CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 28, 1997
6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION
CONDUCTING:Mayor Stella Welsh
ELECTED OFFICIALS:Council members Judy Bell, Tim Christensen, Steven L. Heinz, David K. Palfreyman, Stephen E. Sandstrom
EXCUSED:Council member W. Chris Yandow
APPOINTED STAFF:Jim Reams, Paul Johnson, Ed Stout, Richard Manning, Phil Goodrich, Melody Downey, and Donna Weaver
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Doug Lunt
INVOCATION: Troy Walker
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
Time was allotted for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the agenda.
Jeff Duke of Trammel Crow referred to a request for a conditional use permit for a project on Sandhill Road that had been denied in the January 7, 1997 meeting. He said they had done the following since the meeting: (1) reduced the tandem parking spots, (2) resubmitted the plan to the City, and (3) started negotiations with the neighbor on whose property 1430 South would be constructed. The DRC had suggested they not be allowed to go back to the Planning Commission until they completely removed the tandem parking, and agreed to pay for all the costs associated with extending the additional 400 feet of 1430 South, which required purchasing the house in that area. Mr. Duke concluded by asking if the City Council could direct the DRC or the City Manager to allow them to go back to the Planning Commission and start the process.
Mrs. Welsh replied that this issue was addressed in a letter that Mr. Duke will receive in the next few days.
When Mr. Heinz noted that he had not seen the letter, Mrs. Welsh told him she had a copy he was welcome to read. She said the item would not be discussed in this meeting.
Mr. Sandstrom asked if this item had to go back to the DRC, as he thought it was just to go back to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Welsh responded that the motion had been to deny the project; there was no motion to take the project back to anything.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
Mrs. Bell commented that she had made the motion to deny the proposal, and if they want to go forward, they need to go through the proper procedures as with a new project. She said she wanted to make it clear that she would not vote for anything that had the City of Orem participating in a road for a private development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Meeting of January 14, 1997
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of January 14, 1997. Mr. Palfreyman seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Bell, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Palfreyman, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mrs. Welsh. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR=S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Upcoming Events
Mayor Welsh referred the Council to the upcoming events listed in the agenda packet. She encouraged Council members to RSVP to those items requesting it.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Mrs. Welsh recommended that Aaron Inouya at 868 South 300 West be appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Mr. Palfreyman moved to approve the appointment. Mr. Heinz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Bell, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Palfreyman, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mrs. Welsh. The motion passed unanimously.
PRESENTATIONS - Centennial Homes - Carol Walker
Carol Walker, representing the Centennial Commission, and Bruce Westergren, representing the Historic Preservation Commission, introduced the four homes being recognized as ACentennial Homes.@ Mrs. Walker expressed gratitude to the other members of the Commission for their hard work and research in choosing the following homes:
1.Thru the Grapevine, located at 212 S State.
2.Planted Earth Floral, located at 440 South State.
3.Christensen Home, located at 426 West 400 South.
4.Bunnell Home, located on the UVSC Campus.
The owners of the aforementioned homes were presented with a commemorative plaque by Mayor Welsh. Descendants of the original families were also recognized.
Mrs. Welsh thanked the Committee, saying it was important for the community to know their heritage.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
CITY MANAGER=S APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Reams requested the advice and consent of the Council for the appointment of Gary Wise to serve as a member of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Palfreyman moved to appoint Gary Wise to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Bell seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Bell, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Palfreyman, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mrs. Welsh. The motion passed unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
SET PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Section 22-4-3(A) - Conditional Use Permits - February 25, 1997 - 6:15 p.m.
SET PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Article 19 and Appendix A - Standard Land Use Code 6833 - Barber and Beauty School - PLANNING COMMISSION-2 Zone - February 25, 1997 - 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Palfreyman moved to change the time of the public hearing for Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Article 19 to 6:20 p.m. and approve the Consent Items. Mr. Heinz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Bell, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Palfreyman, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mrs. Welsh. The motion passed unanimously.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE - Subdivision Ordinance Amendment - Section 17-8-1 - Deep Lot Development.
Mr. Stout reviewed with the Council the Development Services recommendation that Section 17-8-1, Deep Lot Development, of the Orem City Code be amended by adding the following subparagraphs:
D.The minimum setbacks for the main buildings on a deep lot shall be defined as follows: The setback from any given lot line shall be at least equal to the minimum required setback of the main building on the adjacent property, from the lot line dividing the two properties.
