November 10, 2009 City Council Agenda

Click on this post's title to go to the City's Agenda page. Then click on "Apply" and then click on the the 11/10 agenda.

This meeting includes a presentation on a Utah Lake bridge. The presentation is at 4 pm at the City Center.

Campaign Information

Click here to read about the Hyundai dealership. They ultimately received approval to locate in Orem, but chose not to.

Read about the Orem City Council's recent sewer bond vote here.

All of Orem's councilmembers run at-large, meaning there is no districting. Read why I like this here.

Click Here to read about me.

Click Here to read my Orem "To Do" list.

Click Here to read questions and answers.

Click Here and here to see who is endorsing me.

Click Here to read about Midtown Village.

Click Here to read about my Mazda Dealership redevelopment vote.

Click Here to read about some of Orem's accomplishments while I have been in office.

Click Here to read about a good landlord program I would like Orem to consider.

Hyundai Dealership

There is misinformation about what happened with the Hyundai dealership application from Spring of 2008. Ultimately, they were allowed to locate on the property, but chose not to. Here are the minutes from the March 18, 2008 City Council meeting and the April 23, 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting.
City Council Meeting Minutes:
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – Northgate Village
ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-11-35(K) and Appendix Q of the Orem City Code by Amending Page “Q.3” Pertaining to the PD-22 Zone
Paul Washburn requests changing the PD-22 zone to allow automobile dealerships to be located along the frontage of 800 North Street, and to amend the concept plan to match the proposed dealership.
This item was continued by the Council on March 11, 2008, to March 18, 2008. Following the meeting on March 11, the applicants have withdrawn their request to amend the minimum retail space requirement and their request to modify Appendix “Q.11” to change the boundaries for Areas A, B, and C. Consequently, the applicants’ current request is to amend the PD-22 zone to allow automobile dealerships to be located along the frontage of 800 North Street and to amend the concept plan (Appendix “Q.3”) to match the proposed car dealership along 800 North.
The proposed changes to the PD-22 zone are as follows:
1. The first request is to amend Section 22-11-35(D) of the Orem City Code pertaining to Standard Land Use Code 5511, which currently restricts motor vehicle sales to property along or facing 1200 West Street. The applicant requests that the restriction limiting auto dealerships to “only along and facing 1200 West” be eliminated.
The purpose for this change is to allow a car dealership to be located along 800 North west of the Bank of Utah.
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.7)
2. The applicants’ second request is to revise the concept plan found in Appendix “Q” by replacing page Q.3. This proposed change modifies the concept plan to show an auto mall along the frontage of 800 North.
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held concerning the proposed ordinance amendments with six people in attendance. At the request of the Planning Commission, an additional neighborhood meeting was held on February 28, 2008, with at least nine people in attendance.
After reviewing the proposed amendments, staff has listed several pros and cons concerning the request, which are as follows:
Advantages
•
This change will provide an opportunity for the City to keep an auto dealership within the city and allow for its growth and expansion;
•
Allowing an auto dealership to face 800 North would improve the likelihood of commercial success of an auto dealership in the zone due to the improved visibility and exposure to traffic on 800 North, which is a high-traffic arterial street;
•
Allowing an auto dealership in the location proposed in the PD-22 zone will not have a significant negative impact on other existing and future development in the PD-22 zone as the auto dealership will be screened and buffered from other residential development in the zone by distance, landscaping, and other buildings. The auto dealership will not be visible to the vast majority of the existing residential dwellings in the zone;
•
The City will keep the sales tax generated by the dealership, which would probably be equal to or greater than the mixed-use development proposed with the village concept;
•
The parcel on which the auto dealership is proposed to be located is one of only a very few remaining parcels in the City that are suitable for a large auto dealership; and
•
This change may reduce traffic in the development since car dealerships are generally low traffic generators.
Disadvantages
•
Those who have already purchased residential and commercial units may have purchased them with the idea of being part of the original Northgate Village concept.
•
The proposed change would essentially change the nature and scope of the development;
•
The amendment would reduce the variety and type of retail available to the residents;
•
A car dealership is not the kind of use that will attract outside shoppers to visit the village portion of the development. This will encourage office use instead of retail use in the remaining mixed-use area;
•
Although some mixed-uses will remain, the opportunity for a walkable village for the residences will be greatly reduced; and
•
The proposed change would eliminate all the pads sites currently located on the concept plan along the 800 North frontage west of 980 West Street.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 6, 2008. They had a split vote, which resulted in no recommendation being forwarded to the City Council.
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.8)
Mr. Johnson reviewed his opinion as to whether the current ordinance language would allow a car dealership in the proposed area along 800 North. He stated the dealership would have to have frontage on 1200 West. It could abut 800 North; however, the buildings and vehicles would have to face 1200 West. In order to approve the proposed application the Council would have to change the ordinance.
Mayor Washburn clarified there is 260 feet available along the 1200 West frontage, so the dealership could not go back along 800 North more than 260 feet.
Paul Washburn and Bill Fairbanks, applicants, introduced themselves. Paul Washburn indicated they had withdrawn a couple of items from their request since the last Council meeting. Their intent with the request was to clarify some things; however, it just added more confusion, so they removed them from their application.
Bill Fairbanks pointed out that last week they mentioned the car dealership would bring in more taxes than the mall anchors. He wanted to clarify that it would be any one of the anchor stores not all of them totaled. Mr. Fairbanks stated there are a lot of uses that could go in this location that would have a larger impact on the neighbors than this use would.
Mr. Seastrand asked whether there were any items that could be mitigated that would help with the neighbors’ concerns about the auto dealership, such as lighting, outdoor speakers, and the dealership taking the place of restaurants.
Paul Washburn indicated the ordinance requires a lot of landscaping, which would visually separate it from the village area. The lighting will be addressed with the site plan; and with changing technology, loud speakers are no longer necessary. The car lot will have some visual impact, but anything that goes in there will have some impact. They have tried to market this area for restaurants for over nine years, and they have not had any luck bringing them in. They are competing with sites that have better access from the streets. In terms of traffic impact and hours of operation, an auto dealer would have less of an impact to the neighborhood than many other uses.
Mr. Seastrand asked whether the developers had any significant restaurants that are planning to locate there. Mr. Fairbanks stated they have had interest from a few sit-down restaurants and are trying to accommodate anyone that shows an interest in coming to Northgate Village just as they are trying to accommodate this dealership.
Mayor Washburn opened the public hearing
Becky Buxton, resident, asked why the restriction to face 1200 west was put into place. Paul Washburn stated they were trying to accommodate the visual aspect of being able to see the dealership from I-15. He stated a dealership on the east side of the development would not be as appropriate.
Mr. Fairbanks indicated that 1200 West had more service oriented businesses.
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.9)
Ms. Buxton said 1200 West is an industrial area. A car dealership is more of a commercial use, so it makes sense to keep it on 1200 West
Ty Rasmussen stated the applicants have removed the request to eliminate the fifty percent retail requirement in Area B. They have heard in the Planning Commission meetings and neighborhood meetings that they cannot get the retail to come in because of the access issues. He remarked it does not make sense to him to put the fifty percent requirement back in the zone and hide it behind a car lot. He asked how they would support the restaurants behind a car dealership, because there is no built-in clientele. Mr. Rasmussen then added that sales tax revenue seems to be the “big carrot” that is out there for the dealership. He asked how much of the City’s revenue comes from car sales and how vulnerable they are to the recession.
Al Spencer, resident, expressed his opinion that restaurants will look at the vacant pads because the Marriot Hotel is being constructed in the development.
Cari Wood, resident, stated the developers have done a great job with the residential area, so businesses will want to come in. The restaurants will have enough clientele with the hospital being so close and the residential areas filling up.
Dave Kendall, resident, stated he has been in the car business for the last fourteen years. He indicated that normal businesses have normal business hours, but car lots get the busiest after hours. They also stay open on holidays. He added that keeping the Tuscany feel of the whole development will help keep Orem beautiful.
Brad Whitaker, CEDO, noted he is excited that there is diversity in the economic base. Orem is consistently ranked number two in the State of Utah in sales tax, which helps keep costs down for the residents. It would be bad for the City to lose this car dealership, and this proposal could be a win-win situation for the City and the residents if it is done right.
Darath Golding, resident, expressed concern with the value of her home if this approved. She stated the residential units were marketed with the perception that they would have higher-end businesses in the development, which would increase home values. A car dealership would decrease her home value.
Mayor Washburn closed the public hearing
Mr. Seastrand commented that this is a very hard decision. He indicated he has driven around the city, and there are many nice auto dealerships with restaurants located near them. For example, Applebees, Chilis, and the Chef’s Table all have dealerships located near them. A car dealership does not necessarily preclude the location of restaurants or the location of other retail establishments. He expressed concern that the auto dealership is the only business wanting to locate there right now, and it would better if they already had a restaurant in place because that would provide part of the walkable community amenities that are so important to the residents. He asked whether there is anything that could be done to mitigate the impact of a car dealership on the neighbors. This is a good location for the dealership, and it helps the developers and the City. However, the dealership is not in line with the original Northgate Concept Plan that the resident’s bought into, which has been his biggest concern.
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.10)
Mr. Dickerson indicated he had driven around the site that day, and the two things that struck him the most was the grade difference from 1200 West to 900 West and how far this location is from the residential portion of the development. He agreed that this is a slight change from the original concept plan; however, that does not preclude him from saying this is a good thing.
