What's Up? - 12 May 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 19, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Provology Graduation
   Congrats to the latest batch of Provology Graduates!
2. A presentation of a memorial statue in honor of Merril Bingham to Lynda Bingham
   I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Bingham, but it is obvious that he had a huge positive impact on our city and in the lives of many who served along side him. Provo's water future is far more secure because of his efforts.
3. A resolution appointing an individual to the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo. (16044) Approved 7:0.
   I was pleased to vote to approve Richard Brimhall to serve on this board.
4. A resolution appointing an Executive Director for the Municipal Council of the City of Provo, Utah. (16-047) Approved 7:0.
   The Council went through an exhaustive (and exhausting) processes to identify Cliff Strachan as the best person to serve as our Executive Director. 
5. A resolution approving a Lease Agreement pertaining to various Provo City streets and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the Provo-Orem Transportation Improvement Project. (15-110) Continued to April 26th, Approved 5:2. Council Member David Harding and Gary Winterton opposed.
   Much has been written about BRT and the agreements that were approved and signed the week after this meeting. I won't rehash it here. I voted against continuing the item because I felt it best to make our decision that night. Many of the public had taken the time to come down and participate in our meeting. Far fewer attended the week after. Some members of the Council were concerned that some last minute changes were made. I understand that concern, but we had carefully reviewed the vast majority of the agreements and I thought it would be better take the necessary time that evening, even to recess if necessary, in order to review the changes.
6. A public hearing on the draft 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (16-033) No Action
   More time was requested.
7. A public hearing on a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
8. A public hearing on a resolution approving the HOME program for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2017. (16-033) Approved 7:0.
   CDBG and HOME funds are federal grant programs that are to be used to enhance our community. In total it represents around $2.6M. We approved 15% of the CDBG funds to be used for social services. More details can be found here, here, and here. Comment below if the links stop working.
9. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048) Continued to May 3rd. Approved 7:0. 
   Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners.
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 6.2 acres of real property, generally located at 2470 West 1160 North, from One-Family Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (16-0001R) Replace all references to LDR with R2-PD. Approved 7:0. Remove lots 1 &2 from rezone and have staff make text adjustments to the ordinance. Approved 7:0. Approve Ordinance as amended with Development Agreement to include Site Plan, Elevations, all documents described during meeting and CCNRs. Approved 7:0.
    This project was designed with the 55+ demographic in mind, though it won't be age restricted. Some neighbors expressed concern about any development which doesn't provide only single-family-detached housing. This proposal is for single-family-attached housing in the form of twin homes. Many in the Council have expressed an interest in exploring more diverse housing types scattered about our city. Many of our older residents would like to find homes which better meet their needs (less bedrooms or less yard work) now that their life circumstances have changed, but they also don't want to move away from their neighbors. Having some independent-living type houses throughout our city would allow these senior residents to do just that. This would also free up more large, single-family-detached homes for other families to grow into.
    There was some discomfort about the miss-match between the proposal (twin-homes) and the proposed zoning (LDR which allows for town-homes, with a density up to 15 units/acre). Members on the Council inquired whether there was another zone which better fit the proposal. Community Development staff determined that the R2-PD (twin-homes/duplex) zone would accommodate the proposal, and that the two lots with existing structures, were fine remaining R1.10. The developer was fine with any zoning designation as long as it allowed the proposal to proceed. This is what was approved by the Council.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A bi-annual report from the Sustainability Committee ( 15-109)  Report Only
   A lot of good work is being done.
   "Utah County, including Provo City, has some of the best agricultural soil and climate in the state, but the land is rapidly being lost to agriculture due to urban sprawl. To combat this, The Nature Conservancy" is donating $90,000 to Provo City "to protect agricultural land."
   Land in Provo is scarce and rising in value, both monetarily and its value to the community. Our agricultural land has the potential to benefit our community, but I worry that it is not currently being used to its potential. With the ways it is being used now (mostly for alfalfa and grazing), it is hard to justify the effort and money to prevent it from being converted to another use. The problem is, once it is converted to another use, there is no practical way that we'll ever get it back.
