Draft Update of Vision 2030

I'm at the Vision 2030 Update Open House. So far we can't find a link from the City website to the draft document. Therefore I'm placing it here: http://provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9400

Whether you are at the Open House or not, I encourage everyone to review this document and submit your feedback to acorry@provo.org.

What's Up? - 15 August 2016

What's Coming Up?

JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION

11:30 AM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the direction that Council is looking to take development in Provo.
   There are no supporting documents for any of the items in this meeting. I imagine that we will talk about recent developments and if they are helping us reach our vision for the future.
2. A discussion on the appointment procedures related to the Planning Commission.
   Recently there has been confusion over who is serving on the Planning Commission, in what role, and for how long. There are some proposals on how to make appointments clear, how to record the appointments better, and an alternate approach to alternates.
3. A discussion on land use issues that come before the Planning Commission that could be resolved through legislation.
   The Commission serves in both legislative and administrative spheres. Many items come before the Commission where the Commission is bound by law to approve, as long as the project complies with current ordinance. We will be discussing if it would be a better use of their time, staff time, and applicant time, to allow Community Development Staff to approve applications that comply with current ordinance.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:45 PM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Introduction of Teri McCabe, recommended for the Library Board (16-101) 
2. A discussion regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
   Beginning last year, the Council has requested that the Administration review 25 fees each quarter and report their findings to the Council with particular attention to whether the charged fees are covering the costs of the associate service.
3. A discussion regarding the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Utah County and Provo City for Lakeview Parkway Project (16-096)
   This would allow the previously approved County funds to be used by the City.
4. Alan Prince, representing Monterey-Ellis LLC, requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 15.25 acres, located at approximately 965 South 1600 West, from the A1.1 Agricultural Zone (one acre minimum) to the R1.8 Single-Family Residential Zone (8,000 square feet minimum). The rezoning would facilitate the development of a 50-lot single-family subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
   I'm am very interested in hearing this proposal. I think this represents the heart of item 1 on our Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Provo doesn't have a lot of land left to develop. Is this the best use of it? Should we move forward with this now or wait until the South West Master Plan is completed? 
5. Break
6. Ivory Homes requests an ordinance amendment to Section 14.49E.050.(6) to allow a maximum front yard setback of 30 feet instead of 22 feet as currently required, for the Broadview Shore Development located at approximately 1300-2000 North Geneva Road in the SDP-5 Zone. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
   Why did this zone, which I believe was created for this development, originally have the maximum set back at 22 feet? Why ask for it to be extended? Is this a change in the vision for the type of residential that will go in?
7. PEG Development requests a code amendment to Sections 14.21A.070 and 14.21A.080 reducing the minimum story height in the DT1 (General Downtown) Zone and changing the application of the transition standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
   Juice 'n Java wants to build a new store in which to relocate. Their selected site is within the DT1 (Downtown 1) zone, which requires new buildings to be at least 2 stories tall. They don't want to build a two story building and so are proposing an amendment that will allow them to build a one story building. The vision for this area is for taller, denser buildings, fitting for a downtown area. The argument for this amendment is that this would be an interim step that would allow lower density development until the market will support the higher density development. The concern is what is meant to be interim may last a very long time. One development may not be too bad, but what will the next development ask for? And the one after that. If this area develops with single story buildings, how long will it take for the market to justify tearing down these new single story buildings to replace them will taller buildings?
8. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests a General Plan Amendment for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities designation to the Residential designation. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0002GPA)
   The developer donated some land to Provo City to be developed into a city park. A portion of this land was not used for the park and was given back to the developer. The developer plans to use it for landscaped access to another part of the development. The general plan amendment and the zoning change will allow for this.
9. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests Zone Change for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities Zone to the R1.10 Zone. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0004R)
   Related to item #8.
10. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential and Section 15.04 Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements, creating an allowance for Variable Lot Subdivisions and eliminating Open Space Subdivision allowances. City-Wide Impact. (16-0011OA)
    I'm hoping to understand this better after the presentation. It appears to allow variable lot sizes in larger development, within reason, as long as the total number of lots isn't increased. In general I'm very much in favor of promoting diversity within developments.
11. Dr. Wendell A. Gibby requests a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 14.38.025 and Section 14.38.085, to allow for larger electronic signs between 3000 & 3300 North University Avenue for emergency healthcare services. Riverside Neighborhood. (16-0013OA)
