.

Mr. Seastrand commented that as the Council addresses issues, they have to look at the potential negative impacts and try to find solutions to mitigate the problems, such as an increase in traffic. As staff identified the list of potential negatives with approving this ordinance, it is his intent to minimize the impact to the neighborhoods. He said he does not know if there are many solutions in terms of the traffic, but the City does not want anyone to get hurt. They want the business and to see good things happening in Orem; however, they also want to keep people safe and to protect the surrounding neighborhood.

Mr. Durrant indicated the City Council needs to understand that when people have a yard sale they bought the products they are selling, and they paid sales tax on those products. The farmers have already paid sales tax on everything they buy. They are selling their products to recover their money from the expenses to grow them. They pay sales tax to the State of Utah, they pay property tax, water assessments, spray bills, and seed bills, and they pay taxes on all of those items. As far as having a license is concerned, they already have to have a license to farm and to buy sprays. They also pay taxes on the gasoline used to run their equipment. Mr. Durrant then stated there are more children injured from people backing out of their yards than there has been on the highways. He has been selling his produce for eighteen years, and there has never been an accident near his property. People come from all over to buy his pumpkins, and they spend a lot of money in the city. Mr. Durrant stated he has been fair with the City, and the City has been fair with him. He said he supported Hans Andersen 100 percent in his campaign, and Mr. Andersen has supported him 100 percent in his business.

Mayor Evans indicated they cannot mitigate all of the concerns with traffic; however, they are requiring four off-street parking spaces, which is a start.

Mr. Sumner requested clarification about the sales tax Mr. Durrant said he pays. Mr. Durrant indicated when the other fruit stands buy his pumpkins, they pay sales tax on it. He pays the taxes on everything in order to buy the spray and seeds, and anything over profit he has to pay State and Federal taxes on.

Mayor Evans advised Mr. Durrant is just saying that he pays a lot of taxes during the process of growing his items.

Mrs. Black explained that the person who buys the pumpkins is required to pay the sales tax.


Mr. Andersen moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-14-14 of the Orem City Code to permit sales of agricultural produce in a residential zone. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion.

Mrs. Street asked whether the City Council would want to consider the suggestion of Mr. Chesnut that would exclude hobbies from needing a business license.

Mr. Andersen stated he loves that amendment, and he would accept that as part of his motion. Mr. Seastrand agreed and asked whether there is a specific dollar level that would designate that.Mr. Earl recommended they say that any agricultural product grown on a residential lot of .5 acres or less would be exempt. Anything bigger than that would be more of a commercial operation.

Mrs. Street indicated they could avoid the language of small quantities if they do that so it would not be subject to interpretation.

Mayor Evans asked Mr. Andersen whether he was okay with adding Mr. Earl’s language to the motion. In response to Mr. Andersen’s delay in answering, Mayor Evans asked him if he wanted it to be larger than .5 acres.

Mrs. Andersen, resident, indicated from the audience that it should be bigger.

Mr. Andersen concurred with his wife, because their property is one acre; although, he noted it is more grass than house.

Mayor Evans advised he is fine with that; however, it should less than two acres because that would be getting closer to a commercial use.

Mr. Andersen indicated he is fine with an acre.

Mr. Seastrand clarified that if it is over an acre a business license would be required.

Mr. Andersen and Mr. Seastrand accepted the change to the motion.

Mrs. Black stated she thinks the signage should be smaller than eight foot because that is very intrusive in a neighborhood. Mr. Earl suggested rather than define the height, they can say the total square footage may be ten square feet. That would allow for a reasonable sign.

Subsequent to Council discussion, they concluded that the sign could be no higher than six feet.

Mayor Evans asked Mr. Durrant whether there is a need for an eight-foot sign.

Mr. Durrant said they need a sign adequate for the people to see it. They have to be able to sell their product and advertising is important to do that. He told the City Council to use wisdom in their judgment and their decisions.

Mr. Seastrand noted regardless of the size, it has to be within traffic safety guidelines, so it


cannot be sight-obscuring and cannot create a safety hazard. That mitigates some of the sign issues. He said he does not have a problem with the size of the sign, but if the height is an issue, that can look at that.