Mr. Hernandez expressed appreciation to the residents for their contributions to this process. He stated the founding fathers ranked home ownership as the second most important right people have, just behind the exercise of conscience. He has studied this out very carefully, and there are a couple of things that have occurred. The City has allowed a car dealership to be in this development from the very beginning; the only question is whether they expand that right. The development grew north from this location in a way that impeded the opportunity for the car dealership to locate along 1200 West. He stated he is comfortable with a car lot along 800 North, because there are already many commercial uses along the corridor. However, it is a persuasive argument to say it is the entrance to the city. He noted he would like to see whether the Council could mitigate some of the concerns and make it look like something more than a car lot. Sales tax revenue for municipalities is a huge driving force for the wealth and health of the local economy. He indicated he is struggling with several issues and, if the Council were to deny this zone change, something could go in there that would be worse for the neighbors.
Mrs. McCandless thanked the developers for doing a wonderful job on this project. She commented that sales tax is a huge issue in this community, and it helps keep the property taxes low. Sales tax revenue allows the City to have a wonderful library, public safety department, and parks that are not paid for through property taxes. Orem is an older community that is starting to experience build out, so there are not many parcels left that would be conducive to car dealerships. Mrs. McCandless then read the intent of the zone from the Orem City Code. She indicated there are many uses allowed in this zone, and some of those uses will have more of an impact on the neighbors than others. The uses that are stated in the ordinance are the uses she agreed with when the Council approved the zone. Mrs. McCandless noted this whole project is a package with a combination of uses, and there comes a point when they have to go with the package that was originally intended.
Mrs. Black stated this decision is a struggle for each of the Councilmembers. The car dealership is a value to the City, but there is also value in keeping their word. The residents were given an idea of what they could expect, and it is important for the Council to maintain that integrity even at the expense of tax dollars. She expressed her hope that the auto dealership could find another parcel in Orem to locate their dealership. She stated that the project is beautiful and the applicants have done a wonderful job with the development; however, she would like to keep the zone as originally intended.
Mrs. Thurston stated that her priority for this project was not to get the highest amount of tax base. Car dealerships do bring in a lot of tax revenue, and it takes selling of a lot of coats at Target to equal the sales tax from one $20,000 vehicle. However, she would like the area along 800 North to be maintained as more of a walkable community.
Mayor Washburn indicated this is difficult decision, and they are all conflicted. It appears to be a choice of a win-lose situation rather than a win-win. He complimented the individuals that had spoken that evening for being so respectful. He also recognized the Murdock family for being a great part of the business community with the Hyundai dealership. They are extremely valuable to
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.11)
Orem, and they conduct their automobile business in the highest terms of quality and integrity. He expressed appreciation for their desire to stay in the community. Mayor Washburn then stated there are areas in a community that are designated as commercial or single-family residential. The homes in Tuscan Villas are very beautiful; however, many residents in Orem would disapprove of having a higher density development like this being built in their neighborhood. That is similar to how the residents of Tuscan Villas feel about having a car dealership built near their homes. Mayor Washburn then reviewed the history of the Northgate village property with the audience. He noted there is already a car component in the zone; however, it could only be 1.5 acres. The car lot already has the right to locate in the zone. The only difference is where they can put it.
Mr. Seastrand remarked he would like to make this a win-win situation for everyone. He asked whether there are some mitigations that could result in a better solution.
Mrs. Black asked whether they could reopen the public hearing to allow comments pertaining to mitigation concerns.
Mr. Hernandez agreed that he would like to hear from the residents as to how the City could mitigate the impact the car dealership would have on the neighbors and whether they should expand the rights the dealership already has in the zone.
Mayor Washburn reopened the public hearing and asked for comments on how to mitigate this use for the development.
Mr. Rasmussen advised the car dealership is not the most important issue for him. The bigger issue is what is good, better, or best in that location. The car dealership may be good; however, something else could be better. He indicated that if the Council were to approve the dealership, the worst thing that could happen would be to place too many restrictions on them. The dealership would have to be allowed to succeed. He advised other than requiring additional landscaping, he could not think of any other reasonable mitigation.
Mr. Spencer asked whether the dealership needed all five acres. He said he was led to believe that the college had wanted the corner property, but they could not afford it. Mayor Washburn stated the application for the college did not come to the Council, so they were surprised to hear that it was being constructed.
Mr. Kendall questioned why they would even put a business in that location that had to be toned down. He indicated the zoning laws were made for a specific reason, and it is unnecessary to change laws to support something that does not belong there.
Mr. Manookin stated the ordinance already allows a car dealership to locate on 1200 West. He asked whether the college could be moved to a different location, so the dealership would have more property available along 1200 West. Mr. Fairbanks advised the college is already under construction, and it would not be economically feasible to tear it down.
Brenda Dutson, representing Utah Career College, stated they have already received their accreditation, and they are planning classes. Economically there is no way they can stop construction and move to a new location. The college does not have a problem with the car lot;
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.12)
however, they are concerned about the original concept plan constantly changing. Ms. Dutson stated they are wondering whether the Council actually has control of that.
Blake Murdock, Murdock Hyundai, thanked the Council for the opportunity to be there tonight. He stated they have loved serving the community of Orem and would really like to stay there. He advised they do need all five acres. When they bought University Hyundai in 2005, they were doing $8 million in sales. Last year they did just over $25 million, and their current lot is less than 1.5 acres. Mr. Murdock said they feel they would double the sales by expanding to the five acres. They have a conservative family, and they do not do the wild and crazy things that some dealerships do. They do not allow speaker systems outside the buildings, because they received some complaints from the neighbors. They can also solve the lighting problems by turning the lights towards the vehicles and away from the residences. He stated he loves Orem, and he works out of the Orem dealership at least four days each week.
Jessie Golding, resident, advised he is personally okay with having a car lot in the development, because it has already been allowed in the zone. He stated he would like to see more landscaping to separate the residential from the dealership. He advised he does not want a wall or anything, but he would like some thicker landscaping.
Ms. Wood remarked that it is difficult. Everyone wants a win-win situation, and she does not know how everyone could be happy. She expressed that even though a dealership is already allowed in the zone it was never shown on the concept plan that she saw. She suggested that one mitigation would be to require a covered dealership with a Tuscan exterior.
Saul Winn, resident, indicated he was not pleased when he heard that a car dealership might be coming to the development. He said it makes him a bit angry, and he would like to explore other venues for the development such as a daycare center. He advised he loves his home and the community, and he strongly opposes this application.
Paul Washburn said there are a number of things that can be done to mitigate the concerns of the residents in terms of the car lot. He reiterated that the developers have not swept the sales tax requirements under the rug. There have been many businesses that have wanted to come into the development; however, they did not meet the retail requirement. The developers were excited about this proposal because they would finally be able to provide the kind of sales tax the City has been requesting for the past nine years.
Mr. Fairbanks stated they could keep the road grade the same, but add retaining walls with a tree line buffer to separate the car lot from the residential. He indicated that a grocery store is allowed in this location, so they would still have a building and a parking lot with cars. The only difference would be the types of cars parked there.
Mr. Hernandez advised this is more than just a small change to the concept plan. He views this entitlement as being important. He said he would like to hear something more substantial in terms of landscape such as berming and walking paths. He indicated the public ought to know that the developers did withdraw their request to change the retail requirement in Area B.
Mr. Dickerson stated he was on the Council when the Northgate application first came to the City, and it included substantial landscape requirements. He asked whether those requirements would
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.13)
mitigate the concerns of the residents. Paul Washburn expressed his opinion that they would. He stated they already have the walking paths in place, and the green space is a lot larger than it appears on the overhead. He noted that Mr. Fairbanks’s idea of the berm/retaining wall would be a great addition.
***Mayor Washburn called for a recess at 8:27 p.m.
***The meeting resumed at 8:39 p.m.
Mayor Washburn asked staff whether they had any ideas for mitigation. Mr. Sainsbury suggested increasing the landscape requirement from five feet to fifteen or twenty feet and adding more trees to buffer the area and possibly block the lights from the dealership.
Paul Washburn stated they have already drawn the landscape at twenty feet, and they are willing to expand that if necessary. He indicated he had spoken with the Murdocks during the break, and they expressed a willingness to do an enhanced landscape buffering in that area to mitigate the use. They could expand the strip to twenty-five feet and do a combination of a raised berm and retention wall to bring the level of the lot down a little. They would also add more tree and shrubs, and they could possibly add a Tuscan style fence.
Mr. Seastrand asked where they could put restaurants if the car dealership goes in to the proposed location. Paul Washburn pointed out several locations on the overhead map.
Mr. Seastrand asked whether there was any way they could guarantee a number of restaurants. Paul Washburn stated he could guarantee they would hold a specific number of pads vacant for restaurants; however, he cannot make them come there. There has been interest expressed by a sandwich shop and a juice shop to go in one of the areas.
Mr. Dickerson moved, by ordinance, to amend Section 22-11-35(K) and Appendix “Q” of the Orem City Code by amending page “Q.3” pertaining to the PD-22 zone and add another paragraph regulating that the car dealership shall have a twenty-five foot landscape strip abutting 880 North running from the driveway access on 880 North east of the property line of the dealership. In order to provide a visual buffer between the car dealership and neighboring uses, there shall be a variety of landscaping features located in the strip such a trees, plants, flowers, rocks and a berm. Mr. Hernandez seconded the motion.
Mrs. McCandless questioned what changes have been made to Area B in the concept plan. Paul Washburn noted the tower is gone, and they are going with four-story buildings rather than an eight-story building.
Mr. Sainsbury clarified that the concept plan in the agenda packet is different than the overhead, so they need to make sure they are referencing the concept plan on the overhead.
Mr. Dickerson amended his motion to include that the car dealership building would be constructed according to the new concept plan, the dealership lighting would be pointed inward, and no outdoor speakers would be allowed. Mr. Hernandez seconded the amendments.
City Council Minutes – March 18, 2008 (p.14)
Mayor Washburn called for a vote. Those voting aye: Mr. Dickerson, and Mr. Hernandez. Those voting nay: Mrs. Black, Mrs. McCandless, Mr. Seastrand, Mrs. Thurston, and Mayor Washburn. The motion failed for lack of a majority vote.



Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes:
Mr. Stroud introduced AGENDA ITEM 3.2 as follows:
AGENDA ITEM 3.2 is a request by Paul Washburn for an Appeal on Staff‘s interpretation of the code, as it relates to the location of a car dealership in the location the applicant desires – NORTHGATE VILLAGE at 800 North 1200 West in the PD-22 zone. Staff Presentation: Mr. Stroud said Section 22-11-35 is the ordinance that applies to the Northgate Village development at 800 North 1200 West. Standard Land Use (SLU) 5511, Motor Vehicles, is a permitted use ―…only along and facing 1200 West.‖ The applicant has courted Murdock Hyundai to relocate the current 1.5 acre operation from South State street to a new 5 acre site within the Northgate Village development.
As a permitted use in the zone, this is acceptable. However, the language of ―…only along and facing 1200 West‖ is the basis for this appeal. Staff has interpreted this as (1) the business must have its primary frontage and access on 1200 West, (2) all dealership buildings must face (main entry) 1200 West, (3) all vehicle displays must face 1200 West, and (4) the dealership may have frontage on 800 North and may display vehicles adjacent to 800 North but the depth of the dealership west to east shall not exceed the length of frontage along 1200 West. This frontage measurement is approximately 250 feet, which then gives them 250 feet along 800 North. The maximum size of the car lot would then be close to 1.5 acres – far below the five acres wanted.
The applicant feels that the dealership should be able to extend the entire length of 800 North (550+ feet) so long as the entry for the business is only along 1200 West. The applicant feels the interpretation of the Code by staff is in error and requests an appeal and interpretation by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Earl said the question initially came up in the context that the Northgate developer wants to put a car dealership on a property of five acres. Staff indicated that could not work because it did not comply with the Code and suggested to the developers they could come in and amend the ordinance to allow them to unambiguously make that a permitted use in the zone. An application was filed with the City Council to make the entire five acres a permitted use of the zone. The City Council struggled with what that meant. In the pre-meeting when this item was going to be considered, they read that language and were not sure what it meant. They wondered if the intention was to restrict that use to a certain corridor along 1200 West or they could be anywhere in the zone as long as they had some frontage along 1200 West. Paul Johnson, City Attorney, gave his opinion, which was stated earlier in the presentation. Mr. Earl pointed out #4 regarding the depth. The thinking was that because 800 North is a much busier street than 1200 West and because car dealerships naturally want as much exposure to traffic as possible, the concern is that if frontage is allowed along 800 North to exceed that which they had on 1200 West over time the primary orientation would go toward 800 North. The idea is to not allow the frontage on 800 North to exceed the frontage on 1200 West. Even within the Attorney‘s office there is some disagreement on this particular provision. He personally thought the language could be construed to mean that there would be no frontage along 800 North. It could be interpreted many different ways. The language is ambiguous and creates a problem. Given the ambiguity of the phrase, Mr. Johnson analyzed and looked at the intent of that limitation. They looked at the history of the zone. Initially, auto dealerships were not allowed in the zone. Northgate subsequently applied to make it a permitted use and included the limiting language of ―only along and facing 1200 West.‖ The Planning Commission minutes show several indications that the intent was to limit it to a fairly narrow corridor along 1200 West and to not allow it to expand elsewhere throughout the zone.
Mr. Earl also stated that you could even interpret the ordinance language to mean that a dealership could have no frontage at all on 800 North. The language ―only along 1200 West‖ could be interpreted to mean that the only frontage a dealership could have would be on the street of 1200 West and you could not have any frontage on any other street. Mr. Earl acknowledged that the ordinance could also be interpreted a number of different ways and that that is the problem-- the language is ambiguous in that it is subject to more than one possible interpretation. Given this ambiguity, the City Attorney Paul Johnson analyzed what the intent was behind the limitation in the ordinance to begin with and what the goal was that it was intended to accomplish. The City attorneys looked at the history
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
4
when the limiting language first went to the Planning Commission back in 2005. Mr. Earl noted that an auto dealership was not originally a permitted use in the zone. Northgate subsequently applied to make it a permitted use but included this limiting language ―only along and facing 1200 West.‖ In the Planning Commission minutes, there are several indications that the intent was to limit it to a fairly narrow corridor along 1200 West and not to allow it to expand elsewhere throughout the zone. Mr. Earl referred the Board to the concept plan which is an exhibit to the PD-22 zone, which is an appendix to and a part of the ordinance. Mr. Earl pointed out that the areas ―A‖ ―B‖ and ―C‖ are designated in the appendix. Mr. Earl indicated that in the Planning Commission minutes there were some statements made by Northgate representatives that an auto dealership was intended to remain along 1200 West in such an area that it would be compatible with uses like the Heringer Marine. The thinking was that an auto dealership would be consistent with that kind of use in that area. There was also a statement that auto dealerships would not go along 800 North. This supports the argument that you could interpret the ordinance to mean no frontage on 800 North at all. There was also a statement made that the auto dealership would not go in the mixed use area which is the area shown in area ―B‖ on the concept plan. If you keep an auto dealership out of the mixed use area that leaves a corridor of about 365 feet at that point (near Heringer Marine) narrowing to about 210 feet. That is pretty consistent with the interpretation that Paul Johnson gave that if you had 250 feet of frontage on 1200 West that you could then go back about 250 feet. The argument could be made that that interpretation is even more liberal than what the original intent of the ordinance was, which could be interpreted not to allow dealerships on 800 North at all.
Mr. Earl noted that there is a letter from Northgate‘s attorney and their argument is that the plain language of the ordinance would allow them to go into the area that they have requested. Mr. Earl referred to a map showing the area where Northgate desired to put an auto dealership and noted that it would encroach into the mixed use area that is designated in the appendix to the ordinance. The way the courts say that an ordinance should be interpreted is that if an ordinance is unambiguous or subject to only one reasonable interpretation, then it is interpreted just by the plain language of the ordinance and you don‘t have to look at the intent, the history or anything else. However, if the language of the ordinance is ambiguous or in other words, if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, which this ordinance is—it is subject to Northgate‘s interpretation, it is subject to the City‘s interpretation, and it is probably subject to a couple other interpretations. The City‘s argument is that the ordinance is ambiguous and the courts have said if an ordinance is ambiguous, then it is appropriate and even necessary to look at the intent. The courts say that the primary purpose, if it is ambiguous, is to give effect to the intent of the ordinance and give it the meaning that will accomplish the goal and objective it was designed to meet.
Mr. Earl noted that there is another point that the counsel for Northgate will probably raise, which is that zoning ordinances are considered to be in derogation of private property rights and should be construed in favor of property owners. That is a correct principle. What you have are somewhat competing interests—you have the statement that you are supposed to construe an ordinance according to its intended meaning and you are supposed to construe it in favor of property owner‘s interests. The courts have noted that there are these two competing interests but they say that the primary goal is to give meaning to the intent. The primary goal is not to construe it in favor of the property owner, but it is to construe it in favor of the original intent of the ordinance. That is why we go back to the Planning Commission and look at the history and we say that is what this whole thing was about. If you do not look at the history and allow it to be interpreted in the way the applicant is suggesting, you would say as long as I have frontage here (on 1200 West), I can put a dealership basically anywhere in the zone. That does great injustice to the intent and purpose of the ordinance and essentially makes it meaningless because the intent was to keep it down along 1200 West where you have other consistent uses like the Heringer Marine. Mr. Shorten asked if the Board had any questions for staff. Mr. Shorten invited the applicant to come forward. Craig Smith introduced himself.
Craig Smith said he is the attorney with Smith Hartvigsen LLC representing Northgate properties. Mr. Smith said part of the problem his clients have had with this project is misinformation given to the public from City staff. He said tonight‘s application is a change to the original site plan and there have been quite a few changes. He said when the original site plan was proposed an erroneous location was given by the staff to the public and the public thought there would be a car dealership next to their residences and that is not the case, because there will be substantial landscaping and buildings in between.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
5
Mr. Smith said he has appeared before many Boards of Adjustment in his legal career. His firm represents many municipalities as well as property owners. He discussed the role of Board of Adjustment members in these meetings. The Board of Adjustment is an appeal authority, which is similar to the courts. The Courts have called the Board of Adjustment‘s ―quasi-judicial bodies‖. The members sit very much like a judge would sit in a courtroom and the Board‘s job is to look at things, weigh the evidence and make an independent decision. There are a couple of things that interfere with that role as a quasi-judicial body. He said that if anyone has talked to the Board members about this appeal outside of the confines of this hearing that is wrong. If that has happened, it needs to be disclosed and put on the record. Another thing that can hurt the Board‘s ability to be independent in their job is the idea that they have access to outside legal counsel. In his opinion, on a matter such as this where the City has a stated position, the City Attorney and staff person are advocating a position and are not independent. He suggested that if the Board needs legal advice, they should ask staff to provide independent counsel. David Shorten asked if Mr. Smith wanted a declaration from the members of the Board if they have or had been contacted outside this hearing. Mr. Smith said that would be appropriate. Mr. Shorten noted that Mr. Smith could have been more direct in his request. Each Board member then said they had not been contacted by anyone and had not been exposed to information regarding this matter except for the staff report given the Friday prior to the meeting. Mr. Shorten added that the letter from the attorney for Northgate was included in the packet.
Mr. Smith said this is an important case and if there is a dispute, the Board will be asking advice from the opposition attorney and that is not very fair. If there are legal questions, his view is that both parties can weigh in on those, but both the attorneys in attendance are advocates. It is not proper and fair to use the City attorney as a legal advisor.
Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant applied for a permit and at the request of the City they asked for a zone change, because the City told them they would not be able to do what they desired. He maintained that the language of the ordinance is very clear in what it says. Al Spencer called out from the audience that they could not see the drawings. Mr. Shorten pointed out the presentation was to the Board of Adjustment. He asked the applicants to show the displays to the audience as a courtesy.
Mr. Smith continued by pointing out there will be no access from 800 North, the only access is off of 1200 West. This is an amendment to locate an auto dealership, however, there were other ideas the developers were thinking about back in 2005. Mayor Washburn, who is related to his client, Paul Washburn, contacted the client and visited with the Murdocks in his office. He said and the City was going to lose their business and hoped that it could fit in his development. The City likes auto dealerships because of the sales tax revenue and low traffic. If this was a Costco there would be more traffic in comparison to an auto dealership. Site plans do change and the newest site plan shows several buildings in between the residents and the car lot.
Mr. Smith then discussed the role of the Board of Adjustment. The Board will determine the correct interpretation of the Code and should not give any deference to staff. The applicant does not believe the phrase is an ambiguous phrase. Under the rules of interpretation that the Board is given, the Board is to look at the plain language of the ordinance. He quoted from M&S Cox Investments v. Provo City Corporation:
Interpreting the meaning of an ordinance we begin by looking at the plain language of the ordinance. If the plain language of the ordinance is ambiguous, we may resort to other modes of construction. If we need to rely on other modes of construction, (the Board) must keep in mind that when interpreting the ordinance it is axiomatic that the Boards primary goal is to give effect to the City‘s intent in light of the purpose the ordinance was meant to achieve.
He suggested they discuss what the ―purpose the ordinance was meant to achieve,‖ means. The Planning Commission minutes that are in the staff report are like a ―red herring.‖ He reminded the Board that the Planning Commission minutes are a condensation of many other things that were said. The minutes from June 2005 could be acted out in 10-15 minutes; however, the meeting was a two hour meeting. There are a couple of witnesses who were at the meeting that will talk about what was said there. The second thing is that the Planning Commission does not adopt any ordinances; they make recommendations. The body that adopts ordinances is the City Council. The minutes from the City Council had no discussion about this idea of having more length, etc. In fact in their research, they have not been able to find any proof that any of the discussion from the Planning Commission was transmitted to the City Council so they would have the benefit of it. There was no discussion about new or used auto
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
6
dealerships by the City Council. Mr. Smith presented different terms to the Board to show they are not ambiguous. For example: ―along‖ means just what it says; ―facing‖ means to have a ―front oriented towards.‖ These are very plain words and meanings. Mr. Smith introduced an expert, John S. Robertson, who was asked to analyze the phrase, ―only along and facing 1200 West.‖
Mr. Robertson said he has been practicing linguistics since 1967 and has taught linguistics for 30 years at Brigham Young University. He recently retired and has a good publication record of 70 publications. He felt he has some background to be able to look at language and say something about it. He read his prepared remarks: As a linguist who has been practicing since 1967, I am here to comment on whether the Orem City Code Section 22-1-35(D) is ambiguous: An auto dealership is permitted use ―only along and facing 1200 West.‖ To determine the meaning of a given ordinance, the first and chief responsibility is to look to the plain language to determine its meaning. If the meaning is not ambiguous, it would be inappropriate to add any other qualifying language. The question here is whether this is ambiguous: Business X can exist ―only along and facing‖ road Y. I submit that there is no ambiguity in the phrasing. It is so concrete and so particular that reasonably well-informed people would have to qualify it in some way to attribute more than one meaning. It means simply that there is only one front to the dealership and that front must be ―along and facing 1200 West‖ – certainly not along and facing 800 North, for example. Nothing is ambiguous about the word front. Can any well-informed person think of any house that is facing him that has more than one front? Only if there were two entrances that were totally equivalent would there be any question of the meaning of the word front. Sides can be ambiguous: A square cannot face anything because it has only sides, which are equal. I have a front and a back, and I have two sides. But no one has problems distinguishing front from back or front from side, for that matter. There is a house next to mine here in Orem on the corner of 690 East and 1950 North. No one ever mistakes the front of the house, which is facing 690 East, even though there is a driveway on the side of 1950 North The suggested ambiguities are: Could a dealership have any frontage on 800 North or did the terms ‗only along and facing 1200 West‘ preclude frontage on any street other than 1200 West?
The language “only along and facing 1200 West” means that there is only one front, and that front can only face 1200 West. It would be inappropriate for there to be frontage on 800 North. Did the phrase ―facing 1200 West‖ mean that all buildings had to face 1200 West? Did it mean that all car displays and signage had to be on 1200 West? Could any car displays or signage face 800 North or some other street.
So long as they are not equal. Anyone can distinguish the front from the side of a car dealership, and that singular front must be “only along and facing 1200 West.” Could a dealership go anywhere in the zone as long as it had some minimal amount of frontage on 1200 West or did the language ―only along and facing 1200 West‖ prohibit a dealership in certain areas of the zone.‖
