CITY OF OREM - OremCityexe.orem.org/minutes/CCMin/2001-2050/2012/2012-09-11… · Web viewKarl...

CITY OF OREMCITY COUNCIL MEETING

56 North State Street Orem, UtahSeptember 11, 2012

4:00 P.M. WORK 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; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

DISCUSSION – Orem Arts CouncilLouise Wallace, Library Director, recognized the members of the Orem Arts Council present--Ray Smith, chair; Deborah Escalante, vice chair; Diane Asay; Kathie Debenham; Elizabeth Farnsworth; Eric Fielding; Cody Hale; and Debbie LaRae. Mrs. Wallace indicated there are thirteen members on the Orem Arts Council; however, not everyone could be here today.

Ray Smith said the City Council adopted the Cultural Arts Strategic Plan in 2006, and by Orem City Code, they have to revisit it every five years. Mr. Smith then reviewed the proposed plan, which included:

Strategy #1o Refining and strengthening the role of the Orem Arts Council

Formally adopt an expanded role for the Orem Arts Council through changes to the Orem City Code

Strengthen the Orem Arts Council with the appointment of additional engaged, contributing members with adequate additional training

Provide better funding to support the accomplishment of the purposes and initiatives of the Orem Arts Council

Hire a full-time (or if necessary as an intermediate step, a part-time) professional level executive director for the Arts Council, establishing an arts department or section in the City organization. The growth they need and foresee will require a dedicated Director of the Orem Arts Council that can spend the time needed for networking, grant writing, fundraising, organizing, promoting, etc.

o Develop cultural arts facilities as a landmark attraction for the city and region, establishing Orem as a leader in promotion of the arts

City Council Minutes – September 11, 2012 (p.1)

o Expand awareness of and involvement in the arts, and increase support for and sustainability of the arts in Orem

Mr. Smith indicated the Orem Arts Council is aware of the current financial restraints the City has, and they are not expecting anything soon. However, they would like to keep that in the plan for the future.

Mayor Evans questioned if the Orem Arts Council members could see themselves assisting with the CARE Tax allocation process, for at least the mini grants.

Mr. Smith indicated they have had this discussion, and they do see themselves in that role. However, some members of the Orem Arts Council have conflicts of interest as they are Major Grant applicants.

Strategy #2o Develop cultural arts facilities which will serve as a landmark attraction for the

city and region, and establish Orem as a leader in support and promotion of the arts

a) establish a district for the arts near 720 South, with SCERA at the hub and with additional facilities to support performance, display, and educational outreach for the arts. Because of its historic value, the SCERA building should be preserved and fully utilized. We see this “720 Arts District” as fully compatible with the other efforts to build up the arts in Orem. It will be a major anchor for arts and arts education in Orem, while other anchors will include The Center for Story and all the Orem Public Library offerings, the Stage at City Center Park, Hale Center Theater Orem, Woodbury Art Museum, Mt. Timpanogos Park, and Ragan Theatre and Noorda Regional Theatre Center for Children and Youth at Utah Valley University. Each venue adds its own unique dimension to the cultural arts offerings that span the length and breadth of our city.

They recommend that the City Council: Establish a Strategic Planning Committee to work with the Orem

Arts Council to develop a Master Plan for an arts district near 720 South

Determine how development of this district can be accomplished , including whether the project will be a SCERA (private nonprofit) arts district, an Orem City (owned) arts district, or an area zoned for arts and eventually populated by various private businesses and organizations, or a combination of all three approaches, They urge a study of the possibilities and an action plan to begin moving this work along

b) support the renovation and expansion of SCERA’s grand theatre to become a performing arts venue and a home for local and regional performing arts entities;

c) support the renovation/expansion/building of a proper facility for Hale Center Theater Orem;


d) support building the Center for Story;e) exhibit art in public spaces, including beautifying the City by

placement of sculpture; and continue to augment the City’s art collection by purchase and juried donation;

f) improve and utilize public spaces, including Orem City parks for arts events, concerts, exhibitions, activities, and community cultural festivals;

g) explore the possibility of developing a home for the Colonial Living History group;

h) support the construction of a fine concert hall in Orem; and,i) support and coordinate with Utah Valley University in its arts facility

development and programming in the arts.

The City Council and Orem Arts Council discussed utilizing an Economic Development District (EDD) or Community Development District (CDD) to help pay for some of the improvements. They talked about expanding the area to larger than 720 South. They agreed it would be helpful to dream big and have a plan in place.

In response to a query from Mr. Chesnut about the make-up of the Strategic Planning Committee, Mr. Smith said the Orem Arts Council wants to be a part of it. They would like to have community members who have an interest in this as part of the committee. The Orem Arts Council does have some recommendations for this committee that they will provide to the City Council.

Ms. Farnsworth asked Mr. Andersen how he feels about a move-forward plan. Mr. Andersen replied that he is still in his learning curve. However, he agreed that the City Council could do something with zoning to help move this forward right now, especially if there are people interested in building something.

