CITY OF OREM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
56 North State Street, Orem, Utah
November 15, 2011
This meeting may be held electronically
to allow a Councilmember to participate.
4:00 P.M. WORK SESSION – PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ROOM
1. DISCUSSION - Retiree Health Care
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 the Special City Council Meeting – October 24, 2011
5. MINUTES of City Council Meeting – October 25, 2011
6. MINUTES of Joint City Council/Alpine School District Meeting – October 26, 2011
MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
7. UPCOMING EVENTS
8. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
9. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission – 2 appointments
Library Advisory Commission – 1 appointment
Recreation Advisory Commission - 1 appointment
10. RECOGNITION OF NEW NEIGHBORHOODS IN ACTION OFFICERS
11. RECOGNITION – Timpanogos High School Boys 4A Cross Country State Champion – Jake Heslington
12. RECOGNITION – Timpanogos High School Girls Soccer Team – State Champions
13. PROCLAMATION – Feed America Day – November 17, 2011
CITY MANAGER’S APPOINTMENTS
14. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
15. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments on items not on the Agenda. Due to these items not being on the agenda, there will be no discussion or action taken on them at this meeting. If you are interested in receiving the response to the items, please leave your contact information with the City Recorder. (Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.)
CONSENT ITEMS
16. RESOLUTION - Adopting Mountainland Association of Governments Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
RECOMMENDATION: The Director of Public Safety recommends the City Council, by resolution, adopt the 2010 Mountainland Association of Governments Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: A federal law passed in 2000 requires all jurisdictions to be covered by a Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan in order to receive FEMA aid to help mitigate losses from natural disasters before the disasters occur. The Mountainland Association of Governments has been designated by the State of Utah as the agency to take the lead in preparing a plan for this area. The Plan has now been prepared and needs to be adopted by any city desiring to avail itself of FEMA funds for the prevention of losses anticipated in a disaster. The proposed resolution accomplishes this purpose.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
17. ORDINANCE - Amending Sections 14-3-2 and 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code Pertaining to Signs on Public and Charter School Property Used to Advertise School Sponsors
REQUEST: Jon Snyder, on behalf of Mountain View High School, requests the City Council, by ordinance, amend Sections 14-3-2 and 14-3-3 of the Orem City Code pertaining to commercial advertising signs on public and charter school property.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: Staff is recommending the City Council continue this item to a later date to allow the Alpine School District to meet with the applicant to further discuss this issue.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
18. MOTION - CANVASS AND CERTIFICATION - 2011 Municipal General Election Results
RECOMMENDATION: The City Recorder recommends that the City Council complete the canvass and, by motion, certify the 2011 Municipal General Election results.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to State law, it is necessary for the City Council, as the Board of Canvassers, to canvass the election no later than fourteen days after the completion of the ballot. After the canvassing has been completed, it will be necessary for the Council, by motion, to officially certify the results of the Canvass.
6:00 PUBLIC HEARING
19. ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-6-8(D) of the Orem City Code as it Pertains to Accessory Structures in a Residential Zone
REQUEST: Craig Nielsen requests the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-6-8(D) of the Orem City Code to increase the square footage of accessory structures in a residential zone and amend the architectural requirements.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: The applicant owns a parcel with three multi-family structures that contain twenty units located at approximately 620 North 100 West. The units are stacked apartments built in the 1970s. The applicant would like to construct carports so each unit has at least one covered stall. Because the buildings are located in the R8 zone, the applicable ordinance for accessory building coverage applies. The Orem City Code requires no more than eight percent coverage of accessory structures. Carports, since they are not attached to the buildings, are considered accessory and must follow the eight percent or less coverage.
The applicant’s lot is 0.75 acres or 32,670 square feet. The maximum coverage permitted is 2,613 square feet. The structures the applicant would like to construct are several hundred feet larger than the maximum permitted. The applicant has proposed increasing the percentage from 8 percent to 12 percent for lots with multi-family units. A second change proposed would permit flat roof accessory structures for multi-family units. All single-family lots would still be required to have accessory structures with a minimum 4/12 pitch roof and no more than 8 percent coverage.
As written, the amendment would allow any existing multi-family development (in a single-family zone) outside of a PD or PRD zone to construct a flat roof carport.