The front of the building must be perceived as its legitimate front which must be “along and facing 1200 West.” It would be contrary to the ordinance for the dealership to go anywhere in the zone that would make it not facing squarely 1200 West. I cannot imagine how any reasonable person could read any ambiguity into the phrase ―along and facing 1200 West‖ in the Orem City Code Section 22-11-35(D). Mr. Smith asked Mr. Robertson to discuss different definitions of the Orem City Code. He started with the word frontage. In the Code ―frontage‖ is defined as: ―… the width of the lot or parcel of land which faces or has one side adjacent to a dedicated street.‖ He continued with Lot Line, Front, which is defined as ―… an interior lot shall mean the public right-of-way line, which forms a boundary of the lot. For a corner lot, the front lot line shall be the public right-of-way line which forms a boundary of the lot and which is most closely parallel with the front façade of the primary structure on the lot. See Appendix B, which is incorporated herein by this reference.‖ Mr. Robertson said both these definitions are not ambiguous.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
7
Mr. Stroud asked if Mr. Robertson is supporting that the verbage is not ambiguous and has only one interpretation. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Smith pointed out these definitions are in the zoning code of Orem City and there can only be one front to a building. Mr. Smith asked Roger Dudley, Orem, to come forward.
Mr. Dudley said he has been a professional civil engineer for 30 years. He produced the schematic concept plan of what a car dealership could do at this locality. Part of the consideration for how the project was developed is the exposure to I-15 and 1200 West. The building should face 1200 West and is elevated above I-15. The building is designed to face southwest towards 1200 West. The parking display area should be put west of the building closer to 1200 West. Mr. Smith asked which part of the building would face 800 North. Mr. Dudley said it would be the side of the building. The Ford dealership on University Parkway is situated very similar to this development. The display and showroom for the Ford dealership is on the west side facing away from Sandhill Road. This building would face to the south and west. Mr. Smith asked the orientation of the majority of the automobiles on display. Mr. Dudley said the automobiles on display would face to the west. The front of the car would face 1200 West. Mr. Smith asked if he is aware of the requirement stating, ―Motor vehicles new and used including motorcycles and ATV‘s only along and facing 1200 West.‖ He asked if he attempted to comply and if it was difficult to understand. Mr. Dudley said he tried to comply and understood it needed to have frontage on 1200 West and could not access 800 North at all.
Mr. Smith asked if it was uncommon for lots in Orem to have frontage on one street and also have another street adjoining on one of the sides or the rear. Mr. Dudley said that is a common thing; every corner lot would have that situation. Mr. Smith said this dealership will have more depth on the south than on the front. The staff was hung up on having more depth on the side than the front. He asked if it is common for commercial properties to have more depth than frontage. Mr. Dudley said most large commercial sites have the required depth and not a large frontage. Residential lots are usually deeper than wide. Mr. Shorten said it appears it has taken 45 minutes to get to the crux of the issue, which is not the direction the building is facing, but the fact the City interprets the side of the lot to be less than desired. Mr. Smith said the point of contention is the language is clear and non-ambiguous. The City had a chance to make the ordinance the way they wanted it and should have made it clear in the beginning. The second point is there is nothing that points to the intention of the discussion.
Mr. Shorten said that if the Board finds the language is unambiguous then there is no reason to look at the intent. The City through its enabling power has the right to interpret. Mr. Smith said the City cannot interpret by putting things in that are not in the ordinance already. When the City interprets an ordinance, there are rules that the City, this body and the courts have to follow; and they are not allowed to add things that are not already in the ordinance. The third point is that this is a derogation. If there is any question about the construction, it should be liberally construed in the favor of the property owner. The applicant does not think that has been done.
Mr. Shorten asked how many property owners are involved. Mr. Smith said the court was talking about the property owner that is asking to be able to use their property. Mr. Smith under common law the property owner can use his property however he wants, that is a property right. Mr. Shorten asked if the adjacent owners have any rights. Mr. Smith said the property owner has a due process right. Neighboring property owners have the right to appear at public meetings, but do not have a due process right because it is not their property at issue. Mr. Nielsen said the minutes in the packet indicate that when the neighboring property owners purchased the property this was not part of the development. Mr. Smith said it would depend on which site plan is being referred to. Mr. Smith asked Paul Washburn, property owner, Orem to come forward.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
8
Mr. Washburn said the original Northgate project began in 1999 with 30 acres purchased from Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and in 2002 the original PD-22 zone was adopted. The map today is not the same as the original map. The original zone only contained the UDOT property. In 2005 they entered into a contract with Orem City to purchase the public works property and expand the project to 65 acres. At the time of expansion they met with the City and decided it was a good time to add additional uses. Mr. Washburn said there has been some confusion particularly in the case of the Planning Commission meeting minutes. He said there was not one map in that meeting, but two maps. At that time the language allowing a car lot was added into the zoning ordinance. It was another 18 months before people were able to purchase and occupy homes. The first occupancies took place late in 2006 and throughout 2007 and the car lot was already allowed.
Mr. Nielsen then asked if any of the occupants of Northgate Village have any say in what takes place on the undeveloped land and if they do not have any say, what is the purpose of a public meeting. Mr. Smith said there is a hierarchy of property rights under the law and the most important is the property owner and the second would be neighboring property owners and then anyone in the City. Only those who own the property or are close by can take the property to court. Mr. Smith said the neighbors can make an argument to have the Board interpret the Code a certain way. Mr. Nielsen asked if some of the neighbors purchased property prior to this issue coming up, and does the City generally recognize their position. Mr. Earl said the Board can listen to the public; however, the property owners all bought after the language of the ordinance came in. He said so we come back to the same question: What does the language mean?
Mr. Shorten noted that the original site plan contained 30 acres with a design that was meant to be similar to the Riverwoods in Provo. When more property was purchased the site plan was amended and the car lot use was added. Would the Board still be meeting if the second property had been developed separately? It appears to him that this is similar to the camel‘s nose in the tent analogy. It seems that the fact that Heringer Marine is next door justified a car lot since it is a heavier commercial use. Mr. Washburn said the purpose of the zone is very clear; this zone was enacted to collect sales tax. He said it calls this out in the beginning of the document. Mr. Smith said if the Board feels the language is ambiguous and he is wrong or Professor Robertson is wrong then the Board looks at the intent of the ordinance. The City staff supplied the Board with Planning Commission minutes, but that is not the only source. The City Code for the PD-22 zone talks about the purpose of the zone. Mr. Washburn said the original zone is there to collect sales tax because it is a main entry into the City. The office and residential uses are secondary to the sales tax producing use and they are there to accommodate the sales tax base, but are not the main purpose. The owners felt the best way to develop the property was to try and create the mixed use. The original PD-22 zone included a requirement to provide 300,000 square feet of sales tax producing development inside the project. There is no requirement for housing or office. The initial site plan covered 30 acres and the developers decided increasing the size will make a better project. The City agreed and moved public works to accommodate the change. The change also increased the size of frontage for sales tax producing uses on the frontage on 800 North and 1200 West. Mr. Nielsen said he did not see where the Code states that. Mr. Washburn said it does in the first one. Mr. Nielsen said the Code reads to ―maximize office, commercial and residential uses within the mixed use setting.‖ This does not refer to the sales tax at all.
Mr. Rawson asked the sizes of other dealerships in the City. Mr. Dudley said he could approximate. The larger ones are along University Parkway; Nissan, Porsche, etc. They are probably on four acres. The dealerships typically want 4-5 acres. The smaller ones are along State Street, which are generally used car dealerships. Mr. Smith submitted a letter from Michael McOmber, real estate broker for Murdock Hyundai. To the Orem City Board of Adjustments, Our experience as commercial real estate brokers are familiar with the requirements of new car dealerships along with the research we have conducted indicates that a new car auto dealership such as Murdock Hyundai would require between five and six acres of land. This is typical of new car dealers who carry large inventories and provide repair and warranty service. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
9
Sincerely, Michael McOmber Owner National Flex Rate Real Estate
mcomberteam@hotmail.com
Mr. Smith pointed out that the zone specifically allows new and used car dealerships. If it had said used car dealerships, which are typically smaller, they would not have a repair shop or any warranty work. New car dealerships are big because they must carry the functions of a new car dealer. It would be impossible to locate a 5-6 acre new car dealership along 1200 West without facing other streets. Mr. Dudley said they were approached to find a site in the project that would accommodate a dealership of that size and meet the criteria of facing 1200 West. He designed the Maverik site and it was also required to face 1200 West and it has side frontage on 800 North. The requirement on the Maverik was that it had to face and be along 1200 West. Mr. Shorten asked how many new car dealerships are developed near or adjacent to a village-type development. Mr. Dudley said it is typically not near these type of developments. However, the corridor is similar to 1300 South and the perimeters of those developments abut residential. Mr. Shorten asked if those homes were equal to or greater in value than those in this development. Mr. Dudley said no, this is an older neighborhood that existed prior to the University Parkway. Mr. Smith asked what the address of the Hyundai dealership may be. Mr. Dudley said it will probably be a 1200 West address because the building faces 1200 West. Mr. Smith then inquired about where cars are parked at dealerships in Orem. Mr. Dudley said that dealerships that are on corner lots have displays that face both streets. Mr. Rawson asked if the City considers 880 North to be a secondary access. Mr. Earl said it is an access. Mr. Rawson then asked if there needs to be direct access from 1200 West or if indirect access was sufficient. Mr. Earl said it must have its primary frontage and access on 1200 West. Mr. Rawson asked if access off of 880 North qualifies as the primary access point. Mr. Earl said that when staff gave this interpretation it was not examining where the proposed accesses were, that comes at the site plan stage.
Mr. Smith asked if 880 North is a public street. Mr. Dudley said it is a private street and no further access will be allowed on 1200 West or 800 North. The drive by the Bank of Utah is a private drive.
Mr. Smith asked about the spacing between the edge of the property and 800 North Street. Mr. Dudley said between traffic and the actual display area there would be about 60 feet. Mr. Smith then asked what the distance between the dealership and 1200 West Street was. Mr. Dudley said it is a 20-foot landscape strip.
Mr. Earl said that Mr. Dudley had indicated that there is 60 feet between the pavement and the display stalls of the dealership along 800 North. He asked if it was all owned by Northgate. Mr. Dudley said that some of it is UDOT property. Mr. Earl asked how much of the landscape strip is UDOT‘s. Mr. Dudley said it appears that 40-feet is owned by UDOT and 20-feet is owned by Northgate. All 60 feet of the landscape area will be landscaped by the developer. Mr. Earl asked if the 20-feet of landscaping is part of the same Northgate site plan for that parcel. Mr. Clark asked who would maintain the landscaping along 800 North. Mr. Dudley said it will be maintained by the business. Mr. Clark asked if there was anything in writing that enforces that. Mr. Dudley said it is written in the ordinance. The City will furnish the water for the landscaping as their participation. Mr. Shorten asked if 880 North dead ended at 980 West. Mr. Dudley said there is a four way stop at 880 North and there is a light at 980 West. Mr. Stroud said there is another access for the Career College on the north side of the property. Mr. Smith asked Brad Whitaker, executive director for the Commission for Economic Development in Orem (CEDO) to come forward.
Mr. Whitaker said CEDO is a nonprofit corporation that was formed as a business/government partnership in 1983 for economic development in Orem. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Whitaker was familiar with the efforts to keep Murdock Hyundai in Orem. Mr. Whitaker said he was. Mr. Smith then asked him to give a history of the efforts.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
10
Mr. Earl objected to a history of the efforts to keep Murdock Hyundai on the grounds that the discussion was going to matters that are irrelevant to the discussion. Mr. Smith said the staff has said the language is ambiguous and the intent needs to be made clear. Mr. Smith said Mr. Whitaker is one of the eyewitnesses and the staff wants the Board to rely on truncated minutes to determine the intent. The staff is objecting to the proof of intent. Mr. Shorten said the applicant‘s counsel has made the point the language is not ambiguous. Mr. Shorten asked Mr. Whitaker to be brief. Mr. Whitaker said car dealerships provide a lot of sales tax revenue and the City does not want to lose one to another community. Murdock Hyundai provides more sales tax revenue than the anchor stores at the University Mall. They looked at numerous locations in the City; none of them have worked out. They then approached Northgate developers and eventually decided to try to make it work. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Whitaker was working directly with the City to keep Murdock Hyundai in Orem. In the notice it states that the applicant has courted Murdock Hyundai to relocate to the current 1.5 acres. Would it not be more accurate to say the City has asked the applicant to try to keep Murdock Hyundai in the city? Mr. Whitaker said it has been a joint effort.
Mr. Earl renewed his objection because the discussion is going to what the City may have done to get Hyundai to stay here; it is not going to the intent or the interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Shorten agreed that the discussion is going far afield. He said the point is the mind will only endure what the seat will and this discussion has already gone on over 1.5 hours. He encouraged Mr. Smith to finish soon.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Whitaker if he attended the Planning Commission or City Council meetings held for this development. Mr. Whitaker said yes. Mr. Smith asked if there was ever any discussion about these other requirements for an automobile dealership having more frontage on 1200 West than another street. Mr. Whitaker said no. Mr. Earl objected to that question, saying we do not know who these discussions were with or when they took place, etc. Mr. Smith said now he will have to take more time to go through the meetings. Mr. Shorten said he could accept the fact that the City is desirous to have a firm and prosperous tax base and this happens all the time. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Whitaker what the purpose of the PD-22 zone is. Mr. Whitaker said it is established as the last large tax base property in Orem. The secondary purpose was for housing. Mr. Shorten asked Mr. Smith if he had more witnesses. Mr. Smith said yes and they are the applicants who were in attendance at the Planning Commission meetings. The minutes are not reflective of what was discussed at these meetings and he wants to put the full record on what was really discussed at these meetings. Mr. Shorten said he is not a lawyer, but a retired nurse. It sounds like what is coming is hearsay against what is in the written record and he is not in the mood to go through two to three hours of what somebody did or did not say. He is willing to take some brief comments of what they felt they remember they said three years ago or last month. This is making a mockery of the situation. He wants to get to the point and hear what the public has to say and then have the Board discuss in public what can be done.
Mr. Smith said there is no rule against hearsay in this proceeding. Mr. Shorten said it is fine as long as it is labeled hearsay. Mr. Earl said the City has the actual recording from that meeting. That item was probably about 30-40 minutes in length. If the Board wanted to receive it and listen to see if the minutes are accurate, he would be happy to provide it. However, Mr. Earl said that would make it difficult to make a decision tonight. Mr. Shorten said someone is going to be hacked off by whatever the Board does.