E.The preliminary and final plats submitted, shall delineate the total buildable area on each deep lot, according to the setback requirements defined above.
F.Accessory structures for deep lots may be permitted in accordance with Section 22-6-8(B).
Mr. Stout explained that in the past, because the ordinance was not specific in that area, some homes had been built closer to the property line than adjacent property owners had liked. This amendment would also provide that the preliminary and final plats that are submitted would delineate the total buildable area on each lot according to the setback requirements.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
When Mrs. Welsh questioned if a garage on the main lot--not the lot being developed--would have to be set back no further than the house or main building, Mr. Stout responded that was correct. The setback was directed by the main structure where the people lived.
Mayor Welsh opened the public hearing.
As there were no comments, Mrs. Welsh closed the public hearing.
When Mayor Welsh invited discussion from the Council, Mrs. Bell said she wanted to let the public know why the Council was for or against an ordinance. She stated that this change would protect neighbors in the rear so a building couldn=t be built on a deep lot right next to their property. She said that she wholeheartedly supported it.
Mr. Palfreyman moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 17-8-1, Deep Lot Development, of the Orem City code as proposed. Mr. Heinz seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Mrs. Bell, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Palfreyman, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mrs. Welsh. The motion passed unanimously.
6:20 PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION - Rezone and Site Plan Approval - Orem Health Care Center - 1000 North 800 West - R-1-8-HO.
Mr. Stout presented to the Council a request by The Orem Health Care Center to amend the approved site plan for their facility by increasing the number of parking stalls by 106. This would extend the parking lot to within 40 feet of the north property. A 7-foot high fence would be constructed of masonry 3 feet high, with 4 feet of wrought iron above it. Mr. Stout reminded the Council that when the hospital first came before them, the site plan had been approved with a provision for leaving a 100-foot strip along the south side of 1000 North in the R-1-8 zone to act as a buffer.
Mayor Welsh turned the time over to the representative for The Orem Health Care Center, Mr. Massey, for his comments. He remarked that they had originally proposed a solid masonry wall, but after meeting with the Planning Commission, the proposal had been changed to show a masonry wall of three feet, topped with four feet of wrought iron. Their feeling had been that it would be more esthetically pleasing, and that the neighbor=s concerns about safety issues with a solid wall could be alleviated. Mr. Massey stated that the landscape drawing had been sent to the individuals who attended the neighborhood meeting and to Bob Moore.
Responding to a query from Mrs. Bell about how many people had attended the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Massey replied that perhaps eight to ten or more residents had attended the meeting as well as Mr. Moore, representing the City. He said that the neighbors had expressed the following concerns: (1) berming, (2) security, (3) the Center=s ability to maintain the 100-foot strip appropriately, and (4) proposed vegetation for safety reasons. He stated that he had felt they had come to a good compromise after the meeting. He concluded by saying that a solid masonry wall would still abut all the residential homes.
Mrs. Welsh opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
Robert Wright, 1010 North 700 West, read a petition signed by 145 people residing within a five-block area surrounding the hospital. The petition listed the following concerns:
1.The 100-foot buffer zone, which had been approved unanimously by the Council, was being reduced to 40 feet.
2.If the original presentation by the Hospital had included sufficient parking, why was the hospital now asking for more parking?
3.The residents were concerned about the safety of children and the intrusion on their privacy.
4.If a change to the previous decision--acceptable to the neighborhood residents--was approved, they were requesting that a 7-foot masonry wall be constructed along 1000 North.
5.They were also requesting that the 7-foot masonry wall be extended to include the entire East and North property lines, running adjacent to existing neighborhood residences.
In addition to the petition, Mr. Wright added concerns about (1) the need for construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the 7-foot wall around the property line; (2) the dust problem in the unlandscaped area; (3) the change in the proposed fence from solid masonry to a combination of masonry and see through Acorrugated iron@; and (4) the newly proposed fence would give no protection from stormy weather, parking lot and automobile lights, garbage or ambulance activity, and would present a climbing temptation to youth. Mr. Wright ended his statement with another issue relating to the need for a four-way stop at the intersection of 1000 North and 800 West.
An unidentified woman remarked that she had not been happy about the hospital from the beginning. There were meetings held, however, and she had become resolved to it, hoping that homes would be built in the 100-foot setback. She soon realized the hospital was not going to put in homes, but they would build the fence and put in safe landscaping. She continued, saying that when she had come to the Planning Commission meeting, the City--not the hospital--had denied the solid fence. She stated that she didn=t want to see into the parking lot and preferred the 7-foot solid fence. In conclusion, she said that the neighbors had thought they had been working well with the hospital, but the City had interfered.