2. A discussion regarding Body Cameras (16-052)  Report Only. Administration will come back to a future meeting with an action item.
   Body worn cameras for police are a top topic nationally. Here in the state, we are the largest jurisdiction that is not using these cameras. Of the top ten police forces in the state, all are using cameras or are implementing their use. We were presented with the interim findings of the Department's on-going study of available cameras and on the parameters that they are weighing. The benefits include reduced complaints about officer conduct (presumably because everyone is on better behavior when they know they are being recorded, and the officers are protected against false claims). The concerns usually revolve around privacy. The State Legislature provided some direction on the privacy concerns this year.
3. A discussion on Collateral Assignment of Tax Increment Financing Documents for Brixton Capital (16-053)  Council Member George Stewart moved this item to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton. Approved 7:0.
   This was not a request for more incentives, just approval to recognize the new owner for the existing incentives.
4. A discussion regarding the Council Executive Director's duties (16-046) Council Member David Sewell moved this revised ordinance to the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting.
5. A discussion and review of the Development Review Process (16-023) Update Only
6. A discussion on Vision 2050 update by the Policy Governance Committee (16-051)  Council Member Gary Winterton moved to (1) create Vision 2050, (2) have adequate public vetting and (3) then ask staff to align it with the General Plan. Seconded by Dave Knecht.
   Added: Gary Winterton added to the motion to have it come back to the committee with a timeline for vetting of the Vision in two weeks with a recommendation of the public process.
   Council Member Dave Harding made a substitute motion: change the 3rd step in the original motion to staff should align the General Plan with Vision 2050. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0.
   Community Development is working with various committees to update Vision 2030 (which will now be called Vision 2050). I lost the battle to merge the documents by having Vision 2050 become Chapter 1 of the General Plan. Instead, we will move ahead with just aligning the documents. I had more success fighting for the time and concerted outreach for robust public vetting. There is a desire to move quickly on accepting the update so that we can get right on the update to the General Plan. It would be very helpful to get the General Plan update completed quickly so that the updated plan can be used in creating the next budget, which process starts soon after we adopt the coming budget. I felt strongly that we needed more than just a 30 day comment period, where we invite the public to give us feedback. I argued for an aggressive outreach campaign, taking the proposed Vision to the people, and working hard to get that feedback and the corresponding buy-in from the community. At our next Work Meeting we should see both the draft of Vision 2050 and a proposed plan for the public vetting. Based on the approved motion, Vision 2050 should be created to capture the community's vision of our future. It should align with the current aspects of our General Plan, and reflect the best thinking of the Council, Administration, and the broader public. The proposed Vision will go through a public vetting process, after which, it needs to be approved by the Council. At that point our city will have an articulated vision to guide the update of the General Plan. The up-to-date Vision and General Plan will then guide future land use decisions by the Council and will guide the preparation and adoption of future budgets. It is hard to over emphasize how much weight these two documents will have on the future direction of our City, and how important it is for the public to be involved in the vetting process.
7. A follow-up discussion regarding the Community Development fees identified for review from the Consolidated Fee Schedule (15-118)  Council Member George Stewart moved to adopt the ordinance with the change to line 98 making it effective July 1, 2016 and to hear this item at the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. (I believe this passed unanimously.)
   This action raises some of the Community Development fees related to developments. These fees were studied and were found to be below the cost to provide the services and below the average of what surrounding communities were charging. We changed the effective date to correspond to the new budget cycle and to allow time for the development community to be aware and adjust their plans if necessary.
   
8. A discussion regarding the General Plan update regarding the Jail Property (16-050)  Council Member David Sewell moved that Council will support the existing process of the Southeast Neighborhood Planning and that the Council input (from this meeting) will be given to the neighborhood regarding the jail property, the adjacent property and State property as they continue their Neighborhood Planning.. If the result of the Neighborhood Plan is different than that of the current General Plan, consideration should be given to change the General Plan. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Passed 7:0.
   I am in the middle of writing an entire essay on this item and the related issues. I hope to publish it here soon. This is part of the larger discussion that many in the community are having regarding housing. Stay tuned.