Mr. Chesnut said they have talked about the EDDs and CDDs, which are good finance tools to use for development. All cities use these tools to provide incentives to make the development happen.

Mrs. Street stated there are some people who are philosophically opposed to providing incentives. The City Council members need to decide if they are willing to incent the type of development they want and, if so, they need to educate and advocate for that.

Strategy #3o Expand awareness of support for, and involvement in, the arts in Orem

Provide funding to increase marketing and advertising efforts for Orem arts events

Support and participate in county and state associations and the Utah Valley Convention Visitors Bureau to increase advertising for and support for the arts

Develop a branding that promotes Orem as a destination for arts, storytelling, and culture


Recognize outstanding achievements in the arts including awards for significant contributions to the arts in Orem by arts educators; outstanding achievements by Orem’s students of the arts, and excellence achieved by Orem’s professional artists

Encourage the renewal of CARE in 2013. Many residents have experienced the tremendous benefits of CARE without even knowing it was CARE that made this possible CARE has done much good for the community, and yet so much more can yet be accomplished. They realize that they cannot actively proselyte for the tax, but they can make sure in all events that the public is aware that they are witnessing the benefits realized from the CARE Tax

Mrs. Black asked, for the record, if the Orem Arts Council members were unanimous in these recommendations. She was told they were.

REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS

The Council and staff reviewed the agenda items.

CITY COUNCIL/STAFF NEW BUSINESS

Councilmember BlackMrs. Black reviewed what the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) is working on for the interim agenda, which included:

Billboardso Cities maintaining local control

Referendum issues o Timing o Number of signatures

Fireworks o Encourage more local control

City Manager ChesnutMr. Chesnut indicated Mr. Manning and Mr. Davidson have spent many hours working on the UTOPIA issues. It will take some time to get all of the information the City Council has requested, and then staff will schedule a work session to review with the Council all of the options.

Councilmember McCandlessMrs. McCandless briefed the Council on an email she is going to send them in reference to the recent Truth in Taxation. She said there was a traffic accident in front of her home, and many Public Safety vehicles responded. One of the vehicles was the K-9 unit. The rear of the vehicle was rusting, and the paint was gone in areas. The officer told her it was the same situation with many of the patrol cars, and the officers have tried to use white tape on their vehicles to make them look better. She said she took pictures and would be emailing them to the Council.

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; Greg Stephens, City Attorney; Richard Manning, Administrative Services Director; Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director; Mike Larsen, Public Safety Director; Karl Hirst, Recreation Director; Donna Weaver, City Recorder; and Rachelle Conner, Deputy City Recorder

INVOCATION / INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT Kendall Jefferson

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Samuel Ashton

Point of Personal Privilege Mayor Evans indicated the student body at Utah Valley University had an opportunity to listen to a firefighter talk about his experience on 9/11. Mayor Evans invited those present from the Public Safety Department to stand to be recognized. The Mayor thanked the Public Safety officers for their service to the residents of Orem. He presented them with a smalls statue in recognition of their service.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Meeting of August 28, 2012Mrs. McCandless moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2012, 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 CommissionsThere were no new appointments.


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

REPORT – Historic Preservation Advisory Commission – Lon BowenLon Bowen, chair, introduced commission members--John Baxter, Jay Buckley, and Kelvin Clayton. Mr. Bowen then reviewed what the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission has been working on with their responsibility to try to keep the historic sites in Orem. They receive money from the City and the State for historic preservation, and this year they have worked on the following:

385 North 1200 East – Intensive Level Survey 1606 South 800 East – Intensive Level Survey 15 South 800 West - Intensive Level Survey Nominate a home for the National Historic Register

Mr. Bowen noted they have put together a booklet that includes all of the homes that are on the National Historic Register and all of the homes they have done the Intensive Level Surveys on. The booklets are free of charge and can be found at the Orem Public Library. Mr. Bowen then reviewed the history of the Nielsen’s Grove Park.

Historical 1939 Radio Address – LaDell GillmanLaDell Gillman read from a speech his father gave over the radio in 1939. The speech addressed how fast the Town of Orem was growing and expressed appreciation for the forward thinking of the leaders at that time in addressing water needs for the future.

CONSENT ITEMS

Mrs. Black moved to approve the following consent item. 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.

MOTION – Cancel the September 11, 2012, City Council Meeting

SCHEDULED ITEMS

6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE – Amending Sections 14-2-5, 14-3-2, and 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code Pertaining to Sign Regulations and Requirements

Stanford Sainsbury, Development Services Director, presented a staff request that the City Council consider amending Sections 14-2-5, 14-3-2, and 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code relating to portable sign requirements for commercial and industrial zones.This item was heard by the Planning Commission May 2, 2012. The Planning Commission continued the item to May 16, 2012, to allow more time to study the issue and discuss options relating to the proposed ordinance. As part of the discussion, staff provided sign information from six cities including Lehi, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Provo, and Spanish Fork outlining how each regulate similar types of signs. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning


Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed amendments with the exception of the amendments relating to vehicle signs and vehicle transported signs and the clarifications of the definitions relating to vehicle and vehicle transported signs.