The proposed changes are as follows:
22-6-8(D)
2. Maximum Area Limitations. The total footprint area of all accessory buildings/structures shall not exceed eight percent (8%) of the area of the parcel upon which they are located for single-family lots and twelve percent (12%) for multi-family developments. For the purpose of this section, structures located at or below grade shall not be considered in determining the total amount of lot coverage of accessory structures.
5. Architectural Controls. If the total footprint area of an accessory building/structure exceeds 500 square feet or 50% of the footprint area of the primary structure (whichever is less), the accessory structure must:
a. be designed with residential styling, including:
i. a roof pitch which matches that of the primary structure, but not to be less than four feet of rise to twelve feet of run for single-family lots whereas multi-family developments may have flat roofs for carports; and
ii. exterior finishing materials similar to the exterior finishing materials used on the primary structure or primary structures on any surrounding residential property within a 300 foot radius; and
b. have design characteristics that are in harmony with existing residential buildings in the neighborhood; and
c. create no substantial adverse aesthetic or economic impacts on the neighborhood.
Advantages:
• Cheaper construction alternative for the owner as flat roof carports will be metal whereas carports with a pitch roof will most likely be wood
• Fire rating is easily obtainable with metal as opposed to wood if carports are constructed near a property line
Disadvantages:
• None determined
6:15 PUBLIC HEARING
20. RESOLUTION - Amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial
ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of Orem, Utah, by changing the zone from R8 to C1 for property located generally at 675 East 800 South
REQUEST: James Call requests the City Council:
1) By resolution, amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Community Commercial (CC); and
2) By ordinance, amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of Orem, Utah, by changing the zone from R8 to C1 for property located generally at 675 East 800 South.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Sharon Neighborhood
BACKGROUND: The applicant owns a dental practice at 675 East 800 South. Under a previous zoning code, the dental practice was approved through a conditional use permit in a residential zone. The Orem City Code has been amended since that time and dental businesses are no longer permitted in a residential zone. The applicant would like to expand his business by bringing in a second dentist but additional space is needed for a second chair. The expansion cannot occur without a zone change.
The applicant has talked with his neighbors to the east and to the north about rezoning their property. This would allow the expansion of the business, which requires additional parking. The property to the west contains a home and is included in the request. The property to the north contains a home as well but the applicant would only purchase a portion of the rear yard. The home and lot would still meet zoning with respect to setbacks and lot size.
If the lot to the west is rezoned, it is possible the existing dental building, which is a home converted to a business, could be torn down and a new building constructed. If this lot is not rezoned, but the portion of the lot to the north is, the existing building will remain and an addition will be added to accommodate the second dental chair. If a new building is constructed, the City can require the existing access, which is very close to the 700 East traffic light, to be relocated to the west. This would provide a much safer intersection.
These items should be considered with the application which is to amend the Land Use Map and rezone the property. The zone is currently residential with a commercial use approved by a conditional use permit. Rezoning the property to C1 would open the door to other businesses which are permitted in the C1 zone. This zone is primarily used for office or medical outpatient uses. No retail is permitted.
A neighborhood meeting was held with the owners of the adjacent property (those consenting to the rezone) as the only people in attendance.
Advantages:
• Allows existing business to expand
• Increases employment
• Expansion may cause entrance to be relocated away from traffic light
Disadvantages:
• Commercial zone expanding into residential area
• Allowing this property to be zoned commercial may make it difficult to deny future requests for properties along 800 South that are similarly situated to not be rezoned commercial
• The C1 zone allows buildings to be forty-eight feet high. Residential zones allow buildings to be thirty-five feet high
• Once the property is rezoned, there is no guarantee the property will stay as a dental office
6:15 PUBLIC HEARING
21. ORDINANCE - Amending Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of Orem, Utah, by Changing the Zone From R12 to PD-11for Property Located Generally at 1430 South Sandhill Road, Amending Section 22-11-23 of the Orem City Code By Enacting the PD-11 Zoning Text, and Amending the Appendix by Adopting Appendix X
REQUEST: Alexis Gevorgian requests the City Council, by ordinance, amend Section 22-5-3(A) of the Orem City Code and the Zoning Map of Orem, Utah, by changing the zone on approximately 10.50 acres from R12 to PD-11 at approximately 1430 South Sandhill Road, amend Section 22-11-23 of the Orem City Code by enacting the PD-11 zoning text, and amend the Appendix by adopting Appendix X.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Lakeview Neighborhood
BACKGROUND: This proposal came before the Planning Commission earlier this year. It was not forwarded to the City Council because the Planning Commission requested changes. Those changes were made and a new concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission.