Mr. Durrant indicated there are already laws on the books that address signs on corners. There is a setback from the corner of the house to the road. This was put in place for the safety of children. The sign cannot be higher than thirty inches because it cannot be sight-obscuring. The fence cannot be a solid because it has to be see-through so vehicles do not run over someone. He has one sign on a set of hinges that is set back from his sidewalk, and it is taken down each evening. He advised the City Council should keep things simple because it is easier for the residents to understand.Mr. Andersen amended his motion to say the sign can be a maximum of six feet high. Mr. Seastrand seconded the amendment.

Mayor Evans called for a vote. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

6:00 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-11-33(Q) of the Orem City Code Pertaining to Sign Regulations in the PD-21 Zone Located Generally at 1100 South Geneva Road

Mr. Sainsbury presented an applicant request that the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-11-33(Q) of the Orem City Code pertaining to sign regulations in the PD-21 zone located generally at 1100 South Geneva Road. The PD-21 zone applies to the Parkway Crossing student housing development, LDS Church, Holiday Inn Express, but not to the Chevron gas station.

Parkway (Wolverine) Crossing provides housing for Utah Valley University (UVU) students. There are also limited commercial uses catered towards the student population.

The applicant appeared before the City Council on August 9, 2011, to propose amendments to the sign ordinance for the PD-21 zone. At that time, he assumed approval was being granted for a twenty-seven-foot tall sign next to the archway sign. However, the City Council did not review any language to allow the twenty-seven foot high sign but did approve the archway sign. After the City Council meeting, the applicant submitted a sign package for approval including a twenty-seven foot high sign adjacent to the archway sign. Because the Orem City Code does not permit this sign, it could not be approved. The applicant has now returned to propose an amendment to the Code which will permit the additional twenty-seven foot sign next to the archway sign.

Wolverine Crossing starts where 1250 West stops at a T-intersection immediately east of Holiday Inn Express. A sign has been approved at this location which is the parking lot entrance to Wolverine Crossing. This sign will span over the driveway and state “Wolverine Crossing.” Since this is the south entrance to the development, the applicant would also like a sign to advertise the businesses on site. The proposed sign would be just to the west of the archway sign at twenty-seven feet high.

Positives


Provides advertising to commercial uses at Wolverine Crossing

Negatives Adds a fifth pole (monument in text) sign to the PD-21 zone as two are approved

along University Parkway, one along Geneva Road, the archway sign, and now the fifth sign located next to the archway sign

Mr. Seastrand questioned what has changed since the previous discussion about this electronic sign. Mr. Sainsbury stated nothing has changed.

Casey Keller, applicant, indicated he thought this sign was included in his last application but discovered it was not, so he is here tonight to ask for permission to construct this sign. There was some confusion as to the location being on University Parkway; however he does not own any property along University Parkway. His intent is to have it at the entrance to advertise the businesses located within the project.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mayor Evans closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Street stated several of the Councilmembers felt like they had approved this sign previously, but there was some confusion as to the placement of this sign. She said her questions were answered at the last discussion so she is comfortable with this.

Mrs. McCandless noted her feelings toward electronic signs have not changed since the August 14, 2011, meeting. She voted to deny it then because there are many large PD zones in the city, and she does not want to see more of these electronic signs.

Mr. Sumner said he supported this application last time and still feels that the businesses in that location need help.

Mr. Keller indicated that as a result of the proposed signage, they signed another lease that day.

Mr. Seastrand agreed that it is vital that the City do what they can to make this business complex successful. It is an important area of the city in terms of housing and the Intermodal Center. They may see more requests from the other PD zones, and they can look at them, but the signage is a very important component for this area in making the businesses successful.

Mayor Evans asked what can be advertised on the sign. Mr. Keller indicated they would love to see community interest items on the sign. During the last discussion, they talked about allowing Utah Valley University to post their activities on the sign.

Mr. Seastrand stated in the Planning Commission minutes there was a discussion about allowing a business that is not a part of this area to advertise on the sign. The City prohibits off-premise advertising. Mr. Keller indicated he is aware of that restriction and would not allow it.

Mrs. Street moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-33(Q) of the Orem City Code pertaining to sign regulations in the PD-21 zone located generally at 1100 South Geneva Road.