Banner signs and other types of temporary signs are popular ways for local businesses to advertise their wares to the traveling public. However, Orem City Code does not currently allow banner signs or other types of signs, including A-frame signs, to be displayed on any lot in the city unless attached to the wall of the business. Staff has received complaints in the past from residents concerning the negative impact these signs can have in the community. With the downturn of the economy, staff noticed many of these types of signs popping up all over town advertising the local businesses in landscape strips and in other areas on commercial properties. Staff sought direction from the City Council concerning the issue of enforcement of the current laws versus the need to potentially make modification to the current ordinance to allow struggling businesses more options in advertising.

After receiving input from several businesses within the city concerning the need to maintain banner signs and other types of portable signage as a viable option for local businesses, the City Council directed staff to organize a committee (made up of local business representatives, Steve Densley, President of the Chamber of Commerce; and Michael Walker from the Orem City Planning Commission) to review the current sign ordinance relating to banner signs and propose amendments regulating the apparent need for portable type signs for local businesses.

After several meetings with the committee, an ordinance was prepared that addresses the needs of businesses to use portable type signs to advertise and promote their businesses.

The proposed ordinance includes new language defining portable signs as A-frame signs, T-frame signs, banner signs not attached to a building wall, reader board signs, and hand-held signs. New requirements regulating portable signs include the following:

1. Portable signs are permitted in the commercial and industrial zones;2. Must be attached to temporary signs posts within the parcel or located on an existing

fence or permanent structure or private light pole;3. One portable sign is allowed per parcel. In addition, one additional portable sign is

allowed for every hundred feet of public street frontage with a maximum of four (4) portable signs per street frontage;

4. A portable sign shall have a maximum size of fifty (50) square feet, except for A-frame signs;

5. A portable sign may not be located in a clear vision area, and not be attached to telephone poles, utility poles, or public light poles;

6. Portable signs shall be maintained in a neat and attractive condition; and7. Must be sufficiently secured.

In addition to the portable sign requirements A-frame sign requirements are also specified which include:

1. A-frame signs may not exceed forty-eight inches in height by forty-eight inches wide;2. A maximum of one A-frame sign per lot that must be placed in front of the business; and3. A-frame signs may only be permitted during business hours.


Additional definitions for hand-held signs, vehicle sign, and vehicle-transported sign are proposed. Vehicle signs and vehicle transported signs are becoming popular within the city, and the current sign ordinance does not adequately address these types of signs. As part of this amendment, staff provided the definitions and regulations addressing the vehicle sign issues.

The proposed ordinance states: “Vehicle signs are permitted except when the vehicle on which they are located is driven or parked for the principal purpose of displaying the sign, in which case they are not permitted” and “Vehicle-transported signs are not permitted”. After reviewing the proposed ordinance, staff has listed advantages and disadvantages concerning the proposed request.Advantages:

Allows additional sign options for commercial and industrial businesses in the C2, C3, M1, M2, and HS zones

Additional signs increases the potential for retail sales thus helping the viability of the business

Helps business owners increase exposure for their business. Limits the use of vehicle signs

Disadvantages: The change could increase the amount of signs located in front of each business Increases the sign clutter along commercial and industrial corridors The increased signs will give the city a feel that might discourage new businesses from

coming to Orem

The proposed amendments to Sections 14-2-5, 14-3-2, and 14-3-3 are outlined below:

14-2-5. Prohibited Signs.The following signs are prohibited in the City except as otherwise expressly permitted in this

Chapter.1. Abandoned signs2. Motion Signs.3. Off-premise signs.4. Roof signs.5. Temporary signs.6. Vehicle-transported signs.

14-3-2. Definitions. A-frame sign: Any sign composed of two (2) sign faces mounted or attached back to back or a sign

structure built in such a manner as to form a basically triangular vertical cross section through the faces or structure. For purposes of this Chapter, T-frame signs shall be regulated as if they were A-frame signs.

Hand-held sign: A sign that is held by a person. Portable sign: Any sign that is not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure.

Portable signs include A-frame signs, T-frame signs, banner signs not attached to a building wall, reader board signs, and hand-held signs, but do not include balloon signs, pennant signs, flags, vehicle signs, or vehicle-transported signs.

Reader board sign: Any portable sign with changeable copy. Vehicle sign: A sign attached to or painted on a vehicle including but not limited to automobiles,

trucks, trailers or boats, where the vehicle is visible from a public right-of-way.


Vehicle-transported sign: A sign that is located on or carried by any vehicle, including but not limited to automobiles, trucks, trailers or boats, where the sign is not painted on or permanently affixed to the vehicle and the sign is visible from a public right-of-way.

