General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Orem

Public Body

City Council

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Orem City Council Meeting

Notice Tags

Zoning

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

February 8, 2011 05:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

February 4, 2011 01:19 PM

Description/Agenda

CITY OF OREM CITY COUNCIL MEETING 56 North State Street, Orem, Utah February 8, 2011 This meeting may be held electronically to allow a Councilmember to participate. 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM 1. DISCUSSION – Amended CARE Proposal – Utah Valley Symphony AGENDA REVIEW 2. The City Council will review the items on the agenda. CITY COUNCIL - NEW BUSINESS 3. This is an opportunity for members of the City Council to raise issues of information or concern. 6:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT: By Invitation PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: By Invitation APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. MINUTES of Joint Orem/Provo City Council Meeting – December 1, 2010 5. MINUTES of City Council Meeting – January 11, 2011 6. MINUTES of Joint Orem City /Vineyard Town Council Meeting – January 19, 2011 7. MINUTES of Joint City Council/Alpine School District Meeting – January 25, 2011 MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL 8. UPCOMING EVENTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 10. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Beautification Advisory Commission – 3 vacancies Heritage Advisory Commission – 2 vacancies Metropolitan Water Board – 1 vacancy Orem Arts Council - 2 vacancies Recreation Advisory Commission – 2 vacancies Senior Advisory Commission – 1 vacancy 11. RECOGNITION OF NEW NEIGHBORHOODS IN ACTION OFFICERS CITY MANAGER’S APPOINTMENTS 12. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PERSONAL APPEARANCES 13. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the Agenda. (Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.) CONSENT ITEMS 14. There are no consent items. SCHEDULED ITEMS 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 15. ORDINANCE – Amending Section 22-19-1(A) and Appendix A, of the Orem City Code by Enacting Standard Land Use Code 6371 Climate Controlled Storage Units as a Permitted Use in the C2 Zone and Enacting Section 22-8-17 of the Orem City Code Additional Provisions for Specific Uses REQUEST: The applicant requests the City Council enact Standard Land Use Code 6371 Climate Controlled Storage Units as a permitted use in the C2 zone and enact Section 22-8-17 of the Orem City Code, Additional Provisions for Specific Uses. Staff would propose that the Council also consider allowing Climate Controlled Storage Units as a permitted use in the M1, M2, and CM zones. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide BACKGROUND: The applicant desires to construct an indoor climate controlled storage unit facility in the C2 zone. Currently, the City allows Standard Land Use Code 6370 General Warehousing & Storage in the M1, M2, and CM zones. The proposed climate controlled storage unit facility would have some typical storage units on the main level with exterior garage doors but would also provide climate controlled storage units on both the lower and upper floor(s) that are accessed from the interior. The units would be within one larger building with climate control units on both levels to support a variety of storage options from medical records to household items. The idea behind the indoor storage units would be to access the units from the inside of the building rather than the outside of the building through rows and rows of garage doors. This would give the development more of an office building look, which fits into the intended purpose of the C2 zone. However, the main level will have several garage doors which are accessed from the exterior of the facility. A maximum of twenty percent of the of the gross leasable space on the ground floor can be accessed from exterior garage doors as proposed in Section 22-8-17(A)(3). The proposed standards outlined in Section 22-8-17(A) of the Orem City Code are intended to mitigate negative impacts from the outward appearance of the storage units and give more control over the looks and feel of a climate controlled storage unit project. The advantages and disadvantages concerning the proposed request are as follows: Advantages • Provides an additional storage facility option for those who need a controlled environment in which to store records; • The development would meet all the landscaping, parking, and other development standards of the C2 zone; and • Climate controlled storage units would have additional requirements as outlined in Section 22-8-17(A) of the Orem City Code to mitigate potential negative impacts of the development. Disadvantages • Numerous garage doors on the main level would tend to look like a typical storage unit development; • The main floor units with exterior garage doors are not climate controlled and would function like a typical storage unit; and • The buildings may not be compatible with other uses within the C2 zone with all the garage doors on the main level. Staff contacted several cities to determine how they permitted this type of development. The following table outlines five cities in the Salt Lake Valley area. Self-Storage Units / Mini-Storage / Warehousing / Self-Storage Facility City Commercial Mixed-Use District Regional Commercial / C3 Zone Community Commercial / C2 Zone Local Commercial General Commercial Corridor Commercial Murray City CUP Sandy City CUP CUP CUP South Salt Lake Permitted West