The first proposal presented to the Planning Commission was larger as it contained single-family lots and additional applicants. Those applicants have since removed their property from the proposal, which removes the single-family lots. The removal of this property has eliminated the connection to the south single-family development and the Hidden Hollow development to the east, which concerned many of the residents in those areas. All access for this development will be located on 1430 South, which will cause traffic to head north or south on Sandhill Road or east on 1430 South to the 400 West and University intersection.
The Planning Commission had issues with the number of parking stalls which were proposed at 2.5 per unit. That number has now increased to 2.75 per unit, or an additional 35 stalls for guest parking. Landscaping has also increased from 30 percent to 32 percent or an additional 8,000+ square feet.
The applicant has been working with the City and neighbors for several years to develop the subject property. Earlier renditions included property owned by Leroy and Larry Peterson. They are no longer part of the development. The owners of the property in the proposed development are Alexis Gevorgian and the owners of the three homes at the corner of 1430 South and Sandhill Road. The request is to change the zone from R12 to the PD-11 zone to develop townhome units at a density of fifteen units per acre. The subject property has historically been the location for agricultural uses.
The proposed development contains 140 units on approximately 10 acres. The proposed density has a maximum of 15 units per gross acre. The density of the proposal is 9 units less per acre than the density of Pinnacle Canyon View (24 units/acre) to the north. The remainder of the R12 property, owned by the applicant and Leroy and Larry Petersen, will remain as the R12 zone.
Transportation Impacts:
Two different concept plans were presented to the Planning Commission at different meetings. The first plan included proposed street connections to the neighborhood area to the south, Sandhill Road, and 1430 South. The latest concept plan does not have street connections to the south, or to Sandhill Road. Its only two access points are onto 1430 South.
The concept plan also proposes to widen 1430 South and will provide curb, gutter, and landscaped park strip and sidewalk on the south side of the road. The widened road will be able to accommodate a center turn lane. Going from a two-lane road to a three-lane road will increase the capacity of the road by twenty to thirty percent.
The latest concept plan proposal has 140 townhouse units. It is expected that the traffic generation would therefore be around 1400 vehicles per day (700 entering and 700 exiting the project each day). Most of these vehicle trips will be spread out through 16 hours of the day. In the a.m. peak hour, the traffic may be around 100 - 110 vehicles leaving the site, and just a few entering the site. In the p.m. peak hour, there will be around 100 – 110 entering the site, and about half that amount leaving the site.
Three intersections in the area were analyzed to determine if projected traffic impacts from the rezone concept plan would negatively impact existing traffic conditions:
1. 1430 South at Sandhill Road
2. Sandhill Road at University Parkway
3. 400 West at University Parkway
It is anticipated that intersection #1 will have an intersection delay increase of 0.4 seconds, intersection #2 an intersection delay increase of 0.3 seconds, and intersection #3 an intersection delay increase of 0.8 seconds. These delay values are under the assumption that 60 percent of the project traffic will use the University Avenue / 400 West Intersection, 35 percent would use the University Parkway and Sandhill Road intersection, and the remaining 5 percent of the project traffic would have an origin or destination south on Sandhill Road (south of 1430 South). Since the intersection delay increases calculated were so small, no other traffic distribution assumptions were analyzed.
The Sandhill Road at University Parkway intersection, and the University Parkway at I-15 interchange, are currently being improved. The new intersection will be the first Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) in Utah Valley. The traffic impacts created by the proposed rezone plan are very minimal. To see a visualization of how the new interchange and adjoining intersection will function, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ss7XdgLCHI
Notices were mailed out to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the perimeter of the R12 property. Typical distance for notification is 300 feet, but this was expanded due to the impact the development may have in the area.
Architecture
Two styles of townhomes are proposed. The first has three stories and is thirty-eight feet high. These units will have three bedrooms and two and one half baths, and a two-car garage. Exterior elements include a balcony, and facade relief, and a covered porch. The second style of townhome units are two-story and have three bedrooms, two and one half baths, two-car garage, balcony and covered porch. These units are thirty-one feet high and will have cement fiberboard siding. A clubhouse with pool facilities will also be included as an amenity for the residents.