14-3-3. Specific Regulations by Sign Type.Portable Signs: 1. Portable signs are permitted in the C1, C2, C3, HS, M1, and M2 zones as well as all

commercial PD zones. The following regulations shall apply to all portable signs in commercial and industrial zones:

a. Portable signs do not require a sign permit.b. Portable signs other than A-frame signs, hand-held signs, and reader board signs

must be attached to temporary sign poles within the parcel area, or be located on an existing fence or permanent structure such as a service station canopy or private light pole.

c. One portable sign is allowed per parcel. One additional portable sign is allowed for every hundred feet of public street frontage with a maximum of four portable signs allowed for any one parcel. For example, if a parcel has 150 feet of public street frontage, two portable signs would be allowed on the parcel.

d. A commercial complex may have one portable sign for every hundred feet of street frontage with a maximum of four portable signs for each street frontage.

e. A portable sign shall have a maximum size of fifty (50) square feet, except for A-frame signs which are limited as described below.

f. Portable signs may not be located in a clear vision area as defined in this Chapter and may not be placed in such a way as to obstruct the vision of any motorist from seeing any traffic or traffic control devices.

g. Portable signs shall not be attached to or placed between telephones poles, utility poles, or public light poles.

h. Portable signs shall not be placed on the roof of any building.i. Portable signs shall be maintained in a neat and attractive condition. Torn or

frayed portable signs are not allowed.j. Portable signs must be sufficiently secured so that they won’t readily fall or blow

over or otherwise create a hazard to persons or property.

2. In addition to the requirements stated above, the following additional provisions shall apply to the following specific types of portable signs:

a. A-frame signs.i. A-frame signs may not exceed forty-eight (48) inches in height by forty-eight

(48) inches in width.ii. Only one A-frame sign is allowed per business and may only be placed in the

front of the business. A-frame signs may be placed on a public sidewalk so long as they do not obstruct pedestrian travel.

iii. A-frame signs may only be displayed during business hours.b. Banner signs. Banner signs must either be placed in accordance with the

requirements for portable signs or be placed in accordance with the requirements for wall signs. c. Reader board signs.

1. Reader board signs may only be used for a period of not more than thirty (30) days per calendar year.

2. Reader board signs must be placed a minimum of ten feet (10’) from a public right-of-way.

3. Reader Board signs are permitted in the C2, C3, M1, M2 and HS zones.

Vehicle signs: Vehicle signs are permitted except when the vehicle on which they are located is driven or parked for the principal purpose of displaying the sign, in which case they are not permitted.

Vehicle-transported signs: Vehicle-transported signs are not permitted.

Mr. Sainsbury reviewed what some other cities in the county do in terms of banner signs.


Mrs. McCandless questioned whether the other cities had any suggestions for the enforcement of the banner signs.

Carlos Iglesias, Ken Garff Honda, said that in the last meeting they had talked about the businesses being self-regulating. When a complaint comes in, a member of the Banner Sign Committee could go address it with the business.

Mr. Sainsbury noted that the Neighborhood Preservation Officers focus mainly on residential areas. The City has been enforcing banner signs on a compliant basis, and they normally write a letter asking the businesses to come into compliance.

Mr. Sumner asked how the parcels are determined. Mr. Sainsbury explained they are going by what the legal description is on the County parcel map. There is a difference between University Parkway and State Street, which has parcels as small as 7,000 feet. That is why there are so many pole signs and other signage on State Street. University Parkway has a three-acre minimum parcel size. Most of the parcels are commercial complexes, and there is a lot less signage on that street.

Mrs. Black said this amendment would impact State Street more than University Parkway. Mr. Sainsbury agreed.

Tyler Slade, Ken Garff Honda and Nissan, noted that he took an hour that morning and drove around the city taking pictures of businesses with “for sale” and “for lease” signs on them. He displayed numerous pictures of empty businesses. He stated that the banner signs can be eye sores, but empty businesses are a bigger eye sore. He said their small banner signs bring in a lot of business, and without them they would have to lay off employees. Mr. Slade said he tracks the advertising really well, and just that day he had five customers contact them as a result of the signage.

Mr. Sumner asked Mr. Slade how many signs he has up on an average day. Mr. Slade indicated they have two at the Honda store and three at the Nissan store. They are willing to try to make everyone happy with this proposal, but they really need the signs.

Mr. Andersen asked Mr. Slade whether he is happy with the language as written. Mr. Slade noted that he is happy with it, and they are willing to help the businesses regulate it.

Mr. Iglesias said there were many businesses involved in drafting this language, and they were supportive of the hundred feet restriction. The businesses are also concerned about clutter.

Aaron Orullian, Beautification Advisory Commission chair, gave a brief presentation addressing the commission’s stand on banner signs. The Beautification Advisory Commission is against allowing the signs. Mr. Orullian said he met with several businesses in Orem who had dead grass, and the businesses have since taken care of the problem and have a green lawn. He also spoke with many businesses on State Street, and the business owners felt there were too many signs on State Street. He indicated the monument signs could be used more effectively for advertising the businesses. Mr. Orullian reviewed the Beautification Advisory Commission’s recommendations as follows:


No sign should block a beautification project Flags, A-frames, and banners are considered portable signs and should not be

considered permanent signso Put time restrictions on any portable sign in an area o It is not acceptable to simply rotate a group of signs in the same area

It is preferred that these signs be banned, but if approved, the number of banners and flags should be limited in number per business frontage feeto Multiple banners and flags compacted into a small areas detracts from city

beauty and are a distraction, if not a safety problem Monument or mini monument signs should be used by businesses not visible from the

streeto Large portable signs notifying customers of their businesses detracts and or

blocks other stores that are located in mini malls Businesses should be encouraged to work with the Beautification Advisory

Commission to improve store front property appearanceo Upkeep of vegetation and clearing of unsightly debris is a primary concern

Mr. Andersen asked whether the Beautification Advisory Commission asked the businesses what kinds of signs they thought would work. Mr. Orullian stated they did not talk about signs they just talked about ways to make the street beautiful. All of the businesses liked the concept that Vernal uses with the hanging flower baskets.