Mr. Sumner seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. Those voting nay: Mrs. McCandless. The motion carried with a majority vote of 6 to 1.

6:15 PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of the City of Orem, Utah, by Changing the Zone from R8 to R8-AG on Approximately Eleven Acres Located Generally at 800 East Center Street

Mr. Sainsbury presented an applicant 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, Utah, by changing the zone from R8 to R8-AG for property located generally at 800 East Center Street.

Tim Crandall operates one of the few remaining orchards in Orem City as several generations of the Crandall family have done. Immediate plans are to keep the orchard in operation. He desires to protect his use of the property by rezoning four parcels totaling over ten acres with the AG overlay zone. The AG overlay zone is used to provide protection and preservation of agricultural uses from nearby residences or businesses, which may file a nuisance complaint against the use.

The purposes of the agriculture overlay zone (-AG) are as follows:1. To encourage the preservation of existing agricultural uses within the city in areas where

residential and agricultural uses are compatible; and2. To provide owners and prospective owners of property located near property in the

agriculture overlay zone with notice of the potential positive and negative effects that may be associated with the agricultural use of the property.

A significant portion of the land within the city was formerly cultivated as fruit orchards. Due to the growth of the city, most of the orchards in the city have now been converted to commercial or residential development. The City believes the existing orchards make an important contribution to the quality of life within the city by preserving open space, by providing diversity in the economy and diversity in the use of land within the city, and by preserving an important part of the heritage of the city. Staff believes it is important to protect and encourage the preservation of existing orchards and other agricultural uses within the city to the extent they are compatible with residential uses. The agriculture overlay zone is designed to encourage the preservation of agricultural uses, especially orchards, within the city.

All uses permitted in the underlying zone shall be permitted in the agriculture overlay zone. In addition, the following additional agricultural uses shall also be permitted in the agriculture overlay zone:

Forestry Orchards Gardening Plant Nursery


The City recognizes the practice of the agricultural uses permitted herein may result in occasional excess light, noise, dust, or smoke. Such occasional excess light, noise, dust, or smoke shall not be considered a nuisance under the ordinances of the City of Orem provided such conditions are occasional and not continuous, are the result of normal and accepted agricultural practices, and do not pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.

If the AG overlay zone is approved, all plats approved in the future within 300 feet of any AG overlay zone will be required to have a note on the plat. The note shall state:

This property is located in the vicinity of an agriculture overlay zone in which certain agricultural uses are permitted. There may be certain negative effects associated with the agricultural practices that may be conducted in the agriculture overlay zone such as excess light, noise, dust, smoke etc. The use and enjoyment of the property included within this subdivision is expressly conditioned on acceptance of any annoyance or inconvenience, which may result from such agricultural uses and activities.

Positives Provides protection of agricultural property from nearby uses Property can still develop with the underlying zone

Negatives None

Tim Crandall, applicant, thanked the City Council for allowing him to be there. He said they have not had any problems; however, a few years ago urban areas started encroaching on farmlands. The City has been very good to help write an ordinance that applies to his property. This is a preventative step to prevent any problems that may come along. He takes great pride in his business and he does not think he has ever had any complaints. He stated his best form of advertisement is the way his farm looks. He is proud to be a farmer and expects to be a farmer for many years to come.

Mr. Sumner asked whether this will affect Mr. Crandall’s ability to develop the property in the future. Mr. Sainsbury stated it will not affect it at all. The property is still zoned R8.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing.

Jim Walker, resident, stated he lives across the street from this beautiful orchard. He said he is in favor of the City Council approving this ordinance. Mr. Crandall has been a good neighbor, and he takes very good care of his property.

Don Reiske, resident, noted he has lived by this orchard for over thirty years, and it has been an outstanding experience to be there. This has been a multi-generational farm and they do an wonderful job in maintaining their property. He encouraged the City Council to pass this ordinance to help preserve agricultural activity within the city.

Mayor Evans 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, Utah, by changing the zone from R8 to R8-AG for property located generally at 800 East Center Street. Mrs. Street seconded the motion.

Mrs. Black said she is in favor of this ordinance. She enjoys driving on 800 East, and she especially likes the hanging flower baskets that Crandall displays on their property. She thanked the applicant for bringing this heritage of Orem to the forefront.