Valley City CUP CUP Salt Lake City Permitted Permitted The amendments proposed by the applicant are outlined below: SLU R5 R6 R6.5 R7.5 R8 R12 R20 OS5/ROS PO C1 C2 C3 HS M1 M2 CM BP 6371 Indoor Climate Controlled Storage Units * See Section 22-8-17(A) N N N N N N N N N N P N N P P P N Section 22-8-17 Additional Provisions for Specific Uses A. Climate Controlled Storage Units are defined as storage units that are offered for sale, lease, or use as a primary purpose of the building in which they are located and at least forty percent of which units are climate controlled with heating and cooling. In addition to the provisions of Section 22-14-20 of this Chapter, the following additional requirements shall apply to climate controlled storage units: 1. A building housing climate controlled storage units shall have a minimum of two stories with the square footage of the second level at least equal to at least eighty percent of the first floor. 2. No garage door or door accessing a unit shall face a public street. 3. The area of storage units accessed from the exterior of the building shall not exceed twenty percent of the gross leaseable space of the ground floor. 4. At least forty percent of the units shall be climate controlled with heating and cooling. 5. The ground floor exterior finish materials shall be split-face block, brick, or other cementations material. The second floor exterior finishing materials shall be split-face block, brick, stucco, textured block, or glass. 6. The architecture and finishing materials shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to make all storage unit access doors blend in with the adjacent walls to the greatest extent practicable. All storage unit doors shall match the ground floor color scheme. No storage building façade shall be more than fifty feet in length without a visual break that creates the appearance of a change in material or depth. This shall be achieved through a change in building material, building projection, or relief measuring at least three inches in width and depth or another architectural variation that meets the intent of this sub-part. 7. No climate controlled storage units located in the C2 zone may be located within two miles of another building containing climate controlled storage units. 8. All building facades shall have the appearance of an office and/or retail building through the use of doors, windows, awnings, and other appropriate building elements as approved by the Planning Commission. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 16. ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-3-3(B) of the Orem City Code as it Relates to the Reconstruction of Structures Used for Non-Conforming Uses REQUEST: Habitat for Humanity requests the City amend Section 22-3-3(B) of the Orem City Code to permit reconstruction of a structure used for a non-conforming use. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide BACKGROUND: In 2006, the City Code allowed nonconforming residential uses to be rebuilt after they were voluntarily or involuntarily destroyed. This ordinance was in place at the request of the local banking community. They did not want to issue loans on homes that could not be rebuilt if they were destroyed by fire or other natural hazard. In 2006, the City amended the ordinance to only allow involuntarily destroyed non-conforming uses to be rebuilt. This change made it impossible to raze a nonconforming use such as a duplex in a single-family zone, and rebuild a new duplex. The rationale was that if a nonconforming use was voluntarily removed, the new use must be required to conform to the current zoning. The applicant met with the City Manager and staff to see if the City could go back to the 2006 standard that would allow a voluntarily razed nonconforming use to be rebuilt. Staff reviewed the request and thought that with a few changes to the request, it might be a real benefit to the City to make the changes. The applicant was okay with the amendments to her application. The City currently has a substantial inventory of run-down four-plexes and duplexes that are non-conforming. Because of the revenue stream that comes from these units, there is no incentive to tear down multi-family units and replace them with single-family homes. However, with the new standards, this proposal would allow old multi-family units to be torn down and rebuilt. The new standards are: • the units may not be stacked • the underlying zone is residential • the rebuilt units must meet current zoning setbacks and standards • the maximum number of dwelling units is four • the units shall have a minimum roof pitch of five rise to twelve run • two off street parking stalls are required per unit • each of the units shall have front, rear, and side elevations with sixty percent of its exterior finishing materials of either brick, stone, cultured stone, cement-plank siding, stucco, or a combination of these materials. Since most of the current four-plexes are stacked, have flat or nearly flat roofs, and have no required finishing materials, these rebuilt units will be a major upgrade to the neighborhoods. In other words, the typical two up, two down stacked four-plexes will be replaced by four units that resemble town homes. Duplexes will be replaced by twin homes. Staff is of the opinion that there may be only one or two developers that will invoke this ordinance. However, it does give owners of old rundown apartment buildings another option besides continuing to repair and rent. Regarding the specifics of the applicant’s request, Concord Court Subdivision, Plat A, at 800 South and Orem Boulevard was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2006. The