Carolyn Manwaring, Beautification Advisory Commission member, said she spoke with the businesses by Smiths. The signs in that complex are not temporary because those businesses have no intention to ever remove those signs. She said she feels a time limit is essential if the City were to allow these types of signs.

Mr. Seastrand advised that they might see a reduction in the number of signs with the current proposal if the businesses were to come into compliance.

Mrs. Black asked what the Planning Commission recommends. Mr. Sainsbury explained the Planning Commission has the same concerns that the Beautification Advisory Commission does: are too many signs and too much clutter, which actually hurts businesses. They want the ordinance to remain the same.

Mayor Evans opened the public hearing.

Matt Cook, business owner, stated there is a three-block area by the University Mall that has a sign clutter problem. He said his business depends on growth by walk-in customers. He has loyal customers who come in every three months, but in order to grow, he has to continually bring in new customers. He opened his business five years ago with five employees. He currently has eight employees and is hoping to expand. He asked the City Council to allow him to promote his business by permitting temporary signage.Arnold Combs, Wise Guys Pizza, noted he has had a business in Orem for six years, and he has struggled with the sign ordinance. He stated for the record that he loves trees, but trees never pay a tax. He has a business on 400 North. They have a small banner sign out front that is changed every two or three weeks. He noted eighty-five percent of his business today is an exact result of this banner sign. Without that, he would have had to close this business years ago. He told the


Council that he is in the process of signing a lease to move his Orem business to State Street to a strip mall. The proposed location cannot be seen from State Street because there are two trees blocking the business. The property owner told him he would cut down the trees in order to get the lease signed. Mr. Combs agreed there are small portions of State Street that are cluttered and need to be cleaned up but asked the City Council to allow them some signage.

Karl Gadd, resident, stated he was recently in St. George and noticed that there were no banner signs or temporary signs in the city. It improved the whole feel of that area so much. If the businesses are all put on a level playing field, so they did not have to compete with all of the banner signs around them, it would benefit the whole city. The businesses can put banners on their buildings and in the windows. They also have their permanent monument signs. There are other ways to advertise rather than the “permanent” temporary signs.

Rich Hart, physical therapy business owner, said half of his business is from Medicare. He has a sign, but it is covered by a tree. He put an a-frame sign up to direct clients to his business. Without that sign, it would be hard for them to find his business. He also uses banner signs, and they really help.

Mr. Orullian noted they are not trying to take away all of the signs. There is just an overabundance of them. As far as beautification projects, the businesses do not have to pay anything.

Mr. Iglesias noted the changes being proposed do address some of the concerns that were listed tonight. He then reviewed some of the programs the dealership does for the community such as Keys to Success and Road to Success. Just in Orem, they fork out about $40,000-60,000 every year. The two banner signs at his dealership bring in a lot of business.

Mayor Evans closed the public hearing.

Mrs. McCandless asked staff to review the law regarding signs being attached to a building. Mr. Sainsbury explained the businesses can have banner signs that are attached to a building. This proposal is addressing the signs in front of businesses on the lawns.

Mrs. McCandless then questioned if they can allow the signs in some zones and not others. Mr. Stephens said they could make that distinction if they wanted. It would be best to state, for the record, why they think University Parkway should be treated differently than other areas, but they can do that.

Mr. Sainsbury indicated University Parkway is a very different street than State Street, which allows parcels to be as small as 7,000 feet. Also, many of the businesses on State Street were there before the City even had a zoning ordinance. There are a lot of nonconforming uses as a result. University Parkway was designed and the ordinance put into place before it was ever built. The parcel size in most of the zones is 3 acres. They are also required to have trees, and State Street does not have that requirement. The signs are more effective on University Parkway because there are not so many. They are less effective on State Street because they are so congested. The Council might want to look at these streets separately.


Mrs. Street asked how they feel about how the signs on 800 North, noting that other streets with a different character and feel should be considered.

Mr. Sainsbury said 800 North is a Professional Office zone. There are a few pockets of C2 zone, but most of it is offices. It has a different feel from State Street. He noted that 1200 West also has a different feel because there is residential on one side and manufacturing on the other.

Mr. Sumner asked how the City would enforce the proposed ordinance. Mr. Sainsbury indicated staff will come up with a way to enforce whatever the Council decides to do. It is difficult to enforce a time limit of allowing the signs so many days.

