The Orem City Council refused on Tuesday to create a separate set of laws for youth instruction businesses within its home occupations ordinance.

As proposed, the youth instruction section would have also banned traffic generation before 7:30 a.m. or after 6:30 p.m., and would have required instruction sessions to be spaced at least ten minutes apart to avoid having drop-offs and pick-ups occur at the same time. No more than one non-resident would have been able to participate in the operation of the home occupation, and it would have been limited to three days per week.

Yet council members voted unanimously against the youth instruction ordinance proposal.

"The best use for a residential zone is residential," said Councilman Dean Dickerson during the council's deliberation, noting that in his two runs for elective office the uppermost issue in residents' minds was neighborhood preservation.

"I am uncomfortable with the way this was written and the changes. Changing this city-wide is not something I am prepared to support," he said.

Councilman Mark Seastrand said he is "very supportive" of the approximately 2,000 home-based businesses licensed in Orem, but agreed with Dickerson that the proposal wasn't right for the city.

"There is a point at which a business becomes large enough that it needs to move to a commercial zone," he said.

Seastrand also said that it struck him as "odd" that operation of the youth instruction businesses would be limited to three days a week -- interpreting that as an admission that such businesses could have a large and negative impact on a neighborhood. If the home occupation use is incidental or secondary, as it is required to be, he said, there should be low impact.

"I am uncomfortable with (having) a lot of stipulations," he said.

Councilwoman Karen McCandless said she had struggled with the issue since she was contacted by Podzikowski about a year ago.

"I told her the issue, to me, merited discussion," McCandless said, noting that money, time, energy, and emotion have been expended to go through the process.

"Is there a middle ground?" McCandless asked. "What is the threshold that says, OK, this is enough of a traffic impact?"

Though she felt comfortable allowing more than two drop-offs and pick-ups per hour for youth instruction businesses in neighborhoods, six or more trips made her uneasy.

Councilwoman Margaret Black agreed with McCandless but also urged the council to "pay close attention" to the staff report that indicated the proposal "significantly weakens the intent of the current home occupation ordinance that home occupations be incidental and secondary to the residential use of the home."

Councilman Carl Hernandez said he could not support the 10 round trips, but recognized the "irony" of having day-care businesses impacting neighborhoods while at the same time limiting the ability of stay-at-home mothers trying to provide income for their families through home occupations.

"There's got to be a balance somewhere," he said. "I don't think this ordinance will strike the balance. We need to realize our society is changing, and this will come back to us another day."

Mayor Jerry Washburn said that if the city has no experience with the issue it would be wise to have a case study conducted to determine the impact of the changes. But he added that a case study, in effect, has already been done.

"We have a built-in case study that has already happened, and the case study has been objectionable to those most closely affected," he said.

Changing the ordinance to "raise the bar" when there is a violation of the existing ordinance does not change the negative impact that's already there, Washburn said, and has "caused, unfortunately, tension in the neighborhood."

He struggled with changing the rules in order to legitimize "something that is perceived to be more negative than not."

Numerous comments on the issue were recorded at the March 18 public hearing on the item, continued to Tuesday's meeting. The council also discussed the proposal during an April work session.