Landscaping
Thirty-two percent of the development will be landscaped and include one tree and eight evergreen shrubs for every unit. Landscaping then is required at 140 trees and 1,120 evergreen shrubs.
Parking
Each townhome units contains a 2-car garage. In addition to this .75 parking stalls are required for each unit as guest parking for a total of 2.75 stalls per unit. The proposed development will then require 385 stalls to serve guests and residents.
Within a short distance of the applicant’s project, there are several high density developments. Pinnacle Apartments has 288 units with parking at 2.25 stalls per unit for a total of 648 stalls. Parkway Condominiums, in the Student Housing (SH) overlay zone, has 107 units with 4 occupants per unit. Parking is calculated at 0.8 stalls per occupant which requires 342 stalls and 429 have been provided. Finally, Lake Ridge Condominiums has 96 units at 2.5 stalls per units for a total of 240 parking spaces.
Advantages:
• Provides additional housing opportunities
• There is a market demand for this type of housing
• This is the type of development that attracts young families to the neighborhood
• Ground is developed, which for the most part is underutilized
• The south side of 1430 South will be completed with asphalt, curb, and gutter
• The proposed concept plan provides an undeveloped buffer to the existing R8 development to the south
• Because of individual ownership, a home owners association will be created to preserve the quality of the development.
Disadvantages:
• The applicant was not able to purchase five lots along Sandhill Road so the owners (although three of the five lots will be rezoned) may not develop their property in the near future, or ever
• As with any development, traffic will increase along Sandhill Road and 1430 South as outlined in the Transportation Impacts section of this Agenda Summary
• The neighbors desire the property to develop as single-family homes at lower densities
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
22. RESOLUTION - Continuing Participation with Retiree Health Care for Pre December 31, 2006, Retirees
RECOMMENDATION: The City Manager recommends the City Council, by resolution, continue City participation for retiree health insurance for the twenty-one retirees who are currently on a City health plan.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: This item is a continuation from the October 25, 2011, meeting. The City Council requested additional information on this issue. On June 21, 2011, with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, the City Council heard a plea from current retirees, who are slated to lose City-provided health care on December 31, 2011. The City Council instructed staff to develop a workable solution that is fair to the former and current employees. Staff was told to report back in October. Staff was also directed to meet with retirees to listen to their concerns regarding the proposal that was made on their behalf in the June and October Council meetings.
Five years ago, the City Council in adopting the FY 07 budget set in motion a policy that had been designed over a period of years to phase out the City's participation in retiree health care. This was precipitated by an accounting statement known as GASB 45 which addresses the need to show the value of unfunded liabilities associated with post-employment benefits. The State of Utah requires the City to abide by these generally accepted accounting principles.
The City implemented a policy phasing out paying for retiree health care over a period of five years. This policy allowed those who retired prior to December 31, 2006, to be covered under the City's policy through age sixty-five or December 31, 2011, whichever came first. Employees who retired after this date were not allowed to remain on a City policy. This group of employees received a one-time cash outlay to be used for the purchase of their own health insurance. Current employees began receiving contributions into a Retiree Health Savings Plan know as RHS.
Meeting with Retirees:
Staff invited all retirees enjoying the retiree health plan to the meeting, and fifteen of the twenty-one attended. The meeting was informative with the following concerns expressed:
Q. Can spouses stay on after the employee turns sixty-five?
A. Yes, but they pay the entire premium.
Q. Is the deductible going to stay high?
A. Yes
Q. Will the Medical Reimbursement Plan (MRP) be available?
A. Under the proposal, no.
Q. Is it possible to have a lower deductible?
A. That will be examined.
Q. Can there be a seventy-five/twenty-five premium split?
A. That will be examined.
Q. If the benefit is extended, will this be the last time it is an issue?
A. One Council cannot bind another Council, but the intention is it will be funded until the youngest retiree turns sixty-five.
Q. Can a retiree go onto COBRA with eighteen months left before turning sixty-five and be on the regular City plan?
A. If they are within eighteen months of being age sixty-five now, they can, but they will pay 104 percent of the current premium which is $861.80 per month for a family. They cannot leave the High Deductible Plan and exercise the COBRA option to come back to the City's plan for current employees.