Mayor Evans said they had a Council retreat last December, and they discussed the enforcement. Staff said they had not been enforcing the signage and discussed options at that time.

Mrs. Black clarified that the City has enforced this in the past. The enforcement has not been happening for the past year because the City was trying to decide which direction to go with signage. Mrs. Black then wondered whether there were fewer banner signs when the City was enforcing the ordinance.

Mr. Sainsbury said there were a lot fewer signs. Staff operates on a complaint basis, and people were very aware that the signs were not legal. Staff would send letters to the businesses and the Attorneys Office would file charges if the businesses did not come into compliance.

Mr. Andersen stated that as he went out to talk with the businesses about the banner signs, some of them said they had the banner signs out for five to seven years. He said this is where he developed the perception that if someone complained about a sign they were in trouble, and that is selective enforcement. Mr. Andersen read from the disadvantages listed on the agenda, saying he thought what was being prosed would actually reduce the number of signs out there.

Mr. Sainsbury replied that right now there are no banner signs allowed; however, with this proposal every lot could have a banner sign. That is an increase.

Mr. Seastrand thanked everyone for their comments. He said he has enjoyed this discussion and expressed appreciation to the Beautification Advisory Commission for coming with a really good forward-thinking perspective. He has always thought there were two sides to this issue; however, he is really feeling encouraged that everyone is wanting the same thing. No one wants an ugly State Street or an ugly city. At the same time, people want the businesses to be successful. He said he is trying to figure out how to turn this into a synergistic relationship where they get the best of both worlds. He said he does not think they have to have one or the other; they can have both. As he has contemplated some of the things that have been said, the thought crossed his mind about whether it is possible that part of the signage could be a factor of part of the beautification. If there is landscaping and an effort for the front of the business to be attractive, that therein gives the business owner some ability to have a banner sign. There is a way to accomplish both. As he has driven through the city, he was not offended by a number of the businesses that had banner signs and also had landscaping. The ones that bothered him were the ones that have a lot of banner signs and no landscaping or anything to buffer the signs. He


said he does not know the solution, but he is intrigued by the possibility that maybe there is more to the discussion than they have not fully found at this time.

Mrs. McCandless said there are tools used in zoning to increase density, such as adding more amenities, higher landscaping, etc. That might be something the City could look at with the signage. She said she is also intrigued by the suggestions of the Beautification Advisory Commission that monument signs be used more effectively. She is concerned about the fairness of other businesses in a strip mall. She is also concerned about enforcement. The City is already looking at reducing the budget significantly, and she is concerned about enforcing this, especially with a time limit attached.

Mr. Seastrand suggested they could allow signage based on the footage of landscaping rather that the size of the lot. There should be a fairness aspect to this.

Mrs. McCandless said she is not comfortable drafting the language tonight because there are too many factors involved. Some businesses do not have lawn; however, they could put barrels of flowers in front. She said she likes grass, but that is not the only landscape material.

Mr. Andersen said Mr. Orullian had put up pictures of businesses that he contacted on his own. Mr. Andersen asked how

Mr. Orullian decided who he was going to talk to. Mr. Orullian said he picked the businesses that were struggling with their landscape. He represented himself as a member of the Beautification Advisory Commission, and told the businesses that the commission was there to help them. He also told them that he did not want the Neighborhood Preservation Officers (NPU) to give them a ticket. The employees at Rite Aid were happy because they had been trying to get their corporate offices to fix the sprinkler system for years. They said now they would have some muscle behind their request. The NPU sent the corporate office a letter, and the problem was soon fixed. Mr. Orullian stated the Beautification Advisory Commission is giving the businesses a certificate thanking them for making Orem a better place.

Mr. Sumner thanked the Beautification Advisory Commission for coming forward. He noted he was unaware of what the commission was doing, but he appreciates it so much. Mr. Sumner said the businesses appear to accept this better from the Beautification Advisory Commission then they do a uniformed officer. Mr. Sumner said it is important to address some of these things they have talked about tonight involving the Beautification Advisory Commission. Waiting another week or two to make a decision in order to incorporate more details would not be a problem in his opinion.

Mrs. Street said she thought it was a good suggestion to see if they could get more of what they want by using incentives. In the work session this afternoon, they were talking about arts and promoting the arts in the community. In the development community, it is just understood that there are tradeoffs. She likes the idea of keeping that in mind as they consider any change to the sign ordinance. The City is dealing with a legacy. State Street is something that has developed over dozens of years, before there was a code in place to regulate how it developed. It is difficult for the City to go back and try to enforce something on them. However, they can say this is where the City wants to go, and as part of that process, there are incentives the City can give if


the businesses help to get there. Beautification is something that does have an economic benefit. She said they should consider how they can incent that vitality and healthy look that they want. She perceives banner signs as yard ornaments. There are dozens of them associated with a single business, and they are intended to draw attraction. However, she is not sure she is convinced that the money spent on the banner signs is a good replacement for effective marketing. She expressed her desire to see the City incorporate a multitude of things, such as a new plan for State Street and creating an Economic Development Commission that incorporates working with businesses and helping businesses work together cooperatively to market themselves. Signs are one tiny part of a bigger picture. She does not like what has happened while the City has been “on hold,” and she does not like the way it looks right now. Enforcement is a concern; although, she knows staff will follow the direction of the Council. It will be at the cost of other things if they make a choice to put a program in place that is police management intensive. There is only so many man hours available. If they do decide to continue this to another date, one of the things they can consider is temporary sign permits so there are definite begin and end dates. The tradeoff could be that beautification can earn someone sign credit points.