plat was recorded in August 2006. Habitat for Humanity then purchased Lot 3 (as well as others) of Concord Court, Plat A, at 169 East 800 South in April 2007. The original lot, which then became Lot 3 of Concord Court, had an old rundown duplex on site. The Orem City Code, at the time of subdivision approval, allowed nonconforming residential uses to be exempt from the nonconforming ordinances. The duplex was nonconforming because that type of residential use was no longer allowed in the zone. However, since they were exempt at the time, the duplex could be razed and rebuilt. This situation prompted the City Council to approve the text amendment in May 2006 to remove the voluntary exemption to the Orem City Code. After the 2006 amendment, the lot was sold to Habitat with the understanding between the seller and buyer that the duplex could be rebuilt. The sale of the lot occurred eleven months after the City Council amended the ordinance. In 2010, Habitat came to the City asking for approval to reconstruct the duplex. They were informed they could not because the Orem City Code was amended over four years ago, which prevented the reconstruction. Once the ordinance changed in May of 2006, the owner of the lot had until May of 2007 to rebuild or forfeit all rights to construct a duplex. Habitat did not seek a building permit for a duplex until 2010; however, all rights to a duplex ceased in May 2007. Since the lot was bought with the intention of constructing a duplex and most likely the purchase price reflected this same thought, Habitat has requested the Orem City Code be amended to allow the duplex to be rebuilt. The proposed text would allow a structure used for a noncomplying use to be rebuilt within five years of demolition. After that date, the use must comply with the zone. Advantages • Under the current ordinance, if a four-plex is involuntarily demolished, it can be rebuilt to its current standard (stacked with flat roofs). This change would require the rebuilt units to meet the new standards. • Encourages old rundown duplexes and four plexes to be rebuilt to a townhome standard. • Without this alternative, the rundown multi-family units will be forever minimally repaired and remain an eyesore to the community. There is no incentive to ever get rid of the old. • Improves the appearance and revitalizes old neighborhoods. Disadvantages • This one lot will not be reduced in density from that which it had 6:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 17. ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-6-9(I) of the Orem City Code Pertaining to Accessory Apartments REQUEST: Derek Whetten requests the City amend Section 22-6-9(I) of the Orem City Code to permit accessory apartments in a residential zone. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested an ordinance amendment to allow a window of time for new accessory apartments. He also recommends a change to the parking requirement. The proposed changes are as follows: • Except as provided below, no accessory apartment permit shall be issued after May 31, 2011, and no building permit for the construction of an accessory apartment or for the construction of improvements necessary to bring an illegal accessory apartment into compliance with City ordinances shall be issued after May 31, 2012 • The number of vehicles maintained by all of the occupants of the dwelling may not exceed the number of off-street parking spaces The proposal would allow anyone to apply for an accessory apartment permit until May 31, 2011. Once the permit is approved, the owner has until May 31, 2012, to have a building permit issued for the apartment. Limiting the number of cars for a dwelling that has an accessory apartment is difficult to enforce. In 1992, the City Council amended the Orem City Code to permit accessory apartments as a use in the residential zones as long as building and zoning codes were met. To have an accessory apartment, two permits were needed. The first was the accessory apartment permit approved through zoning and the second was the building permit needed to complete the construction. In November 2002, the City Council amended the ordinance to prevent any new accessory apartment after February 12, 2003. Up until that date, zoning approval for the apartment would be granted if zoning requirements with respect to parking, zone, utilities, etc. were met. After that date, the building permit and certificate of occupancy had to be obtained by February 12, 2004. In late 2003, several complaints were received by the City stating that the residents did not know about the elimination of accessory apartments. Some were out of the country, which prevented them from obtaining a legal apartment while others had personal issues which caused delays. Development Services filed an application to amend the ordinance with the possibility of 1) reopening the process citywide, 2) opening the opportunity based on specific criteria, or 3) doing nothing. The City Council made additional changes to the accessory apartment ordinance in February 2004. They first removed the deadline to obtain a certificate of occupancy. The International Building Code, which the City and State have adopted, allows a permit to remain active so long as work is completed at least every six months. This change allowed people to take more time to construct an apartment. The second change was to reopen the possibility for an accessory apartment to those that have existing illegal apartments. This change did not allow new construction but was an attempt to bring the existing illegal apartments into compliance. Owners were then given until