    Blue Rock Medical Center is requesting an amendment that would allow them to install a large electronic sign at their business on North University Avenue. Two other businesses have similar signs, but they were put in before the Council specifically restricted such signs in 2013. For myself, I do not believe that such signs are desirable in most areas of the city, and I agree with the Council's action in 2013. I (fortunately) don't frequent University Parkway, west of Provo, very often, but when I do I'm struck by how intrusive these signs can be.
12. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing changes in the minimum size and required setbacks for flag lots in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0010OA)
    See item 13.
13.  Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.34.140 Flag Lots, revising the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
    These amendments would take away the "discouraged" designation from flag lot developments and clean up and clarify what is required.
14.  Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing reductions in required lot widths in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0009OA)
    This proposal reduces the minimum lot widths for various single family detached residential zones, and provides more flexibility.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. The Good Citizen Award, presented by the Provo Police Department
2. Employee of the Month for July 2016, presented to Chris Cooper, Human Resources
3. A presentation by the Covey Center - ImprovBroadway
   Public Comment
4. Introduction of Jonathan Crosland, recommended appointee to the Board of Adjustments. (16-101)
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions (16-101)
   If you are interested in who are advising the Administration and Council on just about every issue facing the city, I recommend reading the appointments and reappointments to our boards and commissions. Much of the greatness of our community comes from those who are willing to volunteer their time, talents, and resources into our city.
6.  A resolution authorizing a perpetual license agreement for right-of-way access related to Lakeview Parkway. 16-096)
   If I follow the documents correctly, this license agreement guarantees access to one of the adjacent land owners from the parkway.
7. An ordinance amending the Wastewater Fees on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-097)
   Currently the "base rate" portion of sewer bills are determined by the number of connections. This fiscal year each connection is assessed a monthly base rate of $8.76, whether that connection services a single unit (a single family home, for example), 100 units (an apartment complex), or a large commercial building. This proposal would move our billing structure from a solely per-connection fee to a mostly per-unit fee for residential customers, and a "residental-unit equivalent" fee for commercial. A small commercial connection that is equivalent to a single-unit residential connection, would be charged like a single residential unit. A large commercial connection that is equivalent to 80 residential units will be charged 80x a single residential unit.
   In recognition that there are some efficiencies in servicing multiple units through a single connection and bill, a small connection charge will remain, which makes up 10% of the base rate for a single unit residence. This gives a small discount to multi-unit residences. Also, in recognition of the financial impact on multiunit residential owners, the change will be phased in over two years, 10% the first year, and 50% the second year.
8. A resolution approving the Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding the use of "Part 19 Tax Revenues." (16-096)
   This is item 3 from our work meeting earlier in the day.
9. A resolution approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-099)
   After hearing this item August 2nd at our work meeting, I wrote, "This simply directs our RDA to use the generated tax increment financing to pay the impact fees. This was already the plan, but this agreement formalizes it."
10. A resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-094)
    This agreement will allow the use of tax increment financing in the area where Duncan Aviation will build their new facilities.
11. A resolution approving Interlocal Agreements with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, respectively, authorizing the collection of tax increment to facilitate the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-095)
    There are four agreements with the various government entities that collect property tax at the new Duncan Aviation location. Each will allow a portion of the increase in generated property taxes to be used in the development.
12.  A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-098)
    This is the approval of the agreement in item 9, by the Governing Board of the RDA, which happens to be made up of the same people who serve on the City Council. Basically we are making an agreement with ourselves.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of real property generally located at 965 South 1600 West from Agricultural (A1.1) to Single-Family Residential (R1.8). sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
    See item 4 in the work meeting above.
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum story height in the General Downtown Zone and change the application of the Transitional Development Standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
    See item 7 in the work meeting above.
15. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the maximum front yard setback in the SDP-5 Zone. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
    See item 6 in the work meeting above.
16. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify yard definitions and the requirements for minimum lot widths and require yards for corner lots. (16-0008OA)
    We heard this proposal in our August 2nd work meeting. This is what I wrote afterward, "This amendment is broader than I originally thought, but it appears to improve our code in a number of sections. It defines these terms in a more straight-forward manner. It doesn't reduce restrictions, but it does allow for more flexibility, particularly for corner lots."