Mrs. Black expressed appreciation for the ideas that have been given. She said if the City Council were to vote on the ordinance as is tonight, she would have to vote against it. There is too much clutter on State Street. She said she would be okay with allowing banners on University Parkway because there is a greater distance and the parcels are larger. She would be uncomfortable allowing that many signs on State Street because the parcels are so close. She is more than willing to look at options such as has been discussed tonight. She reminded the City Council that next week they have a work session on State Street. That would be another appropriate time to look at options.

Mayor Evans said he appreciates the balance of beauty and product. He is trying to think of ways to get more people to shop in Orem instead of shopping on the Internet. He has had to change his shopping patterns by shopping local. For consumers it comes down to the value and quality of the products, and getting the word out on products is very important to the businesses. He wants to make sure they do not just make a decision because they want beauty, but they make a decision that does not impact the businesses.

Mrs. McCandless said she agreed with Mrs. Black. If she had to vote on this tonight, she would probably vote against what has been proposed. She said she is interested in looking at some signage in exchange for the beatification; however, she does not see herself supporting something that would reward a business with an a-frame sign if they put in a potted plant. She is talking about providing some incentive for some kind of permanent signage such as a monument sign. She also agreed that University Parkway is a different street, and a banner sign every hundred feet would be okay.

Mrs. McCandless then moved to table this item to allow Council and staff time to further discuss options. Mrs. Black seconded the motion.

Mayor Evans invited the Sign Committee and the Beautification Advisory Commission to attend the work session next week when this is discussed.Mrs. McCandless directed staff to draft language that would reward businesses for beautification efforts.


Mr. Sainsbury recommended that the City Council continue this to a date certain. The City has postponed this decision for over a year, and there are businesses waiting for a decision.

Mrs. McCandless amended her motion to continue this item to October 9, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Black seconded the amendment. Those voting aye: Mr. Andersen, Mrs. Black, Mr. Evans, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Sumner. The motion passed unanimously.

6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE – Vacating a Portion of 960 North Street Located East of the Intersection of 960 North and 1500 West Streets Containing .023 Acres

Mr. Sainsbury presented a request that the City Council, by ordinance, vacate approximately .023 acres of 960 North Street located east of the intersection of 960 North and 1500 West.Mr. Sainsbury advised 960 North Street east of 1500 West currently dead-ends into a block wall with storage buildings constructed directly east of the wall. The north half of this part of 960 North Street was vacated and incorporated into the D & D Machine site plan in 1998. D & D submitted a site plan, conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2012, subject to the south half of the street being vacated. The City of Orem owns the property south of this part of the street.

If the City Council wishes to vacate the south half of 960 North east of 1500 West, State law requires that it must first determine (1) there is good cause for the vacation; and (2) the vacation will not be detrimental to the public interest. Additionally, the owners should be required to develop the property according to an approved subdivision plat that conforms to the approved preliminary plat.

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

Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to vacate approximately .023 acres of 960 North Street located east of the intersection of 960 North and 1500 West. 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.

6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE – Vacating a Portion of 675 North Street Located East of the Intersection of 675 North and 1200 West Streets Containing .06 Acres

Mr. Sainsbury presented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by ordinance, vacate approximately .06 acres of 675 North Street located east of the intersection of 675 North and 1200 West.

As part of the 1200 West street re-alignment project constructed by the State, the intersection at 675 North was moved north so the streets intersected at a closer to a ninety degree angle,


improving safety. This left a portion of 675 North, south of the new alignment, which is no longer needed as a street.

Crest Business Park, a condominium project located south of the street, was affected by the 1200 West realignment. The State purchased one unit and property along 1200 West. Dennis Ward, owner of Crest Business Park, would like to clean up the title problems created by the land transfers, and incorporate that portion of 675 North Street that is no longer needed as a street into Crest Business Park.

If the City Council wishes to vacate a portion of 675 North Street, State law requires that it must first determine (1) there is good cause for the vacation; and (2) the vacation will not be detrimental to the public interest. Additionally, the owners should be required to develop the property according to an approved subdivision plat that conforms to the approved preliminary plat.

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

Mr. Seastrand moved, by ordinance, to vacate approximately .06 acres of 675 North Street located east of the intersection of 675 North and 1200 West. 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.