Mr. Earl said that counsel is trying to establish a record in the event they decide to appeal this further in case of an adverse decision. He is prepared to stipulate to allowing that portion of the 2005 Planning Commission meeting to be part of the record. He is fine with that and it might obviate the need to call other witnesses to talk about what was said at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith said he objected to that because it is already in the record and the Planning Commission is not the governing body. Mr. Shorten said the Board has been asked to decide whether or not the City did administer the rule that was adopted in regards to a business facing 1200 West. The ancillary issue is the side lot, whether they can provide an acre and a half for the car dealership or whether they can use the five acres.
Mr. Earl acknowledged that the minutes are from the Planning Commission and not the City Council and counsel for Northgate can argue the meaning or effect of that, however, they can agree the minutes are from the Planning Commission and a tape is available. Therefore, we do not need other witnesses to tell us what was or wasn‘t said at
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
11
that meeting. Mr. Nielsen said there are minutes from a City Council meeting where somebody made a motion, they voted for it and three voted against it. Mr. Smith said the Board should not pay attention to that. Mr. Nielsen said he read the manual because it is in there.
Mr. Smith said there were a lot of references to the site plans in the 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith noted that the Board had been shown a site plan earlier during the staff report and that it meant this. Mr. Smith said that another site plan was presented at that meeting and caused some of the confusion. He asked Mr. Washburn to explain this. Mr. Washburn said at the time they approached the Planning Commission in 2005 they had the Orem City property under contract, but the contract had not been consummated. Part of the contract said the City Council did not have to apply the PD-22 zone to the property. As they went to the City Council meeting they felt there were three things that were going to happen. There was a possibility they would allow the entire property to be included in the PD-22 zone, they would allow a part of it until a fair amount of commercial was developed, or there was the possibility they might not allow any property at all to be included. During the discussion at the Planning Commission, and what is not on the tape, is they are referring to two different maps. First, there is a concept map drawn with the assumption they had the entire property, and there is another map that assumed the zoning is not granted by the City Council, and the Planning Commission had to look at the amendments that went along with that. In the minutes, there is a reference to Ida Smith, Planning Commission member, talking about the car lot running into the big box. There was no big box at this location. She also asked if this would be in the mixed use area, which was on the east area, not down by 1200 West. There was mention in the minutes of putting a line on the east. The Planning Commission decided not to put a depth line on the eastern portion of the property. There was a question asked if the developer was planning on putting the car lots along 800 North and from his memory the Planning Commission was comfortable saying along and facing 1200 West Street. Mr. Smith asked Bill Fairbanks to come forward.
Mr. Fairbanks, Orem, said Mr. Nielsen made a comment about this being a village concept. The developer has very strict ratios that they have to meet. Mr. Nielsen said he understands that, his question was the attorney was referring to the property owners as the ones with rights. He wanted to clarify that if someone bought the property prior to the car lot being included shouldn‘t they be considered part of the process. Mr. Fairbanks said the purchases were made after the change. In the areas A, B, & C the City requires 70% of the main floor areas in Area C to be sales tax producing. Area B is required to have 50% on the main floor. There is no requirement in Area A. The developers are under pressure from the City to produce sales tax. Mr. Shorten asked if everyone agrees with the designations of A, B, & C. Mr. Fairbanks said that is the current designation. When the zone originally came in, the Public Works property was not included. When the zoning was passed, Public Works was still functioning at the old location. There was big box and mixed use on the concept. They did not intend on putting in a car lot in the mixed use area. They were not going to come along 800 North and put a lot of dealerships. They are not allowed to have frontage on 800 North; the State will not allow it. It was decided that 1200 West is the corridor for any automobile related businesses. The Maverik had the same language as this and the City has already allowed them to build. Mr. Fairbanks said that in the 2005 Planning Commission minutes the developers gave the Planning Commission the option to limit how far east they could go from 1200 West. The Planning Commission just let it go and did not put any limitations on anything. The residents are about two football fields away from them. Future residents in the B portion will be told in the beginning about what is allowed in the development. The building will be oriented in order to have great views to the west and east.
Mr. Smith asked if the Maverik is more ―along‖ 800 North than it is ―along‖ 1200 West. Mr. Fairbanks said the property line ended up being the same as along 1200 West because of the access required by the City Engineer. Mr. Smith asked if the City raised this issue about the length on each street. Mr. Fairbanks said no. Maverik is in the same zone and has the same wording.
Mr. Nielsen asked if the language ―only along and facing 1200 West‖ conflicts with the fact that the only entrance to this site is from a private street. Mr. Fairbanks said the private street is considered the access to 1200 West. The phrase in the Code is for the orientation of the building and the car lot and displays. They want to orient it to I-15.
Mr. Earl asked if Mr. Fairbanks was suggesting that at the time of the 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission was not referring to the concept plan that staff had included as an exhibit and weren‘t referring to the ―B‖ Area as the mixed use area. Mr. Fairbanks said that was included as a possible future use, but because they did
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
12
not own the land, the zoning was changed based on what they owned at the time with the possibility it could be changed after the purchase of the City property. Mr. Earl asked Mr. Fairbanks if he was suggesting that when he talked about not going into the mixed use area (during the 2005 Planning Commission meeting) was he suggesting that the Planning Commission did not have the concept plan at that time and were not referring to that? Mr. Fairbanks said that the Planning Commission did have that as a possible concept down the road but that they did not own the ground yet and so the Planning Commission had to base their decision on the old map. Mr. Earl asked what the total acreage is for the entire project. Mr. Fairbanks said it is now 65 and it was 30 before. Mr. Earl quoted the Planning Commission minutes of July 6, 2005: Mr. (Paul) Washburn said he believes what is happening here is the concept plan becomes part of the ordinance. As outlined in the concept plan, they are starting out with approximately 65 acres…
Mr. Earl asked Mr. Fairbanks if that quote did not seem to indicate that we were dealing with the entire 65 acres in the concept plan at that time. Mr. Fairbanks said he was not sure what Mr. Washburn meant by that. Mr. Fairbanks said it was his understanding that when they were in those meetings they only legally had the 30 acres with the possibility of purchasing the other acreage. From his point of view, they were going from the old and transitioning to the new, but were not into the new yet. When they were asked the question about whether that goes into mixed use areas and it was asked what about the big boxes, he believed they were talking about the old map.
Mr. Washburn said that in May 2004 they entered into a contract to purchase property from Public Works and that contract lapsed because the City was unable to come up with all the information necessary. Again in 2006 they entered into another contract, changed it four times and it was finally purchased in 2006. They clearly did not control all that property, most of the discussion in the meeting centered on the new concept plan. There was no guarantee they would get their property and so the previous concept plan had to be considered. Mr. Smith invited Julie Smith to come forward. Ms. Smith, Orem, said the public streets that are dedicated are 980 West and 900 North. The roads within the project are private roads and each owner owns halfway into the road. Because of safety concerns, the traffic engineer is only allowing access from 880 North Street. The Utah Career College is allowed a right in/out only from 1200 West. The only access allowed by the City is from 880 North Street. Mr. Nielsen said there is another entrance from the four way stop. Ms. Smith noted those are private roads. Mr. Nielsen said he has been around the City a long time and he realizes the tax base is important to the coffers of the City. When the ordinance states that the access is ―only and along 1200 West‖ he wonders if that is being defeated by also allowing it from 880 North. Ms. Smith said they own their own driveway and their access is from 1200 West. Mr. Smith said the language in the ordinance does not say anything about the accesses, but concentrates on the direction the building is facing. A site can have more than one access, their main access is along where they are facing. Mr. Rawson said the Board is discussing the City‘s interpretation of the access. Mr. Smith concluded his presentation. He requested having the last word before the Board deliberates. Mr. Shorten suggested the Board take a 10 minute break. Board of Adjustment Action: Mr. Rawson moved to take a 10-minute break. Mr. Nielsen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Richard Rawson, Gerald Nielsen, Robert Clark, and David Shorten. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Shorten opened the discussion to the public.
Clark Heringer, Orem, said he is the next largest property owner in the area. He has seen a lot of changes over the years. If you look at this from a nonpartisan opinion, he does not care if there is a car dealership. He does not understand from the resident‘s perspective the difference between a business with a parking lot or a car dealership where cars are displayed. Either way it is asphalt and cars. If it is going to bring more revenue into the City then it will be worth it.
Al Spencer, Orem, said this seems to him to be like a two year old pestering his mom until he gets his way. At the City Council meeting by a 5-2 vote they decided they did not want that much of a car lot there and it was going away from the intent of the village concept. One of the overheads referred to the development as a village, a car lot is not a village. The neighbors anticipated there would be a walking area; there would be shops. This property was
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
13
sold to those condominium owners under that pretense. Mayor Jerry Washburn supposedly went to the developers and asked for a car dealership, but voted against it during the City Council meeting. The Board of Adjustment members should vote against it and let the owners fight it out in court. If the owners get their way, then the neighbors will not be able to go to court because they do not have that kind of money. To bring a linguistic professor to the meeting to tell the Board what ―front‖ means is the most ridiculous thing he has ever heard of. Mr. Spencer said he has taught language to kids for 20 years. He has learned over the years their language consists of words like, ―suck.‖ He thinks this meeting sucks. The owners want their way and mommy said no, so they are hoping daddy will say yes. He encouraged the Board to send the owners to the court and let the judges have it out. No matter what you decide someone will be upset. He suggested ruling against the owners and let them go to court because they can afford it. The neighbors offered a compromise at the last meeting and Murdock said they had to have five acres.
Mr. Nielsen said the Board of Adjustment can only decide on the interpretation of the language in the Code. Mr. Spencer said the Planning Commission minutes included in the packet show different intents. He said the public only gets two minutes and the owner gets two hours. Ty Rasmussen, Orem, said this has descended into a semantic abyss. He consulted the Merriam Webster dictionary for a definition of ―along‖ and it says: ―In a line matching the length or direction of.‖ They looked at a dictionary from the library and it states: ―used as a preposition, down the length of or down part of the length of something.‖ The long direction runs along 800 North. This is not that tough. There is a common definition. He asked the Board members if they know where Orem Junior High School is located. If he were to describe to someone where Orem Junior High School was he would say it is along 800 North between 800 West and 700 West. The actual address is 765 North 600 West. It does not face 800 North and there is no access to 800 North. The main access is from 700 North, but you would never say it is along 700 North. You can parse these words, but we know what ―along‖ means. The ordinance also talks about ―facing‖ and we have heard arguments twice from Mr. Dudley who said the building is designed to face 1200 West and that the Maverik has frontage on 800 North. Those were slips of the tongue, but they are important because anyone who looks at this is going to say the Hyundai dealership is along and facing 800 North. They also made the argument that all the parking stalls are oriented so they face mostly towards 1200 West. When he looks at a car it is a three dimensional object, any direction you look at that car is part of the display. If you look at print advertising or at the advertising on the television, they show the side of the car. The display is clearly facing 800 North. You cannot get away from that. The developers are arguing that the language is plain, but then they spent 1½ hours talking about intent. If the language is plain, how would you describe the relationship of 800 North to the car dealership? That is the question that is being asked. If the Board was to describe the location of this car dealership to any friends or family, you would say it is along 800 North. The good attorney gets up and instructs the Board of Adjustment that ―along‖ and ―facing‖ has to be parsed exactly down and have exact meanings. The fact of the matter is there is a common definition of what these are and the car dealership will be along and facing 800 North. All their advertising will be oriented that way. Shopko faces north and Center Street, but if you ask someone to describe where Shopko is they will tell you it is along or on State Street. It is behind two other businesses. We can sit here and argue the words, but we know what the words mean. The car dealership cannot get away from facing 800 North. If it truly faces 1200 West, it will be ineffective in selling cars. The orientation, the banners or anything they put up will be focused on 800 North. There was the argument saying it is oriented to I-15, but he hopes the people on the freeway are not looking at the car lot signs while driving. Kari Wood, Orem, said when she read the statement only along and facing 1200 West, she thought it meant nothing can be along 800 North. If you look at any of the concept plans a car dealership was never compatible with those things on the City website, Carter Construction website and the internet. Jeff Plankum, Orem, said as you drive east bound the dealership is clearly facing 800 North. Mr. Shorten closed the public hearing.
Mr. Earl noted that there had been a comment made earlier that there was no indication whether the City Council gets the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Earl stated that the Planning Commission minutes are always given to the City Council every time an item goes before them. Loriann Merritt can testify to that fact. The Planning Commission minutes are given to the City Council to help them know all the facts. Otherwise, if this did not happen
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
14
what would be the purpose of having a Planning Commission? The City Council sees what the comments are at the Planning Commission meetings, and they see what the questions and concerns are. Mr. Earl wanted to clear up another point regarding the comments Mr. Fairbanks made about what maps the Planning Commission had before them when they were referencing that the auto dealership would not go into a mixed use area. Mr. Earl indicated that he had the original staff report that went to the Planning Commission for the July 6, 2005 meeting. Mr. Earl indicated that the areas shown on one of the pages in the staff report shows that the areas denoted as mixed use are exactly the same as shown in the concept plan that was submitted to the Board. He indicated that it was clear that when statements were made in the Planning Commission meeting that it was not the intent that an auto dealership would ever go into the mixed use areas, that was what they were talking about. Mr. Earl passed out copies of the maps from the 2005 meeting.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
15
Mr. Earl also acknowledged that the Planning Commission is not the deciding body. The City Council makes the final decisions. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the City Council did not have any specific discussion of the auto dealership at their meeting. The Board can speculate why that was, but Mr. Earl argued that the Council read the Planning Commission minutes and were satisfied with the explanations that were given by the Northgate representatives that in fact an auto dealership would not go along 800 North and it would not go into the mixed use areas, that it would only be along 1200 West in the area of the map the staff had indicated. Mr. Earl argued that given that record, there was no need for the City Council to have any further discussion on that. They likely thought that was a settled point.