Property Taxes and Effective Communication

I appreciate clear, concise writing. Likely because it is so hard for me to achieve. I was impressed by a paragraph in Braley Dodson's Daily Herald article this week reporting on the School District's vote to increase property taxes. I use far more words than Braley when I explain to residents why the City Council has to "raise" taxes, just to keep tax rates level. Here is Braley's description, followed by an interactive graphic that I created. Which one do you think is more effective?

"While assessed values of homes have increased locally, the amount of money the school district receives from property taxes has remained the same, meaning the tax rate has decreased. In that time, there has been inflation without any matching increases from taxpayers."

What's Up? - 4 August 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:45 PM, Tuesday, August 2, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on noticing requirements for Land Use items referred to the Municipal Council by the Planning Commission. (16-100)
   Council Member Dave Sewell moved to have the two Planning Commission items mentioned at this work meeting be placed on the August 16, 2016 Work and Council Meeting agendas. He also moved to refer this item to the Development Review Process Committee for further discussion. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   State statute requires that 10 days of notice must be given before land use items are heard by the Planning Commission. Provo code requires 14 days. These requirements do not apply on the same items going before the City Council, but it has been our long standing practice to give 14 days notice. So long standing, in fact, that everyone just assumed it was required. In researching whether we had any options to get a couple of land use items on our 16 Aug meeting agendas, Brian Jones (re)discovered that technically only 24 hours of notice are needed. So we decided to put the items on the agenda (we will be able to give 13 days of notice), and to send this issue to our Development Approval Process Review Committee to study and recommend to the Council a policy that will be in the best interest of our residents.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amendment to Section 14.06.020 Definitions and Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, regarding yard definitions and required widths and setbacks for corner lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0008OA)
   This item will be heard at the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting.
   This amendment is broader than I originally thought, but it appears to improve our code in a number of sections. It defines these terms in a more straight-forward manner. It doesn't reduce restrictions, but it does allow for more flexibility, particularly for corner lots.
3. A discussion regarding a resolution approving the proposed Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-094)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
   This item, and the next, will allow for tax increment financing to be used as our portion of a matching grant that will pay for infrastructure at the airport.
4. A discussion regarding proposed Interlocal Agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and Provo City, Utah County, Provo School District and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District to fund the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area Plan (16-095)
   Council Member George Stewart moved this item forward to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 7:0.
5. A discussion regarding an Impact Fee Funding Agreement for City View Apartments (16-099)
   Council Member David Harding moved this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Sewell. Approved 7:0
   This simply directs our RDA to use the generated tax increment financing to pay the impact fees. This was already the plan, but this agreement formalizes it.
6. A discussion about Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) funding (16-092)
   Council Member George Stewart made a motion requesting Mayor John Curtis prepare the current agreement leaving energy efficiency, water conservation and charging stations but striking renewable energy, and to present it at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Knecht. Approved 7:0.
   This is a national program, implemented by the states, and administered by municipalities. It provides capital to companies to build or retrofit more sustainable buildings. These improvements should provide more savings each year than the payments on the loans.
7. A discussion regarding the implementation options for applying the sewer base rate by residential housing unit and commercial meter size (16-097)
   Council Member David Harding made a motion to move this item to the August 16, 2016 Council Meeting and that the Administration develop a model that implements the base rate increase on multi-family units to be 10% increase in the first year, 50% in the second year and 90% all subsequent years. Also, to modify the commercial rate as presented by the Administration at this work meeting. Seconded by Council Member George Stewart. Approved 7:0.
   Currently a household in a single-family dwelling may pay the same base rate for sewer as an entire apartment complex. If this proposal passes, multifamily housing will be assessed 90% of the regular base rate PER UNIT, rather than 100% of the base rate PER CONNECTION (often whole complexes have just a single connection). We are considering a phase-in of this change to allow everyone time to plan for the impact.
8. A discussion on the impact of proposed phosphorous and nitrogen effluent limitations on Provo’s Water Reclamation Plant and potential impact on Wastewater rates (16-091)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting. Council Members would like to hear from DWQ in the near future.
   See my description below.
9. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.
   To fit everyone's schedule, part of the closed portion of the meeting was held at the beginning of the meeting, and part at the end.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 2, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council outlining their concern with the recent proposed standards from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality related to the impact of the wastewater effluent on the chemistry of Utah Lake. (16-091)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
   Utah Lake is not known for clean, clear water. The water quality has been impacted by the communities that have grown up around it. Recently the State has designated the lake as being impaired, and is proposing a plan to address the water quality issues. A major aspect of this plan is to restrict the amount of nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) that can be released into the lake from our water treatment plants. Nutrient level is one factor that leads to algal blooms. Meeting the nutrient standards would cost millions of dollars for Provo City to implement. (Provo is planning to do some major renovations to our water treatment plant, which is why our sewer rates are going up. If these restrictions go into place, even more money will need to be spent on water treatment equipment). Some scientists and water experts do not believe that the report on which these proposed restrictions are based has sufficiently strong scientific evidence to justify these restrictions. The Administration is worried that millions of dollars will be spent on something that may not have a significant impact on the water quality of the lake. In the joint resolution we declare, "The data collected for, and presented in, the Integrated Report is inadequate without further scientific studies and vetting by the scientific community to conclude that the quality of Utah Lake will be significantly improved by the proposed regulations."
   The reason I did not vote for the resolution is that we only heard from one side. We heard from scientists and water experts saying that the data is lacking. I wanted to hear from the other scientists and water experts who are proposing the restrictions. We had time to hear from the State DEQ/DWQ and still pass the resolution during the public input period, but chose to act before hearing from them.