Mr. Seastrand asked why more farmers are not wanting to do this and questioned whether there are any drawbacks to this. Mr. Crandall indicated most of the other farmers in Orem are older than him, so it is a non-issue for them. He does not see any drawbacks to doing this.


MOTION – Lindon Hollow Vineyard Properties LLC Agreement

Sam Kelly, Engineering Section Manager, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by motion, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement between The City of Orem, Lindon City, Pleasant Grove and Vineyard Properties of Utah, LLC deeding land to the three Cities for the purpose of constructing a relocated wetland channel and a maintenance trail. Orem, Lindon, and Pleasant Grove (the Cities) have been working together for about three to four years to finalize a storm water quality plan that meets Federal/State requirements and solves site issues for Vineyard Properties of Utah, LLC (Property Owner). The Cities acquired approximately 13.6 acres of wetland property from Anderson Geneva in September 2009. The existing drainage outlet of the wetland property goes through the middle of the Property Owner’s land. The Cities began a process to locate a new improved wetland channel along the northern boundary of the Property Owner which would be located adjacent to a trail. The property in question is located in the Town of Vineyard.

After numerous design changes and submittals to the Army Corp of Engineers, it was determined that to obtain approval for the project, more land would be needed to widen the wetland channel for a more natural and meandering channel. The Army Corp required a wetland mitigation ratio of two acres of new wetland for every one acre of existing wetland, in order to relocate the wetland channel. The Property Owner has agreed to deed the property to the Cities and has worked with the Cities to obtain Army Corp approval for the design of the relocated wetland channel. The Army Corp approval allows the property owner to fill in the abandoned area of the stream channel which makes this land more usable.

The City feels that it is in the best interest to relocate the wetland channel and acquire the additional property from Vineyard Properties of Utah, LLC to improve water quality of the current storm water and to provide access for maintenance of the channel. Staff recommends the signing of this agreement for the purpose of creating the wetland channel and trail to be jointly owned and maintained by The City of Orem, Lindon City, and Pleasant Grove.


Travis Jockumsen, Engineer, indicated that the current channel is approximately twenty-five feet deep right now, which is one of the things that makes this area inaccessible. It is not possible to get any equipment down in there.

Mr. Seastrand questioned who is responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Kelly indicated it will be jointly maintained by all of the cities involved.

Mrs. Black moved to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement between The City of Orem, Lindon City, Pleasant Grove and Vineyard Properties of Utah, LLC deeding land to the three Cities for the purpose of constructing a relocated wetland channel and a maintenance trail subject to the Phase 1 Environmental Study approval. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION - Authorizing the City Manager to Terminate July 8, 1986, Agreement with the Commission for Economic Development in Orem (CEDO)

Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager, presented a staff request that the City Council, by motion, authorize the termination of the July 8, 1986, operating agreement between the City of Orem and CEDO, effective February 29, 2012. Over the past twenty-five years, the City of Orem, by agreement, has recognized CEDO as the “official economic development arm of the City.” In an effort to be more responsive and proactive in achievement of the City’s economic development goals and objectives, the City Manager proposes that CEDO and its day-to-day operations become part of the City of Orem as a formal division of the City Manager’s Office.

The new Economic Development Division will include two full-time employees, namely CEDO’s current executive director and the organization’s administrative assistant. Moreover, the noted employees will locate to offices at the City Center and will be supervised by the Assistant City Manager. As a result, funding for day-to-day economic development efforts will be transferred to the City and the City will discontinue all service payments to CEDO. It is the intent of the City to use the monies previously allocated to CEDO for operating costs associated with the new City division.

The timing of this transition also coincides with the ribbon cutting of Utah Valley University’s Business Resource Center (BRC). The BRC will serve as the City of Orem’s “official business development resource” and will meet the needs of the community’s business start-up sector. By agreement, the City of Orem will maintain an office in the BRC for the express purpose of developing relationships with business contacts and to encourage businesses that outgrow their respective spaces in the BRC to locate in Orem.