September 1, 2004, to obtain zoning approval for an apartment and until December 31, 2004, to obtain their building permit. Once the building permit was issued, the permit remained active so long as inspections were performed at least every six months. Neighboring cities of Provo and Lindon currently allow accessory apartments, and the following is a summary of each ordinance: Lindon • Permitted in all single-family zones • Located in single-family dwellings only • Owner occupancy of one of the units • At last four off-street parking stalls provided for the home and apartment with no required parking located in front setback • Minimum size of 300 square feet and a maximum of 1,200 square feet with no more than 3 bedrooms • Entrances shall not be on the same side of the dwelling that faces a street • Detached apartments are not permitted • Permit can be reviewed by the Planning Commission if a neighbor feels the applicant does not meet the minimum standards Provo • Permitted in all R1 zones (single-family) with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet • Owner occupancy of one of the units • At least four off-street parking stalls provided for the home and apartment with no required parking located in front setback • Entrance on side or rear of building and only one may be visible from street for either unit • No minimum or maximum square footage requirement Other Cities Salt Lake City does not allow accessory apartments but they are now looking at the issue. Sandy, Lehi, and Spanish Fork allow accessory apartments with a conditional use permit. Other cities do not allow accessory apartments at all. The issues that faced the City concerning accessory apartments in 2002, in all probability, still exist today. They are as follows: 1. Accessory apartments increase the density 2. Many homes with legal accessory apartments become duplexes as owners move out (owner is required to occupy one of the units) 3. Homes are sold with what is believed to be legal apartments but then the new owner finds out they are not 4. Accessory apartments are one of the most common complaints received by the City 5. The original accessory apartment ordinance was not intended to provide every home with an accessory apartment but to have them scattered throughout the City Options The Council can, of course, deny or grant the request. The Council may also modify the request by putting a spacing requirement in the ordinance. In other words, language such as “ no accessory apartment may be located within 100 yards of another existing accessory apartment as measured in a straight line from the closest edge of the lot line to closest edge of the lot line.” This spacing requirement has been upheld by the courts as a legitimate land use tool. Another option for the Council is to put a maximum limit for accessory apartments at a number chosen by the City Council. Currently there are 503 legal accessory apartments. The City could, for example, place the maximum number of accessory apartments at 800; after which, no more accessory apartments would be allowed in the city. Advantages: • Provides additional and affordable housing opportunities • Provide affordable housing in single family neighborhoods that are not dominated by apartments • Typical residents are young families • Increased the number of people who shop and work in Orem • Raises property values Disadvantages: • Increases the density of single-family residential zones • Additional traffic on streets • Owners buy into subdivision thinking they will remain single-family density • Accessory apartments can turn into illegal duplexes • Enforcement issues are always difficult. Transitioning from when accessory apartments are legal and are not legal is very difficult and challenging. CONTINUED DISCUSSION 18. ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-6-10 of the Orem City Code by Enacting Subsection (K), Amateur Radio Antenna REQUEST: Dan Bishop requests the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-6-10 of the Orem City Code by approving subsection (K), Amateur Radio Antenna. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide BACKGROUND: This application was continued from the January 11, 2011, City Council Meeting to allow the City Attorney to do additional research. The applicant owns and operates an amateur radio (ham) at his residence located at 847 East 500 North. Under the current ordinance, a residential lot may contain antennas with a maximum height of forty-five feet. As with radio and many other uses requiring antennas, the higher an antenna is the greater reception and capability. The applicant has proposed to increase the height of allowed antennas to seventy-five feet and to allow antennas higher than seventy-five feet with a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes the following: • Equipment may include, but is not limited to, cellular or PCS (personal communication system), paging and microwave systems, and associated antennas, dishes, mounting structures, and related equipment • Allowing one antenna per lot which must be located in the rear or side yard • Setbacks of twenty feet from neighboring property and thirty feet from a right-of-way • Allowing an antenna height of seventy-five feet requiring the antenna to be constructed of galvanized steel or aluminum, and requiring the antenna to be a neutral color. • Requiring a conditional use permit for an antenna higher than seventy-five feet or one that deviates from the required setbacks or materials • Towers that are not used for two years would be considered to be abandoned. Non-use due to ecclesiastical or military service would not be considered abandonment. According