Q. Is there a possibility of breaking out prescriptions? Are they part of the deductible?
A. Prescriptions count toward the deductible.
Q. Is it possible to have a two-party plan?
A. The High Deductible plan is only offered as single or family.
The retiree group made three distinct requests:
1) Lower deductible plan
2) MRP
3) A seventy-five/twenty-five premium split
The general consensus was a preference of having a higher premium in exchange for a lower deductible.
Some comments were made that were not directly relating to plan options. They ranged from hinting at a law suit from the group to the other end of the spectrum, that the City will do the best they can and to remember that past employees have helped to make the city the great place that it is.
Decision Criteria:
In crafting a recommendation for the City Council the following criteria were used to guide the recommendation:
1) the cost to provide a plan for the retirees must be easily affordable using reserves. Meaning, funding retiree health care should not impact the operational budget of the City; and
2) the Council directed staff to find a solution that could be applied to current employees as well as the retirees.
Alternatives Evaluated:
Staff evaluated the alternatives requested. Below is a synopsis of these alternatives:
MRP extended-- the City offers a Medical Reimbursement Plan for current employees of $1,000 for single and $2,000 family per year as a reimbursement for out of pocket expenses. The cost of offering this to the current retirees is up to $187,000 over the length of the plan. This is a fifty percent increase in costs to the plan. This makes it difficult to meet decision criteria 1 using reserves and criteria 2 extending this to future retirees.
Seventy-five/twenty-five premium split--if the City paid seventy-five percent of the $5,000/$10,000 deductible plan, the City's costs increase from $330,000 to $500,000. Again, this cost increase is not workable under the two decision criteria.
Lower Deductible--pricing was obtained for lower deductible plan of $4,000 single, $8,000 family; the cost increase is slightly under $50,000 over the length of the benefit or approximately $3,200 per year. The percentage increase over the $5,000/$10,000 plan is fourteen percent. This meets the criteria 1 and initially seems to work with criteria 2.
Proposed Solution:
The City proposes a High Deductible Health Plan for retired employees who are currently still on the City plan. This plan has a $4,000 Single deductible or $8,000 family deductible. After the deductible is met the plan covers one hundred percent of medical costs. The city and the retired employee would each pay fifty percent of the monthly premium. Monthly premiums will be family $613.00 ($306.50 per party) single $204.40 ($102.20 per party).
This proposal has a lower deductible than the plan proposed in June and October.
Current employees:
This recommendation as it applies to current employees needs further analysis due to some variables that cannot be answered at this time. Staff requests time to further research this issue.
23. RESOLUTION – Authorizing the Execution of the Second Amended and Restated Pledge and Loan Agreement with UTOPIA
RECOMMENDATION: The Administrative Services Director recommends the City Council, by resolution, authorize the Mayor to execute the second amended and restated pledge and loan agreement with UTOPIA.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA: Citywide
BACKGROUND: UTOPIA is seeking to refinance its existing debt. A deal has been reached with Key Bank and Bank of America to purchase the existing debt and to keep the original principal at $185 Million. The City's obligation in backing a percentage of these bonds will not change and the pledge amounts will remain the same. The maturity of the bonds will also remain the same (2040).
Advantages:
1) The par amount of the bonds remains the same ($185 M)
2) The obligation of the City remains the same to back UTOPIA debt
3) The new debt structure can be refinanced if future interest rates reach 5.8 percent. Bonds can be called without penalty. (This does not mean it would be in UTOPIA's best interests for the bonds to be refinanced at that time--the existing conditions would dictate if and when the bonds should be refinanced
4) No more need for a letter of credit with the accompanying need to renegotiate this fee every one to three years
5) The banks will have no claim on any RUS funds reclaimed
6) Monthly installments to the Trustee will be equal amounts
7) There are no fees for UTOPIA associated with this transaction
8) The reduction of the Debt Service Reserve Fund and the stabilizing of the SWAP arrangement saves $117 M over the life of the bonds
Disadvantage:
1) If UTOPIA wanted to refinance with interest rates below the 5.8 percent range then the SWAP arrangements would be against UTOPIA and UTOPIA would owe the difference. This disadvantage currently exists
COMMUNICATION ITEMS
24. PERSONAL APPEARANCE RESPONSES – Center for Story
• Lanny Gneiting
• Phil Brown
• Roy Jones
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION ITEMS
25. 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.
ADJOURN TO A CLOSED-DOOR SESSION - Personnel
Personnel - Pursuant to Section 52-4-205(1)(a) of the Utah State Code Annotated.
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.