9. Administrative Updates    
10. Closed Meeting  A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 3, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Covey Center presents Foreigner
   In my "What's Up?" post previewing this meeting, I took this item description to mean that the band Foreigner was coming to play at the Covey. Instead the cast gave us a preview of their play production of The Foreigner.
2. A Proclamation on Bike to Work Day, May 10, 2016 (16-058)
   May is National Bike Month and our community is celebrating with events all month long, including a month long Bike Challenge and Bike to Work Day on May 10th.
3. A presentation on the Golden Spoke Award
   Congratulations Susan Krueger-Barber! This was well deserved!
4. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-054)  Motion to (1) refer budget to the Budget Committee and (2) receive a report from the Budget Committee and (3) to hear the item on the May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.According to Utah State code, a tentative budget is to be "reviewed, considered, and tentatively adopted." I felt uncomfortable with approving the budget, even tentatively, without having the opportunity to "review" or "consider" it. We are still on track to authorize a budget without requiring any special sessions.
5. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Grant to be used for the hiring of a consultant to design the necessary construction documents to renovate the Provo River Trail. (16-057)  Approved 7:0.
   We love our Provo River Trail. This is a great use of this grant that is earmarked by the County to our city.
6. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation authorizing the appropriation of $154,950.37 from unencumbered reserves in fund 279 for the payment of costs incurred by cowboy partners for the remediation of property once owned by the Redevelopment Agency. (16-048)  Approved 7:0.
   As stated in a previous "What's Up": "Our RDA assembled several adjacent properties and then sold the land to Cowboy Partners for a development. They are seeking reimbursement for costs related to clean up a mess left from underground storage tanks. Provo is looking into the liability of the previous owners."
7. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.  As the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
8. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,475 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)  Motion to continue to May 17, 2016 Council Meeting. Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   As the Storm Water District is technically separate from the Provo City Corporation, we need to approve a separate tentative budget. I felt the same principles applied as to the main budget.
9. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapters 14.41 (Home Occupations), 15.03 (General Development Standards), 15.04 (Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements), and 15.06 (Condominiums) to clarify and update submittal requirements for planning applications. City Wide Impact. (15-0012OA)  Approved 7:0.
   "As stated in a previous "What's Up": Three changes are proposed: redefining limitations on vehicles used for home businesses, and allowing Community Development staff to make approval decisions about minor subdivisions and home businesses without going to the Planning Commission."
10. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.49E.050 (One Family Homes at Celebration (Village 1)) regarding the allowance for both side yards to have a minimum setback of five feet. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0002OA)  Approved 7:0.The stated reason for this requirement was for utility easements. These won't be used in this development, so I don't see any harm in reducing the requirement if the utilities issue a waiver.
11. A public hearing on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.54 acres of real property, generally located at 1080 West 500 north, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). North Park Neighborhood. (16-0002R)  Approved 7:0.
    The Council had a great discussion regarding proposals which fall just outside the parameters one of our current zones, which otherwise fit the proposal very well. Our recent practice, if we felt the proposal would further our city's vision, has been to approve a more intense/less restrictive zone which allows the proposal, even if the zone doesn't fit the proposal all that well, and even if the zone itself doesn't fit with the city's vision. We have been relying on proffered development agreements to hold the developer to the proposal, as the zoning would allow far more than what was being proposed. In this case, the proposal is to form a third lot out of two existing lots, each with an existing single-family-detached home, and allow another single-family-detached home to be built on the third lot. All three lots have more than 6,000 sqft, so an R1.6 zone would appear to be a good fit. Unfortunately, the street frontage of the third lot is barely too narrow for the zone, therefore the LDR zone is proposed. LDR allows for residential up to town homes, which doesn't describe this proposal very well. I don't think anyone on the Council had concerns with this particular proposal, and we passed in unanimously, but I hope that we've started a discussion about how to best deal with proposals that are just outside of the most obvious zone.
12. A public hearing on an ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.34.500 (Fencing Standards for Residential Zones) to allow six-foot, solid fencing within the front setback in residential zones. City Wide Impact. (16-0001OA)  Denied 7:0. I don't believe the city would be served by reducing the front yard setbacks of solid fencing above 3'.