Mr. Earl referred to testimony of Mr. Dudley that on the plan Northgate had presented most of the car displays would face west. In the current configuration that might be true, however, if you think about what is actually visible, there is 580 feet of frontage along 800 North. The way they have configured it, there are parking or display stalls facing 800 North. To somebody driving by or someone looking at that, it looks like the primary display focus is out to 800 North. That is clearly contrary to the plain language of the ordinance and contrary to the intent. It was also said that there will be 60 feet of space between the existing asphalt and where the display stalls start. Mr. Dudley indicated that 40 feet of that is existing UDOT right-of-way and part of 800 North. So in reality there is only 20 feet of landscaping that separates the displays from the street right-of-way. That area is still part of the site plan of the auto dealership. There is 580 feet of dealership that is along 800 North. Mr. Earl took the position that this is prohibited by the plain language of the ordinance which says only ―along 1200 West‖ and not 580 feet of dealership property along 800 North.
Mr. Earl also noted that there was a comment made that the ordinance cannot be interpreted by putting things in there that are not there. That doesn‘t make a whole lot of sense because an interpretation by definition is interpreting and taking things and explaining what it meant and how it is applied. It is obviously not in the exact language of the ordinance. By definition, in interpreting something you have to apply terms that are not written on its face. Mr. Earl also made a comment regarding the size of dealerships in the City. He noted that the existing Hyundai dealership in Orem is barely over one acre and that is a new car dealership. There are new car dealerships on one acre. Mr. Earl then referred to Northgate‘s expert, Mr. Robertson who stated that the phrase in question ―means simply that there is only one front to the dealership and that front must be ‗along and facing 1200 West‘ – certainly not along and facing 800 North‖ and then Mr. Robertson states, ―It would be inappropriate for there to be frontage on 800 North.‖ Mr. Earl indicated he entirely agreed with that statement. There should be no frontage on
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
16
800 North. He noted that Northgate quoted from some City definitions in their presentation. The City Code defines frontage to mean ―the width of the lot or parcel of land which faces or has one side adjacent to a dedicated street.‖ Even if the front of their proposed dealership is on 1200 West they also have ‗frontage‘ on one side on 800 North. Their own expert has indicated it would be inappropriate for there to be frontage on 800 North. Even out of the mouth of their expert, interpreting the ordinance should not allow them to do the configuration that they have shown today.
Mr. Rawson asked if another viable business would buffer a car dealership on the south adjacent to 800 North. Mr. Earl replied that when you say that there cannot be any frontage along 800 North what kind of buffer do you have to have? Would a one foot buffer suffice or could it be ten feet? To interpret this to make any sense you would have to have some other use in between the dealership and 800 North. Otherwise you could say is one inch enough or one foot enough—you could get to a nonsensical interpretation. Mr. Rawson asked how ―use‖ is defined. Mr. Earl said another use would be a permitted use such as a restaurant or a strip mall or any number of different uses. Mr. Rawson asked if open space is a permitted use. Mr. Earl said that open space is a permitted use but it would have to be a different lot. He said twenty feet of landscaping that was still part of the same property would not count as a different use; it has to be a separate lot. If it‘s part of the same site plan it would still be part of the dealership use. Mr. Rawson asked how the additional use would have access and be a viable use if it did not have access from 800 North or direct access from 1200 West. Mr. Earl said there would have to be cross access agreements which are common in commercial developments throughout the City.
Mr. Nielsen asked if this site were going to be a big box store, if it would still have the requirement of not fronting onto 800 North. Mr. Earl said the only restrictive language for ―only along and facing 1200 West has to do with the auto dealerships. However, UDOT will not allow access onto 800 North. Mr. Nielsen noted the building faces southwest. Mr. Earl said the building configuration conforms to the City‘s interpretation.
Mr. Smith said he appreciated the Board‘s patience. The phrase in question is about six words long that has been brought before the Board for interpretation, ―only along and facing 1200 West.‖ They are definitely ―along 1200 West.‖ They are also ―along 800 North.‖ The Board must look at ―along‖ and ―facing‖ together. This evening he has heard arguments that they are facing 800 North because it is a longer distance on 800 North. City ordinances are very clear on this issue. This is a corner lot and the City Code states that ―a corner lot, the front lot line shall be the public right-of-way line which forms a boundary of the lot, and which is most closely parallel with the front façade of the primary structure on the lot.‖ He said that 1200 West is most closely parallel with the front façade of the primary structure. You can make all the arguments you want but the fact still remains they are facing 1200 West.
Mr. Smith read from two opinions from the Utah Supreme Court, the Patterson case and the Cox vs. Provo case. Neither of these cases go to the Planning Commission or what may have been in the minds of the City Council. The Patterson vs. Utah County Board of Adjustments, 1995, talks about how the Board looks at a case. The first thing the Board looks at is to see if the language is ambiguous. ―If there is an ambiguity or uncertainty in a portion of a statute...‖ that is when you can go beyond the plain language, ―… it is proper to look at the entire act…‖ it does not say you go back and look at what the Planning Commission discussed, but the entire act ―in order to discern its meaning and intent.‖ That means you look at the entire zone or even the entire zoning of the City. ―…and if it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations, the one should be chosen which best harmonizes with its general purpose.‖ There were many purposes in the zone, but he submits to the Board there is nothing that is being done here that is contrary to any language in the zone. The language of the zone says the purpose is to do various things, for example some parts are mixed use, etc. There is a portion of the property that was set apart to generate sales tax. It was meant to have commercial uses in these locations. The case goes on to say, ―Furthermore, because zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owners common law right to unrestricted use of his or her property, provisions therein restricting property uses should be strictly construed and provisions permitting property uses should be liberally construed in favor of the property owner.‖ That is Utah law. When the property owner is trying to use their own property then that is where that goes. There is a footnote that cites about 10 other cases from other jurisdictions to favor this proposition. One case says ―Land use restrictions are strictly construed in favor of land owner.‖ Another case from Hawaii says ―Words in zoning regulations should be given the broadest meaning in order to interpret in favor of property owners.‖ ―Language construed in favor of free use of the land.‖ ―Language in zoning ordinance must be interpreted in favor of the property owner where doubt exists.‖
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
17
Mr. Smith then cited the Emmet Cox vs. Provo City. ―In interpreting the meaning of the ordinance we first look to the plain language.‖ He said that has been the City‘s main argument, there is nothing that requires more length here than there. ―If the plain language is ambiguous we may resort to other modes of construction. If we need to rely on other modes of construction we must keep in mind that when interpreting ordinances primarily to give effect to the City‘s intent. Importantly, statutes as with ordinances should be interpreted and applied according to commonly accepted meaning, unless it would be unreasonably confused or conflict with the intent. If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning or application of the provisions of an ordinance it is up to the City to analyze the ordinance in its entirety in light of this objection and to harmonize its purpose in accordance with its intended purpose.‖ Mr. Smith pointed out the words ―new and used automobiles.‖ He said there may be existing auto dealers that are one acre, but when new automobile dealers locate in new sites the evidence shows they need 5-6 acres. He would argue there was the intent by the City Council to allow them to bring in a new or used automobile dealer. If they wanted the developers to only have a used car lot, it should have said so. New car dealerships need more space. Something with 5-6 acres will be adjacent to two streets, that is just how it is. So why did the City Council say to bring in a new automobile dealer if they really intended to tie their hands and not allow them to do it. Mr. Smith said the Board should look at the ordinance and it says what it says and we cannot read into it the restrictions of the City. He asked the Board to uphold the plain language of the ordinance and allow them to have the use of their property. Mr. Shorten brought the discussion to the Board. Mr. Nielsen said the Board is to determine if the staff provided the applicant with the correct interpretation of the applicable Code. The language of ―only along and facing 1200 West‖ is the basis for this appeal. There was other instruction about the size, width and length, but it seems the Board‘s decision deals with whether the language ―only along and facing 1200 West‖ is clear or ambiguous. He thinks it is clear. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Nielsen.
Mr. Rawson asked if an enlarged dealership can be placed on that corner. Mr. Clark said yes. Mr. Nielsen said the City has another ordinance that can limit the size, but in that particular definition of that zone it is not addressed. He said the staff‘s interpretation of ―Motor vehicles (new & used, including motorcycles and ATVs, only along and facing 1200 West‖ includes four points.
1. An auto dealership must have its primary frontage and access on 1200 West. It meets this.
2. All dealership buildings must face toward 1200 West. The entrance is perpendicular to 1200 West because of the curve.
3. All of the vehicle displays must face 1200 West. There is no problem with that.
4. The dealership may have some frontage on 800 North and may display vehicles adjacent to 800 North, but the depth of the dealership (from 1200 West) should not exceed the length of the frontage on 1200 West. That is the interpretation that the frontage cannot be smaller than the depth. He feels that is a restriction that is not covered in the ordinance.
Mr. Rawson said his opinion is that the Assistant City Attorney‘s opinion, especially number four, does not seem to be reasonable and so extended as to determine depth versus the frontage. What is to say the City could not say 1½ times or 2 times the frontage or depth? It appears to be an arbitrary call. He does not recognize any language in the Planning Commission minutes that suggest there is a definitive depth west to east. Earlier he raised the question as to why or how big a dealership is. Is a dealership on an acre and a half sufficient? The Board is being asked to look at this and indirectly interpret the intent of the City Council and perhaps the Planning Commission and this becomes a very difficult charge.
Mr. Shorten said he agrees with what has been said that the rule is not ambiguous, it is clear and he understands the intent. The intent is to have the business facing 1200 West. He believes that the City Council has ―punted‖ and the Board gets to ―catch the ball.‖ He finds it incongruous of the City Council to support CEDO and through the Mayor to work to keep a business in the City and then ―punt‖ and drop this in the Board‘s lap. Article 22-1-2 is purpose and intent gives the City, through its zoning ordinances, the right to implement the adopted Master Plan for the orderly and controlled growth of the City, to regulate lot sizes and the percentage of the lot that may be occupied, and to regulate the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residents, or other purposes. Mr. Shorten said that the Planning staff did their best to make an interpretation of a flawed ordinance written
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
18
specifically for this development. The business should face 1200 West and the majority of the lot or the property should also border on that. The side lot should be equal to or less than the front lot. He may be in the minority, but that is how it should be. The situation is salvageable. The City Council could pass ordinances that better identify what they want. It is entirely possible that this land could be used and developed to the acreage desired by the proposed tenant, but maybe not all facing 800 North.
Mr. Rawson said there is no discussion or intent about restricting the frontage on 800 North for car dealership or anything other than what is permitted. In earlier discussion, he asked the City Attorney if there is a potential buyable lot that would buffer 800 North and the proposed car dealership. It was his estimation that his possible. As he looks at the plan, it is very problematic. The Board is not here to make a judgment upon what can or cannot be built on a lot that serves as a buffer, but he questions whether the intent to restrict the depth is flawed. He agrees with the first three points.
Mr. Nielsen said the six words they have asked to move away from are clear and specific enough, he could not find against them. Mr. Rawson asked if Mr. Nielsen referred to the language of ―only and along facing 1200 West,‖ and whether it would not prohibit a car dealership with side frontage onto 800 North.
Board of Adjustment Action: Mr. Nielsen proposed the Board of Adjustment has found that the language of ―only and along facing 1200 West‖ would not prohibit a car dealership with side frontage onto 800 North. He moved to support the appeal to the Staff‘s interpretation. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. Mr. Rawson said when there is a multi-use plan it is troubling to him that the permitted uses are not necessarily compatible. When there is residential, commercial and mixed uses all within the same plan if it is not handled well, as a professional appraisal, this can affect the value of the land. This approved use gives him trouble. Mr. Nielsen said he spent 34 years working as a police officer in this City. From his experience dealing with crime, traffic and other problems, if he were in that subdivision knowing how much crime is generated by a big box store, traffic, deliveries, etc. he would personally like a car dealer instead of a box store.
Mr. Rawson suggested adding the interpretation by City staff is incorrect. Mr. Nielsen said he did not think that needed to be added to his motion. Mr. Shorten said there needed to be a finding to support the motion. Mr. Nielsen said the finding is that the words, ―only and along facing 1200 West‖ are clear. Mr. Rawson said the underlying finding is that the City is incorrect.
Mr. Earl asked if he could help clarify the motion that Mr. Nielsen was making. Mr. Earl said if he understood correctly Mr. Nielsen was saying that the City‘s interpretation of the ordinance was partially correct and partially incorrect. Mr. Earl noted that the staff interpretation contained four points and he understood the Board to say that they agreed with the first three outlined points, but the fourth point is where the Board felt the interpretation was incorrect. Mr. Nielsen agreed with this. Mr. Earl said he understood the Board to be saying that a dealership could extend the length of 800 North as the applicants are proposing to put it. Mr. Nielsen said that is not the Board‘s issue as to the size of the dealership. They can have a dealership facing 1200 West and comply with that wording. The size of the dealership has nothing to do with that. That is up to the legislative body. The wording of the ordinance is clear enough, the facing of the building and the access is clear enough in the ordinance.
Mr. Smith stated the wording is consistent with the ordinance. Mr. Nielsen said there may be issues that can be raised, but that is not for the Board to decide. The fact is they can have a dealership and the size is not the issue. Mr. Shorten disagreed and said that is the crux of the issue. The whole point is that the staff has interpreted the ordinance limiting the side lot to 1½ acres. The applicant wants a side border that is larger than the front border and the staff is using that as the basis for that ruling. The Board has to find whether the staff has correctly interpreted the ordinance. Board of Adjustment Action: Mr. Nielsen proposed that after reading the words, ―only along and facing 1200 West,‖ the location of the access is met, the length and the depth also. The Board disagrees with the City staff‘s interpretation.
Mr. Earl said there is the option one side or the other may appeal this decision, the motion needs to be very clear.
“Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2008”
19
Mr. Nielsen withdrew his motion. Board of Adjustment Action: Mr. Rawson proposed the Board of Adjustment has found that:
1. The City staff has exceeded a reasonable interpretation with regards to Item #4 in the City‘s interpretation of Orem City code Section 22-11-35(D), concerning permitted use 5511; and
2. The ordinance does not prohibit the applicant from doing the proposed plan.
Mr. Nielsen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Robert Clark, Gerald Nielsen, and Richard Rawson. Those voting nay: David Shorten. The motion passed.
MINUTES
David Shorten called for a motion to approve the draft minutes of the August 22, 2007 meeting. Mr. Clark moved to approve the meeting minutes for August 22, 2007. Mr. Rawson seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Robert Clark, Gerald Nielsen, Richard Rawson, and David Shorten. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURN
David Shorten called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Rawson moved to adjourn. Mr. Nielsen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Robert Clark, L Gerald Nielsen, Richard Rawson, and David Shorten. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourn: 9:23 p.m.
David Stroud Planner Approved: June 25, 2008

