What's Up? - 11 November 2016

Happy Veteran's Day. I want to personally thank all those who have served our country in this capacity.

Next Tuesday is another round of City Council meetings. Here is some links to the supporting documents, but they will break if anything is updated.
Work Meeting
Council Meeting
If either link is broken, you can go here for instructions on how to access the documents.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation regarding diesel emission testing in Utah County
   Don Jarvis, chair of Provo City's Sustainability Committee, addressed this issue in the Daily Herald. I believe that clean air is a serious quality-of-life issue here in Utah County. Requiring diesel vehicles to be tested for emission compliance, similar to how gasoline vehicles are tested, will have a meaningful impact on our air quality, and is not asking anything of our diesel drivers that we don't ask of our gasoline drivers. Provo City does not have the authority to require testing, but we can urge those who have the authority to require it.
2. A discussion regarding the use of concept plans for general plan amendments and rezoning applications, in the context of the Development Review Process
   I have mixed feelings on this one. I understand the reasons for streamlining the development application process, but after a rezone is granted, the property owner is vested with all of the development rights afforded by the rezone. Regardless of what the concept plan shows, without some sort of legal agreement, there is no way to make sure that the actual development relates at all to the concept plan.
3. A discussion regarding Lot Line Adjustment in the context of the Development Review Process
   This one is much more straight forward. A simple lot line adjustment would no longer require a complex review.
4. A discussion on the Budget Committee's recommendation regarding the impact fee process
   Impact fees are "A one-time fee imposed by the City on new construction to fund the cost of infrastructure to meet the needs of new development" and are "Based on providing the same level of service to the new development as is provided in the city currently." The Committee is recommending that we review impact fees, which will require hiring a consultant.
5. A discussion regarding sections of Vision 2050
   • Section 3: Recreation and Parks
   • Section 4: Natural Resources
   • Section 5: Heritage
   • Section 6: Prosperity
   We are reviewing proposed updates to the City's main visioning document (moving Vision 2030 to Vision 2050). We will be reviewing and discussing the four listed sections.
6. A discussion updates to Chapters 4.02 and 4.03 of the Provo City Code regarding the Unclassified Civil Service
   Changes to City Code are proposed to bring it in line with State statute regarding the grievance procedure for certain city employees. 
7. A discussion on a zone change request: Brady Deucher requests a Zone Change from A-1 Agriculture to Residential R1.10 for approximately four acres of land located at 54 West 4200 North in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   The rezone is requested to accommodate a new extended cul-de-sac with 14 lots for single family residences.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 15th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for September, Ryan Rieske, Firefighter/Paramedic
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for October, Rebecca Hunt, Senior Customer Service Representative
3. Citizen Recognition-- Sally Breedan
   
   Public Comment
   
   
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a sales tax increment reimbursement agreement between Provo City Corporation and Parkway Village Partners.
   Parkway Village is across University Parkway from the current Plum Tree Plaza. With the reconstruction of University Parkway, a full four-way intersection could be put in to provide better access to the complexes on both sides of the Parkway. This would benefit the property and business owners on both sides, but would necessitate the removal of a current building on the south side. Parkway Village Partners would like to be reimbursed for up to half of the costs associated with the new intersection and demolishing and rebuilding the building from the increased sales taxes generated at Parkway Village over the next 10 years. In addition to this tentative agreement that they have worked out with our RDA, they are asking to split the increased sales taxes 50/50 with the City if there is any remaining time after half of the construction costs are covered. I support the tentative agreement. I am skeptical that the additional request is in the best interest of the people of Provo.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to specify which individuals are part of the Unclassified Civil Service and which may appeal certain personnel actions.
   See Item 6 on the Work Meeting agenda (above).
6. An ordinance granting Extenet a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   This sounds very similar to the non-exclusive franchise we granted to First Digital in our last Council meeting. As long as they meet all the requirements, it is proper to grant the franchise.
7. A resolution authorizing the transfer of $650,000 from the Independence Avenue project to the Lakeview Parkway project for the purpose of funding the construction of Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North in conjunction with the relocation of Provo High School.
   I have been impressed at the agility and flexibility shown by our Public Works Department to mitigate the impacts of the Provo High relocation. I don't know if the residents near the new Provo High campus will ever fully appreciate the decrease in impact that getting this section of the Lakeview Parkway in place before the school opens will have on their quality of life. At the same time, important projects that other areas of the City have been patiently waiting on will be delayed for years in order to make this happen. I fear that this is only one of the many community impacts that may not have been fully appreciated when the decision to move the school was made. Any savings to the School District have been or soon will be more than eclipsed by additional costs to the City, which, not coincidentally, are borne by the same tax-payers.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.31 acres of real property, generally located at 245 North 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Downtown (DT-1). Dixon Neighborhood.
   On this proposal I have previously written, "As a resident of Dixon Neighborhood, I've seen this request coming for a while. I am struggling with it because I see very little advantage for the community, and a significant disadvantage. The desire of the applicant is to increase the number of residential units by one in two existing buildings. Current zoning for the properties won't allow for it. City Staff has suggested that the property could be rezoned to DT-1 which would allow the additional units, but also a whole lot more. The applicant has proposed (at least to the neighborhood) that they would enter into a development agreement saying that the land would only be used as-is, with the additional units. I don't see a huge public purpose in adding two new units to existing buildings. Rezoning property from RC to DT-1 seems like an awfully large step, usually reserved for a significant redevelopment that will significantly benefit the community. And the restrictive development agreement is my biggest concern. I think that this area of the 500 W corridor needs to be redeveloped. Signing an agreement to lock in the current use and exteriors will add a new obstacle to rejuvenating this stretch." Two weeks ago we continued this item because the development agreement which was proposed when the neighborhood voted on proposal was not proffered to the Council. Since it is back on our agenda, I assume that the development agreement will be proffered this time. This does not address my concerns, though, that this corridor will be ripe for redevelopment soon and this proposal does not position us well to encourage the best redevelopment.