RESOLUTION – Declaring Real Property to be Surplus; Authorizing the Exchange of the Surplus Property; and Authorizing an Amendment to the Sleepy Ridge Golf Course Lease to Reflect the Property Exchange

Jamie Davidson, Assistant City Manager, resented a staff recommendation that the City Council, by resolution, (1) declare approximately 8,000 square feet of real property located along the 18 th

hole fairway of Sleepy Ridge golf course to be surplus; (2) authorize the City Manager to take the required actions to exchange the surplus property for an equal sized parcel located adjacent to the 13th hole fairway of Sleepy Ridge golf course; and (3) authorize the City Manager to take the required actions to amend the legal description of the Sleepy Ridge golf course lease to reflect this property exchange.

A planned development is proposed to the east and south of the 13 th and 18th fairways of Sleepy Ridge golf course. The development is currently zoned for attached units. Fairways Development LLC currently owns the property and would like to develop the property for single family detached units, reducing the proposed density. To facilitate this change, they are asking the City of Orem to exchange approximately 8,000 square feet of property on the 18th fairway for the same size plot of land on the 13th fairway. This exchange benefits both parties by allowing larger lots near the 18th fairway for single-family homes, rather than attached units. The property obtained by the City of Orem will be developed into golf course fairway and provide a secondary landing zone, which is slightly shorter than the current landing zone off the 13th tee.

Mayor Evans opened the meeting for public comment. No one came forward to speak.


Mrs. Black moved, by resolution, to (1) declare approximately 8,000 square feet of real property located along the 18th hole fairway of Sleepy Ridge golf course to be surplus; (2) authorize the City Manager to take the required actions to exchange the surplus property for an equal sized parcel located adjacent to the 13th hole fairway of Sleepy Ridge golf course; and (3) authorize the City Manager to take the required actions to amend the legal description of the Sleepy Ridge golf course lease to reflect this property exchange. 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.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

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

James Faucet, resident, said he has taken some time studying the recently released UTOPIA audit. He said he discovered that 2,011 subscribers had to pay the huge connection fee, and everyone else got it for free. He encouraged the City Council to study the audit and consider it. He noted that 2,011 people spent a lot of money to connect to UTOPIA. If the City got out of it, they would only have $5,400,000 liability to pay those people off. However, if they allow more connections, that liability amount would go up.

Leslie Nelson, resident, expressed appreciation for the work that is done in the City. She voiced concern over the negativity that is surrounding the proper role of City government. She stated she is looking at Mr. Andersen for a reason. She said the proper role of government is, in part, to provide for the general welfare. That is why they have a city and a government. That is why they have a City Council to vote on things like tax increases that can help move the city forward and to help maintain the things that they have already developed and built. She advised that she is concerned with the distortions and incorrect information that is being given to the public, not necessarily by Mr. Andersen personally, but by people who support him and whom he supports. She finds it a disrespect to the rest of the City Council and to the people of Orem who value the quality of life they have here and the services that are provided by the City. She begged and encouraged Mr. Andersen to “stop that”. In June, Mr. Andersen gave some proposals to stop paying the University Mall, and most of the things he suggested just were not viable. She said she does not know if Mr. Andersen was serious or not. Apparently he made a promise that he would not raise taxes, but knowing that the rest of the City Councilmembers would be responsible and raise taxes in order to take care of obligations here in the city, he was in a position to not only have his cake, but eat it, too. He had the cake of being able to stand up and say, “I am not raising taxes” and eating it, too, by knowing that the rest of the people would step up and vote to take care of the City’s obligations and responsibilities. She applauded the rest of the City Council for that. She said she wishes Mr. Andersen would modify his position. Ms. Nelson stated that she does not think the problem is a lack of money. She has an opportunity to help with an orphanage in Kenya and, in her advertising work, she has found an outpouring of generosity from people who live in Orem and are on a fixed income and fixed budget. The amount of money being asked to meet the City’s obligations is a pittance, and it is being inflated and people are being worked up in anger for no good reason. She objects to that as an Orem resident and business owner. She finds this destructive, and the cuts that will take place as a result of this unreasonable stance is going to be destructive to the city and will take them years to


overcome. She begged of Mr. Andersen to stop telling fairytales to people that they will be better off if they save $4 per month and to be reasonable and move forward.

Michael Leavitt, resident, indicated it is really inconvenient to travel from the north to the south in the city unless driving on State Street. The lights are not synchronized very well at 800 North and Center Street. The cars have to wait for a long time, even when vehicles are not coming in the other directions. This is forcing vehicles into the neighborhoods, which causes speeding in residential areas. He said he knows this is a problem with the State, but he is not sure where to lodge a complaint.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS

There were no communication items.

CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS

There were no information items.ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Andersen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. McCandless seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Councilmembers Hans Andersen, Margaret Black, Jim Evans, Karen A. McCandless, Mark E. Seastrand, Mary Street, and Brent Sumner.

The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

Donna R. Weaver, City Recorder

Approved: October 9, 2012


CITY OF OREM - OremCityexe.orem.org/minutes/CCMin/2001-2050/2012/2012-09-11… · Web viewKarl...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF OREM - OremCityexe.orem.org/minutes/CCMin/2001-2050/2012/2012-09-11… · Web viewKarl...