In addition, the City appreciates the service of the CEDO Board of Directors and the commission’s Incubator Committee. Both groups have provided valuable insight into economic conditions in the community, spearheaded important business development opportunities, and monitored CEDO’s on-going operations. Moving forward, 1the City wishes to evaluate how it can best benefit from the talents of those who serve on the CEDO Board of Directors and the Incubator Committee. In addition, as the BRC begins operations, the Mayor has been given


permanent appointments to three ongoing BRC boards and has discussed the possibility of appointing a number of those who are currently serving CEDO to seats on the BRC’s boards, namely the BRC’s (1) Executive Committee, (2) Incubator Board and, (3) Coordinating Council.

Positives Allows for greater oversight and control of the City’s economic development activities. Creates a proactive, coordinated, nimble, and responsive environment for business to

thrive in Orem. Facilitates better coordination among City departments in addressing development

projects and economic areas of focus. Leads to economies of scale in day-to-day business operations.

Provides access to City benefits, such as health insurance and retirement benefits, by current CEDO full-time employees (a concern that has been expressed by CEDO staff and its board in the past).

Creates a “one-stop shop” for retail business retention, development, and recruitment.

Negatives The City will not have a full-time employee located at the BRC. In the short term, some confusion may result from those seeking economic development

assistance (City of Orem vs. CEDO).

Mayor Evans noted the City is fortunate to have Mr. Davidson here to lead these efforts. Mr. Chesnut and the City Council put a lot of confidence in Mr. Davidson and his abilities. Mayor Evans then advised that no one is saying that CEDO was not working. They have done a wonderful job, but this is something that needs to be done in order to move ahead with the City’s current vision.

Mr. Seastrand asked how people will find CEDO now. Mr. Davidson indicated the website and phone numbers will be integrated into the City’s system to allow for continuity. A lot of the challenge they have experienced in the past is businesses not knowing what resources to seek after in terms of the City or CEDO. Staff sees this as a way to build greater continuity and consistency in their operations. This will provide a one-stop shop for economic development within the city that will be a benefit for those wanting to do business in Orem in the future.

Mr. Sumner expressed appreciation for former Mayor DeLance Squire’s vision in starting the CEDO program and for Brad Whitaker’s work with economic development in Orem. Mr. Whitaker has done an outstanding job, and Utah Valley University’s BRC is a great thing for the city. Mr. Sumner then thanked Mr. Davidson for everything he has done to make these changes. .

Mrs. Street stated a lot of great ideas and great companies in Orem were born at CEDO. One of the difficult things is when the companies start here and grow to the point that they leave Orem. She noted their mission now is to try to keep these businesses in Orem and to maintain a good mix of retail and jobs in the city. She thanked staff for making this a priority. This is essential for the city being able to provide the things that make this community the kind of place that it is.


Mrs. Street moved to authorize the termination of the July 8, 1986, operating agreement between the City of Orem and CEDO, effective February 29, 2012. Mrs. Black seconded the motion.

Mr. Davidson indicated they will probably making the move prior to February 29, 2012. He asked whether that change needs to be made in the motion. Mr. Johnson replied he does not think it needs to be changed. They need to give them the sixty day window, and it does not hurt to do it prior to that date.


ORDINANCE – Adopting Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance

Paul Johnson, City Attorney, presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, adopt Section 9-2-14 of the Orem City Code prohibiting aggressive panhandling.

The Department of Public Safety has experienced an increasing number of calls regarding panhandlers being aggressive in their solicitation of money from members of the public. While it is a constitutional right to ask someone for money, if it in any way is threatening or unduly annoying or disruptive it can be prohibited by law. There is currently no law that governs this conduct, and our officers are powerless to do anything about it unless the panhandlers are actually out in the roadway approaching vehicles. Most cities are now adopting an aggressive panhandling ordinance.