Al Spencer vehemently expressed concerns that (1) his family couldn=t use the facility; (2) the integrity of the hospital was in question since they had come forward with a proposal different from that which had been agreed upon with the neighbors; (3) he had not received notification of the meeting, but had coincidentally seen it while driving by the fence on which it was posted; and (4)if additional parking was needed, why didn=t the hospital buy the orchard on the other side? He stated that he wanted the hospital people to go back to the original agreement and put homes in the 100-foot strip. He concluded by saying that the hospital should stick by the agreement or tear it down.
Ken Cuthbert, residing at 967 North 680 West on the east side of the hospital property, voiced concern for safety in relation to a piece of plywood with electrical apparatus on it that sticks up. He said it was difficult to see to the left because of the wood, and he didn=t want to see the property rezoned until the electrical hookup was fixed. He also said that while the decorative metal fence might look better, it could create problems with kids climbing it and being injured.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
Thad Adams, residing at 695 West 1000 North, remarked that his biggest concern was that when he had met with the hospital representatives, he had thought there was understanding and good will. He said he had understood from the meeting that (1) the solid fence would provide people living adjacent to the hospital with a visible barrier that would eliminate the view of the hospital and its activities; and (2) the concern of the neighbors about the security issue could be handled by calling the hospital, who would have security people available to handle it. Mr. Adams stated that he could live with changing the distance of the setback but not the kind of wall.
Joy Walsh, a school bus driver in the area, voiced concern that students late for school would be tempted to go through the hospital to make up time, and she did not think people in the parking lot would be looking for kids cutting through it. A solid fence would act as a deterrent.
Lynn Cooey, who didn=t live in the area, said he drove daily to Salt Lake through an area with a solid fence. Several times he had observed kids walking across the top of it and seen police chancing them down. He would suggest a fence that was not tempting to kids.
Mark Walsh, whose backyard abuts the hospital, said that ever since the trees had been removed, the area had been ruined. He wanted to keep the hospital on one side and the neighborhood on the other side of a solid wall, because he=s tired of the noise, dust, and sight of the hospital.
In his response, Mr. Massey addressed the following:
1.The power connection was temporary, but the hospital would work with the power company to resolve that issue.
2.The discussion about the wrought iron fence came from the Planning Commission.
3.Graffiti paint would be used on the entire wall, regardless of the size.
4.Construction of the fence could begin as soon as approval was received.
5.Mr. Massey affirmed that he had sent notification of the meeting out to the neighbors, based on a list provided by the City planning people.
6.The hospital would build the kind of wall the neighbors wanted.
In response to a statement by Mr. Wright that there should be a wall along the west property line because of the new residential development to the west, Mrs. Welsh said she would be concerned it would obstruct the view for drivers exiting the hospital.
Mr. Sandstrom commented that he had spoken with several people about a possible graffiti problem being resolved with the wrought iron fence, and he didn=t believe it was an issue because there are some good graffiti paint products available. He said that he had spent some long nights with the neighbors and was the one that proposed the 100-foot buffer as a compromise. He said he had given the neighbors his word to support their wishes. While he thought a 40-foot landscaped strip could look beautiful, he couldn=t, in good conscience, go back on something for which he had personally committed.
City Council Minutes - January 28, 1997 (p.1)
Mr. Palfreyman stated that he agreed with Mr. Sandstrom, and while the Planning Commission said a wrought iron fence would be better for the neighbors, he would prefer staying with the solid wall.
Mrs. Bell inquired about what had brought about the change. Did the hospital require more parking? Would both sides of the fence be landscaped?
Mr. Massey responded that the additional parking would not be constructed, and the area left green, until the parking was needed. He reminded the Council that in the original discussions with the neighbors there was concern about encroachment by patrons of the hospital onto neighborhood streets for parking. He felt that this was a reasonable compromise. If the parking was not needed, it wouldn=t be built. The hospital wanted to do what was in the best interest of the neighborhood and the hospital.
Mrs. Bell commented that the proposal created a dilemma for her. While she felt that adequate parking was important, she was torn between additional parking and her commitment to the neighbors. She stated that she disagreed with the Planning Commission recommendation and thought beauty was in the eye of the beholder. She said a solid wall was the best buffer for noise and sound, and the original proposal was best. She asked why the hospital would never consider the buffer property for residential homes.