Sewer Plant Bonds

There have been some questions about the bond the City Council approved at its last meeting so I thought I would put some information here. If we don't improve the 50+ year old sewer plant, the city will exceed its discharge limits and could be fined tens of thousands of dollars a day. Not wanting to raise rates until absolutely necessary,realizing it is cheaper to bond than to use cash to pay for the plant, and to finish it quickly, the City Council approved the following item at its last meeting.

From the October 27, 2009 City Council Agenda:

BACKGROUND:
Several years ago the Department of Public Works began working on plans to
expand and upgrade the City’s Water Reclamation Facility. The cost for the
expansion and improvements will be approximately $12 million. The City
recently applied for financing for this project through the State of Utah
Division of Water Quality. The City’s project was approved pending the
availability of financing. This financing will provide an opportunity for a low interest loan with either a zero percent or three percent interest rate depending on the financing source available.
This item is on the agenda so the requirement for the public hearing can be
met. Before any bonds can be issued, it will be necessary for the City Council
to again consider this matter and approve the final bond resolution.

Orem Water Reclamation Facility History
The Orem Water Reclamation Facility (OWRF) is one
of the older plants in the State having been
constructed in 1958. All of the unit processes initially
constructed are still in use today. In 1984, a a second
treatment train utilizing oxidation ditches was
constructed. With these improvements, the hydraulic
capacity of the plant was expanded to 12.3 million
gallons per day (MGD) for average daily flow
conditions. The biological capacity of the plant was
also increased to treat the following maximum
loading conditions:
• BOD = 20,824 lbs/day (203 mg/L)
• TSS = 21,542 lbs/day (210 mg/L)
• Ammonia Nitrogen = 1,890 lbs/day (18 mg/L)
This last major upgrade was designed to meet the
treatment needs through 2003 and the plant has
continued to meet these needs for an additional six
years. Changes in the City’s land uses have increased
commercial development and high‐density housing,
which in turn has increased organic loading at the
treatment plant. This increased loading has caused
problems with the trickling filter process and indicates
that the filters are reaching their useful life. These
problems include the plugging of trickling filter media
as well as an increase in odor.
Since the last major upgrade 25 years ago, several
additional improvements have been made to the
OWRF, including:
• Biosolids dewatering facility and laboratory
additions
• Headworks upgrades
• Anaerobic digesters upgrades
• Secondary clarifier addition
• Chlorination and dechlorination equipment
upgrades
• Dissolved air flotation thickener addition
• Aerobic digester improvements
• Oxidation ditch surface aerator replacements
• Administrative offices, including a vehicle storage
and repair facility
Most of these improvements focused on the solids
handling processes and headworks facility upgrades.
No significant increase in biological capacity resulted
from these upgrades.
Facility Planning
In 2008 and 2009, the City and AQUA Engineering
developed a detailed facility plan for the OWRF. This
plan contains the condition of the existing facilities,
estimates of future flows and loading conditions at
the plant, and recommended improvements to meet
anticipated demands. The plan also includes the
following estimated treatment needs through 2060:
• Design Population = 129,900
• Design Average Daily Flow = 13.5 MGD
• BOD Loading = 39,407 lbs/day (350 mg/L)
• TSS Loading = 39,407 lbs/day (350 mg/L)
• Ammonia Nitrogen Loading = 4,504 lbs/day (40
mg/L)
In addition, it is anticipated that both a total nitrogen
limit and a phosphorous limit will be placed upon the
facility in an attempt to reduce nutrient loading to
Utah Lake. One of the major drivers in nutrient
control is to enhance the June Sucker recovery
program. The June Sucker is an endangered fish
species that can only be found in Utah Lake and its
tributaries. With these established criteria, the City
and AQUA designed facility improvements that allow
the OWRF to meet effluent requirements.
Facility Improvements and Upgrades
The following major facility improvements and
upgrades are proposed at the OWRF:
1. Clarifiers #3 and #4 Conversion. These secondary
clarifiers will be converted to primary clarifiers. This
will increase the primary flow capacity and allow
the primary clarifier process to provide adequate
treatment for the entire waste stream.
2. Oxidation Ditch #1 and #2 Conversion. The two
oxidation ditches will be converted to bioireactors
(Bioreactor #1 and #2) by adding anaerobic basins
and fine‐bubble diffused aeration with the intent of
providing the ability to remove phosphorus and
nitrogen biologically. Optimizing the aeration
process will significantly improve the power
requirements of this treatment process as well.
3. Bioreactor #3 Addition. This addition includes a
new bioreactor and an associated pump station,
anaerobic and anoxic basins, mixing equipment,
and aeration equipment. The addition of this
bioreactor increases the hydraulic and biological
capacity of the plant and provides much needed
redundancy of the secondary treatment processes.
In addition, this upgrade provides for the reduction
of phosphorus and nitrogen in this biological
process.
4.Blower Building Addition. A blower building will
be constructed to house the new turbo blowers
that will provide the required fine‐bubble diffused
process air for Bioreactor #1, #2, and #3.
5.Secondary Clarifier Addition. A new secondary
clarifier (Clarifier #8) will be constructed to provide
adequate capacity for this secondary treatment
process.
6. Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection Addition. Ultraviolet
disinfection equipment will be added to the facility
to replace the chlorination and dechlorination
facilities. This process will reduce operating
disinfection costs while increasing safety.
7.Reuse Water Facility. The reuse water design
includes modifications of the existing trickling filter
pump station, the addition of tertiary disk filters,
and new UV disinfection equipment. These
improvements will allow the City to treat three
million gallons of water per day of Type 1 Reuse
Water, which allows for human contact but not
consumption. For example, this water could be
used to irrigate parks, golf courses, crops or as a
cooling water in an industrial process.
8.Anaerobic Digester Improvements. An additional
thermophilic anaerobic digester and associated
equipment will be constructed to allow the facility
to consistently produce Class A Biosolids. This solids
handling improvement will meet the United States
Environmental Protection Agency requirements for
Class A biosolids production as well as increase
disposal options, which are costly. These biosolids
could be applied to commercial farmlands as well
as home gardens. In addition, the generation of
biosolids will be decreased while the production of
methane will be increased. This methane will be
used as an alternative energy source in the process
to heat the waste sludge to high temperatures. In
the future, this gas could also be used to generate
electricity required by the treatment process.
9.Solids Handling Building Expansion. A small
expansion of this building will greatly improve the
laboratory operations and provide for an adequate
control room for the operation of the facility.
Improvement Costs
AQUA has estimated these improvements to cost
approximately $19 million. The City has been
authorized funds through the State of Utah
Department of Environmental Quality in the amount
of $11.889 million. In the current construction
climate, it is possible that bids will be less than the
estimate. However, the City has prioritized the
improvements and intends to bid the entire project. If
current funding is insufficient, the lower priority items
will be removed as needed to allow the project to
proceed within the funding constraints.

More Endorsements

What others are saying about me:

"We think Karen McCandless is a wonderful representative for the citizens of Orem. She is diligent and takes her assignment seriously; however, she has a very down-to-earth personality. She is approachable and will always listen to what people have to say. We are proud to endorse her for Orem's City Council." -Val and Nancy Hale, Cascade Neighborhod Residents

"I met Karen several years ago when I became involved working with Orem City on development pressures affecting southwest Orem. Karen takes the time to research issues, listen to residents, and I know she cares deeply about our community. Please join me in re-electing Karen on November 3rd." -Marion Baxter, Lakeview Neighborhood Resident

"As a state legislator, I have to learn quickly about many issues. Karen's knowledge adn experience make her my "go-to" person on municipal and land use topics. Since Karen knows how cities work, I know I am getting accurate, well-reasoned information. She is respected by her peers and does an excellent job representing Orem." -Representative Lorie Fowlke, Bonneville Neighborhood Resident

City Council Districts?

What are your thoughts about districting for council seats? If elected, how will you ensure equal representation for all residents of the city of Orem? I do not favor districting. I feel it causes council members to focus on “their” portion of the city, rather than the city as a whole. This is detrimental to the community. Orem is an entire community and council members need to take the time to know the issues throughout the community. This is time consuming, but it is part of being a good elected official. My responsibility as a council member is to look at all the information and make a decision that is best for the entire community. Since I do not control who is on the city council, I cannot ensure equal representation by the body as a whole. I can ensure that I, personally, give and will continue to give equal and fair consideration to all areas of the city.

About Me

My education and professional experience is in land use planning. I have a BS degree in Geography from BYU with a land use planning emphasis. I have worked for cities as a staff planner and department director and individuals as a planning consultant. A northwest Orem resident since 1991, I am married to Don McCandless and have two children, ages 19 and 12. In addition to serving as a councilmember and being a stay at home mom, I volunteer as a substitute driver with Meals on Wheels and participate in the Orem Kiwanis Club. I enjoy bicycling, being a mom, reading, camping, hiking, and playing the piano and flute.

What makes me a unique candidate? My experience as a city planner, neighborhood activist, councilmember and planning consultant has given me the opportunity to really understand how cities work. This background gives me a strong foundation to address municipal issues and problems. A councilmember's job is much more than attending meetings twice a month. An effective councilmember also needs to take the time to do research, attend to other committee assignments and community activities, and answering phone calls and emails. I have the time and passion to serve.

Walk Bike Orem

A bicycle and pedestrian plan is in the works for Orem. Click here to learn more. Please participate! I am excited because this is something I have been advocating for a few years. It just took some time to get the Transportation Commission created and to receive funding (THANK YOU Mountainland Association of Governments!)

Here is some information from the website.

Events:
Please come to the MAG Open House at the Orem Senior Friendship Center anytime between 4:30pm and 7:00pm on October 21st to learn more about the Orem Bicycle and Pedestrian Study. We will have maps, interactive workstations and project staff there to answer questions and collect your comments and input into this important process!

Orem Senior Friendship Center
93 N 400 E, Orem, UT

Questions and Answers

I thought I would post some questions and answers here. I will put the most recent questions at the top.

Did RC Willey ever receive RDA monies?
According to Orem City Manager Jim Reams, no. RC Willey is in an RDA area, but no money was given to them.

I am wondering how you voted for the Verona Estates subdivision? Did you vote to put them in a separate zone from their surrounding neighbors?
I voted against the zoning changes that created Verona Estates. I was concerned about the appearance of big houses on little lots and that it gave a benefit to the developer over those who developed with the R-8 zone. The vote was 4-3 with me and two others in the minority vote. The minutes of the 11/11/03 meeting can be found at www.orem.org

Your campaign literature says there have been no general property tax increases. What do you mean? Last year, dozens of cities in Utah voted to increase property taxes in order to continue to provide city services in light of the economic downturn. Orem was not one of them. In order for a city to raise property taxes and put money into the city's general fund, there has to be what is called a "Truth In Taxation" hearing. Large newspaper ads are purchased to advertise the hearing, in addition to other noticing. A public hearing is held and a city council vote is taken. Orem has not raised general fund property taxes in at least the past thirty years. However,Orem's property taxes have increased due to voter approved road bonds.

What is your position on the issues surrounding the Cirque Lodge, especially the issue of the Cirque Lodge operating a heliport in a residential area of Orem? If you were on city council at the time of any of the votes on this issue, how did you vote and why? I was on the City Council at the time and I made the motion and voted to deny the conditional use permit for the helipad at Cirque Lodge. I felt its effects could not be sufficiently mitigated. Orem City was sued and when it became very evident the City would probably lose the lawsuit (because case law held that if a use is conditional use, it must be allowed in some form), the City decided to work out the helipad conditions with Cirque Lodge rather than have the judge impose conditions. Why was the use there to begin with? The helipad condtional use was a leftover use from the movie studio use of the property and was never removed.

Should the Orem recreation center be open on Sundays? How should this decision be made? What role does religion play in this issue? Are there any other city services that should be considered for operation on Sunday beside public safety services? I have never been asked this question during my tenure on the city council, so I am don't know how much interest there would be in having a facility open on Sunday. Residents seem to be comfortable with public safety and public works being the only employees who work on Sundays.

When would you expect the Orem Utopia build-out to be completed? How should this be funded? What priority should this project get compared to other programs? UTOPIA is a completely separate entity from Orem City, so it does not "compete" with city projects for funding. Orem is one of many UTOPIA member cities. I am expecting UTOPIA to be built out in the next 1-2 years. It is my understanding UTOPIA would like to bond for the build out.


What are we going to do about Midtown Village and how will it be paid for? What are the 'lessons learned'?

NOTE: Click Here to see my separate post about Midtown Village as well. While it is similar, there is more detail in that post.
Orem City decided to approve the development of Midtown Village based on the merits of the land use (on a state highway, along a transit route, revitalization, etc). After city approval is granted, it is up to the market and the developer to decide if the project should be built. I believe it is inappropriate for a city to require unencumbered cash in the bank to complete a project prior to approving a building permit. For example that would wreak havoc on single family homeowners if they had to have non-loaned cash in the bank prior to building a home. I will not support bailing Midtown Village out of its current financial situation (there has never been a request to do so). The current situation is the result of private decisions between the developer and his lenders, and the economic downturn that took place.

There is a special improvement district on the property in the amount of approximately $3.8 million. Orem City sits in first position, in front of dozens of other creditors. It is my understanding the creditors in line behind Orem are owed between $90-100 million. Orem has started foreclosure proceedings on Midtown Village in an effort to secure assets to cover the $3.8 million. I feel that the creditors behind Orem City are not going to let Orem acquire Midtown Village and will either pay the assesments or buy out Orem's position. I am completely confident Orem will get the special improvement district money.

As far a lessons, learned, I think the one thing I would look at changing is the city's clearing and grubbing ordinance (something along the lines that building permits need to be issued before digging basements, etc.) so we aren't left with a giant hole for a long time.