The ordinance defines aggressive panhandling as speaking to someone in a manner that causes them fear, following them and persisting in the request for money, blocking a pedestrian or vehicle, making actual physical contact during a solicitation, using threatening or violent gestures during the solicitation, and using abusive language that is likely to provoke a violent reaction. The ordinance also follows State law in prohibiting solicitation on a public street. Non-aggressive panhandling from an area where the panhandler has a right to be is still allowed in keeping with the free speech provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. Johnson indicated there was a question presented through an email earlier that day about a potential interpretation of the ordinance that could be taken as prohibiting soliciting from a sidewalk. That is not the intent, nor is it the way staff is reading the language; however, he would propose that the language be changed to read as follows:

(C) 5. This provision shall only apply to solicitations made from the actual roadway. A solicitor may not stand in the roadway to make a solicitation, nor may a solicitor go into the roadway to receive a donation where he or she has made the solicitation from an area near the roadway. The intent of this provision is that no vehicles be approached for solicitation purposes from the roadway itself, in order to insure that solicitation does not disrupt or obstruct traffic, that no alarm be caused to drivers of vehicles who are stopped for traffic, and that the safety of solicitors may be preserved. It shall not be construed to prohibit the passive solicitation from a sidewalk or other public area near a roadway.


Judy Cox, resident, noted she was the one that sent the email, and Mr. Johnson’s language addresses one of the concerns she had. She questioned whether this language conflicts with the definition listed in the ordinance pertaining to written or printed word. Mr. Johnson stated it is not in conflict because the definition does not prohibit that; it is just saying what the definition is.

Mrs. Black moved, by ordinance, to adopt Section 9-2-14 of the Orem City Code prohibiting aggressive panhandling with the addition of the proposed language from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS

There were no comments on the communication item.

CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS

Mr. Chesnut noted that at the BRC ribbon cutting, they talked with Val Peterson about the historic Bunnell home, and Utah Valley University would like to relocate that as soon as possible. They can move it to Nielsen’s Grove Park or Scera Park. It is less expensive to move it to Neilsen’s Grove, and there is an area for it. Utah Valley University is paying all of the costs involved in the relocation.

Mr. Sumner indicated the SCERA would like it in the Scera Park. He asked how much it would cost to just move it a couple of more miles. Mr. Chesnut indicated it is the cost of going under the power lines. They have to pay a certain amount for each power line they cross.

Mr. Sumner indicated he sees it as more of a draw at the Scera Park. It could be a destination for people. He does not think people will go out of their way to see it at Nielsen’s Grove. The SCERA could do some promoting with it as part of their landscape there. He expressed it is a good fit at Scera Park.

Mr. Seastrand asked what the anticipated use is for the home. It might have a better applicable long-term use at the Scera Park.

Mr. Chesnut stated Utah Valley University will do the footings and make it usable for visitation. There is a potential for an office there or to have meetings there, but it is basically for people to come to see the historic value of the home.

Mayor Evans recommended they ask the moving company how much more it would cost to move it to Scera Park rather than Nielsen’s Grove.

Mrs. McCandless stated Nielsen’s Grove was created and designed based on a historic design by Jorgen Nielsen who had a park and a railroad stop there. The whole intent of that park is to be historical and to remember what was there. They also have a small museum at the park, and the City poured the resources into that park ten years ago to make it a historic area. She sees the site at Nielsen’s Grove fitting in with this concept. She stated she is concerned with putting more


buildings in Scera Park, especially in light of the fact that they will be discussing an arts district in that area. The Scera Park area is more fluid in terms of what is going on down there.

Mrs. Street advised there have been enough questions concerning this idea, that she feels they should have more conversation and discussion about who the home is being donated to, who will bear the responsibility for maintenance, what the use of the building will be, and whether it will be adequately supervised.

Mrs. Black requested clarification that if it is donated to the City it would have to be placed on City property. Mr. Chesnut stated the locations they have looked at are all on City property.

Mr. Sumner said he walks by the home every day, and it is pretty fragile and very small. He asked whether they could bring Adam Robertson, SCERA, in on these discussions. Mr. Chesnut stated they could. Utah Valley University is looking at doing the relocation as quick as possible with the least amount of cost. They approached the City a while ago and asked whether the City would be a partner in helping them relocate this building in Orem. It would be functioning similar to the other historic buildings in Nielsen’s Grove, and it will take some work from the Utah Valley University carpentry school to make it usable. They are willing to do that. Mr. Chesnut noted he will get more information for the City Council.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Sumner moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Seastrand seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder

Approved: January 24, 2012


city of orem - oremcityexe.orem.org/minutes/ccmin/2001-2050/2012/2012-01-10… · web viewcity of...

Documents