to FCC regulations, local regulation of amateur radio structures must not preclude amateur service communications. Cities must reasonably accommodate amateur communications and zoning regulations should be the minimum practicable in order to accomplish the zoning authority’s legitimate purposes. This basically means that the City must explore potential alternatives and compromises to accommodate the desires of the applicant to the greatest extent possible without unacceptably impairing aesthetics or other legitimate goals. In the previous meeting, the City Council expressed concern about the aesthetic impact of allowing amateur radio towers to go up to 75 feet or higher as requested by the applicant. The Council also examined a number of possible alternatives that might reasonably accommodate the desires of the applicant for a greater antenna height. These alternatives included allowing retractable antenna support structures to extend above the current 45 foot limit with the condition that the structure be retracted when not in use or that the time that such retractable structure could be extended be limited to 15 hours a week or some other limited period of time. Restricting the time that a retractable antenna may be extended to nighttime hours or a certain number of hours per week is something that other jurisdictions have also considered. The City Attorney’s office has found no case law that suggests that such restrictions would violate the right of free speech. Courts have held that a person does not have a constitutional right to unrestricted access to communicate over radio frequencies and such communications may be restricted by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. In one recent case, a federal district court stated that “[i]n the context of tower height ordinances, courts have uniformly held that no First Amendment claim arises from the denial of a special use permit that is not ‘based on the content of [the] proposed speech, but [is] an attempt to promote legitimate content-neutral interests.” Bosscher v. Township of Algoma, 246 F.Supp.2d 791 (W.D. Mich. 2003). Thus, if the Council determines that limiting the time that a retractable antenna support structure may be extended is a reasonable time, place and manner regulation and is the least restrictive regulation necessary to preserve aesthetics or other legitimate interests, such a provision appears to be legally valid. In addition to the possible accommodation described above, the City Council could consider other alternatives to reasonably accommodate amateur radio. Other alternatives that the Council could consider include: 1. Allowing higher antenna heights in non-residential zones where the aesthetic considerations may not be as important, such as in industrial, commercial zones or open space zones. 2. Allowing higher antenna heights in residential zones where there is a greater setback between the antenna structure and adjoining residential property lines (requiring an antenna structure to be set back at least two times the height of the structure from all other residentially zoned property might be one possibility). 3. Allowing higher antenna heights in residential zones where the owner is able to effectively screen the antenna support structure with trees or other means so that the structure will not have a significant negative visual impact on the neighborhood. 4. Allowing higher antenna heights in residential zones where the applicant uses an antenna array that is less visually obtrusive such as a flagpole antenna. 5. Making amateur radio antenna structures a conditional use so that the Council could consider each potential location individually and accommodate each individual site to the greatest extent practicable based on the unique circumstances of that site. Advantages • Ham radio provides a helpful form of communication during an emergency situation • Some towers can be the type that are cranked to the height needed and lowered when not in use • Use of crank up/down towers can limit the time of greatest visual impact • It may be that the array on the higher tower is actually less visible than on a lower tower Disadvantages • Antenna can be an undesirable use to adjacent properties Pleasant Grove Permits towers to seventy-five feet and higher through a conditional use permit Lindon Permitted at thirty-five feet with additional height approved through a conditional use permit Payson Permitted to seventy-two feet Salt Lake City Permitted to seventy-five feet Riverton Permitted to sixty-five feet Provo Regulated by standards of the FAA (if the FAA approves, then Provo does) COMMUNICATION ITEMS 19. PERSONAL APPEARANCE RESPONSE – Paula Bergeson – Sidewalk Snow Removal 20. PERSONAL APPEARANCE RESPONSE – Jim Hadlock – Recycling Program CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS 21. This is an opportunity for the City Manager to provide information to the City Council. These items are for information and do not require action by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. If you need a special accommodation to participate in the City Council Meetings and Study Sessions, please call the City Recorder’s Office at least 3 working days prior to the meeting. (Voice 229-7074) (TDD # 229-7037)

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

This meeting may be held electronically to allow a Councilmember to participate.

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

56 North State
Orem, 84057
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

February 04, 2011 01:22 PM

Notice Last Edited On

February 04, 2011 01:22 PM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.