What is Orem City going to do? I think the appropriate actions are to continue with the foreclosure and wait for the other creditors to work things out. I am confident the project will ultimately be completed.

How do you propose keeping UVU traffic out of neighborhoods?
I believe I have spent far more time learning about this issue than any other city council candidate and there still a lot I don't know. But neither do the professionals working on the project. There is ungathered data, traffic modeling to be done, neighborhood meetings to be held and discussions with agencies to be scheduled. The potential traffic solutions are a work in progress and I don't have enough data to give a "best solution". I wish I could. What I do know is I do not want institutional or regional traffic passing through neighborhoods. Neighborhood streets should be for neighborhood traffic. I do know I will work hard so Provo doesn't use Orem to solve its traffic problems.

My intent is to preserve Orem's neighborhoods. I care very much about Orem's neighborhoods and do not want institutional and regional traffic harming them. I do know I will carefully study the problems, listen to all who wish to be heard, and carefully consider solutions.


8/20/09
Do you support the construction of a civic auditorium?
I was asked this today and at the meet the candidate night. I supported asking the staff to gather information about the possiblilty of having a civic auditorium. If circumstances were favorable, I support its construction with CARE funds and private donations, a public/private partnership. I would not support funding it using money the city council has put in the "programming funding bucket" for non-profit recipients. I do know I would not support building a facility with general fund monies. Would I vote for it if the issue came before me tomorrow? I don't know. I have a lot of questions I need to have answered before I vote. For example: Where is the funding coming from? What types of programming will fill the auditorium? Would the facility complement or compete with existing arts facilities? Does Orem have an "arts programming threshold"? If so, what is it? Where is the ongoing operational money going to come from? Have we looked at all the options presented in the 2006 feasibility study? Which groups will be allowed to use the facility? Can content be regulated at the facility? What are the purposes of the auditorium? Can they be met with present community facilities? How will the parking work? What if it cannot be filled with programming? I think the city council may be a ways away from making any type of decision.

8/14/09
Why are you running for council? I am running for office because I have the education (land use planning) and experience needed to serve on the city council. I also have the passion, time and common sense needed to serve. I want strong neighborhoods, minimal land use conflicts, good communication between the city, its officials, and residents, good transportation planning and a strong economic base.

How do you plan to finance your campaign? How much do you anticipate spending/what is your budget? My campaign is self-financed as well as individual donations. I have not received any business donations. My campaigns typically run about $5000.

Will you accept (or have you already accepted) campaign contributions from groups with business interests in the City of Orem (i.e. Utah County Association of Realtors, Utah Valley Homebuilders Association, etc.)? If so, please discuss how this may impact your ability to remain unbiased when considering issues that may come before you as a member of the council. I have not received any donations from groups with business interests for this campaign. My priority as a councilmember is to act in the best interest of Orem, not the best interest of a particular group.

What is your opinion about term limits for council members? Do you support or oppose term limits (please provide your own personal philosophy regarding this item; not just whether you support a formal revision to the Orem City code that would mandate term limits). If you support limits, how long do you favor? Why? I believe there is much more accountability at the local level, as opposed to the state and federal level. Since the city council office is “so close to the people”, and without caucuses, committees or conventions to “protect” a candidate, I don’t believe term limits are necessary. However, I do believe an incumbent needs re-evaluate his or her passion for the community every time he or she runs.

What are your thoughts about districting for council seats? If elected, how will you ensure equal representation for all residents of the city of Orem? I do not favor districting. I feel it causes council members to focus on “their” portion of the city, rather than the city as a whole. Orem is an entire community and council members need to take the time to know the issues throughout the community. This is time consuming, but it is part of being a good elected official. My responsibility as a council member is to look at all the information and make a decision that is best for the entire community. Since I do not control who is on the city council, I cannot ensure equal representation by the body as a whole. I can ensure that I, personally, give and will continue to give equal and fair consideration to all areas of the city.

What are your thoughts about Orem’s involvement in the Midtown Village Project? What do you see as an acceptable strategy for similar future projects? Orem is involved in Midtown Village to the extent of a special improvement district for a portion of the parking structure. I have rethought my position and to do it all over again, I don't know if I would support the creation of a special improvement district for Midtown Village’s parking structure. Not because of Midtown Village’s private financial problems, but my special improvement district philosophy has changed.

What are the most significant transportation issues facing the city of Orem in the next 4 years? I-15 reconstruction and its impact on Orem, traffic surrounding the UVU area and southwest Orem , BRT, and the covering of the Murdock Canal. I am excited about the development of a trails master plan, UTA’s intermodal station and the arrival of Frontrunner.

With Utah Valley University’s continued growth, how can Orem City best protect the quality of life for its residents adjacent to and surrounding the Orem Campus? What are your thoughts regarding UDOT’s proposal at 800 South and I-15? I think the best way to protect the quality of life as it relates to transportation is to keep traffic on the larger streets, which are meant for traffic, rather than direct it through neighborhoods. Right now, the proposals at 800 South and I-15 are a moving target, with ideas constantly changing. There is a refined alternative, but I am aware of other ideas being proposed.

In the past 1-2 years, Orem City has opted to keep the lights on from dusk to dawn at all of its city parks in order facilitate patrols by the Department of Public Safety. Some residents have expressed concern that the lights actually increase illicit activity at the parks after hours and that leaving the lights on all of the time is not environmentally or fiscally responsible. What are your thoughts regarding this issue? The City Manager said this is still being studied so the results aren’t yet available. Thus, I do not know the relationship between crime and illuminated parks. I do know I want parks to be a safe place.

Over the past several years, UDOT has been in the process of planning for the expansion/rebuild of I-15 in Utah County. An area of significant concern is limited freeway access between Orem’s University Parkway and Provo’s Center Street. Do you support a new interchange at any or all of the following locations: Orem 2000 South, Provo 1740 North, or Provo 820 North? Please explain. I believe there needs to be another interchange in Provo. I am not sure whether it should be at 1740 North, Provo 2000 North/Orem 2000 South or 820 North. It depends upon the purpose of the interchange-access to the west side or UVU access. Provo’s west side is largely undeveloped and if/when it develops will create a tremendous impact on existing interchanges. I think Provo and Orem residents and officials, Mountainland Association of Governments and UDOT need to work together toward a consensus.

Provo City’s transportation master plan proposes the extension of Independence Avenue north to 2000 South/Sandhill Road in Orem. Do you support or oppose this proposal? Why? I currently do not support this proposal since I believe without other access improvements, such a connection will be used as a shortcut for Provo residents to get to the University Parkway interchange.

In November 2005, Orem City citizens voted for the CARE tax to generate money to enhance recreation and cultural arts in our city. This tax is set to expire after a period of 8 years. Do you support renewing the CARE tax at that time? If it is not renewed, would you be willing to allocate money from the City’s General Fund to support programs dependent upon CARE tax funding? I would support placing the CARE tax question on the ballot for Orem’s residents to decide. While I am a participant and supporter of cultural arts programs, such programs should not be dependent on non-voter approved government funding. Since I feel this way, I do not see myself voting to allocate money from the City’s General Fund to support programs dependent upon CARE tax funding.

Numerous proposals have been made over the past several years to split the Alpine School District. What are your thoughts regarding these proposals? How would you respond to such a proposal if it arises again in the future? When this came before the City Council a few years ago, I voted to put it on the ballot. I felt people should be able to research the issue and decide for themselves whether the district should be split. My feelings have not changed.

Recently there has been an effort by City staff to promote redevelopment in some neighborhoods by providing a TRD (“Townhome Residential Development”) zone or similar density bonus to developers willing to demolish older properties. What do you believe is the best way to encourage redevelopment projects? Are density bonuses an acceptable method of promoting redevelopment? What consideration should there be for existing zoning, if any? I don’t think there is a “best way” to encourage redevelopment projects. Some redevelopment projects are in residential areas and others are in commercial areas. Every circumstance is different and there a myriad of ways to redevelop property. Density bonuses are viewed as a tool available to cities for redevelopment. Yes, there should be consideration for surrounding zoning, as reflected in the General Plan-a document adopted by the city after public input and hearings.

Please outline your goals if elected to the City Council. This is from the 200 word Voter Information Pamphlet: My focuses are: 1. Great neighborhoods: I support a clear strategic plan, strong city ordinances and citizen programs so neighborhoods have the tools needed to be their best. 2. Communication: I will keep working to have the very best communication and transparency between residents and Orem City. 3. Fiscal Responsibility: I will continue to be a wise steward of taxpayer monies, especially during these times. 4. Transportation: I will continue to work to minimize traffic impacts on neighborhoods.

These are some of the questions I received from the Utah County Association of Realtors:

Tell us a little bit about yourself. What is your background? Describe your professional and/or civic experience.
I currently serve on the Orem City Council, having been appointed to fill a vacancy from a field of over twenty applicants and then running two successful election campaigns. I have lived in Orem for nearly 18 years. My university degree and professional experience is in land use planning and I have worked in both the private and public sectors. Currently, I am a homemaker and council member. I have served on the Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors, been City Council liaison to every city commission and committee, am a member of the Orem Kiwanis Club, and am affiliated with the Women’s Division of the Provo/Orem Chamber of Commerce, Utah County Republican Women, and Women in Leadership. I am a Boy Scout merit badge counselor, PTA volunteer, classroom speaker (elementary through BYU). I also enjoy being a volunteer driver with Meals On Wheels.


Why are you running for this office and what are the most important issues to you?
I am running for office because I have the education (land use planning) and experience needed to serve on the city council. I want strong neighborhoods, minimal land use conflicts, good communication between the city, its officials, and residents and a strong economic base.


Describe your political philosophy or position on the following:
a. Private property rights
I am a strong supporter of private property rights.
b. Mixed-use development and increased housing density
Throughout my city council tenure, I have supported mixed-use development. I believe densities higher than single-family housing should be part of a community’s general plan (and they are part of Orem’s general plan) and the projects should be carefully located and designed so impacts are mitigated.
c. Sign ordinances
I support the ability of local businesses to have appropriate signage.
d. Impact and development-related fees
I believe impact fees, if used as the state law intended, are appropriate so long as a “reasonable nexus” can be established between the impact and the fee. Unfortunately, there are cities who do not completely understand this. Therefore, some communities build a house of cards by assessing and spending impact fees in an inappropriate manner. Orem is not one of those communities and has some of the lowest impact fees in Utah County. In my professional experience, I have seen jurisdictions “hold a developer hostage” over non-codified exactions. This is wrong. The jurisdiction’s law must be very clear that an exaction is required and there needs to be a strong connection between the development impact and exaction.
e. Transportation infrastructure (both roads and transit)
Orem’s biggest transportation challenge in the coming years is the I-15 reconstruction. This will have a huge impact on north/south roads in Orem, particularly State Street and Geneva Road. Orem’s challenge is the fact that I-15, Geneva Road and State Street are all controlled by the State of Utah. Orem needs to continue to have good communication with UDOT in order to coordinate work and solve problems. Another crucial area is the area around UVU and 800 South and the possibility of some type of interchange at 800 South. This too, is mainly a UDOT project. I am an advocate of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and am excited to see Orem’s Trails Plan moving forward. I look forward to the completion of the UTA’s intermodal station and the arrival of Frontrunner.


Economic development is another key issue for all cities. How do you propose to increase economic development in your city?
Economic development consists of recruiting and retention. While business location a private sector decision, cities can help by providing excellent infrastructure and business-friendly ordinances and processes. For example, I am aware of a business that moved from another community (where it had been for 30 years) to Orem. One of the main reasons it moved to Orem? A location along a major road (infrastructure). I also believe the relationship this business had with the owner of the office building had a role too (private sector involvement). Another example is Orem creating a special improvement district for road improvements at Northgate Village (800 N 1000 W). Orem has a good relationship with the Commission for Economic Development in Orem (CEDO) and Orem and CEDO officials frequently meet with those interested in moving to Orem. Orem also works to retain the businesses it does have.

Orem News

Click here to learn about a new grocery store coming to Orem. The store it being built in the Northgate development at about 1000 West 850 North.

Click here to read about Pirate Island Pizza, a new restaurant near Costco. I visited it recently I really liked the atmosphere-ARR!

Click here to read about the $250,000 grant UTA received to design the new Orem Intermodal Center. The center will be located west of I-15 just a little bit north University Parkway, near the Parkway Crossing development.

Health and Wellness Fair

I received this in my email box:

"Confused about the Swine Flu? What shots, when?
Receive expert advice at the 25th Annual Health and Wellness Fair on Oct 15, 2009 from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Provo Eldred Senior Center 270 West 500 North Provo.
Get flu and pneumonia shots from the Utah County Health Department (free with Medicare and Medicaid).
Free health screenings from local clinics and/or doctors for bone density, cholesterol, glucose, diabetes, macular degeneration, and skin cancer.
Community and caregiver education resources will be available along with entertainment, food and door prizes."

Early Voting

Can't wait to vote? Early voting is from October 20-30th at the Orem City Recorder's Office, 56 North State Street. Remember to bring ID!