What's Up? - 14 April 2017

There are a lot of important issues facing the Council right now, and many of them are on the agenda for next Tuesday. These include the proposed PEG development on 4800 N and University Ave, the Ice Sheet, development along the BRT route, parking and walking in Joaquin, zoning compliance, minimum unit sizes.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a proposed ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartments units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   
   
   *Note that this illustration is one revision old
   This item was discussed in the 21 Mar 2017 Council Work Meeting. Changes had been made since it was presented at a neighborhood meeting and voted on by the Planning Commission (a 3-3 tie). We requested that the proposal, which had been modified to try to address concerns raised by the Neighborhood and Planning Commission, be taken back to the Neighborhood and Planning Commission. The applicant has completed that tour and will be presenting it again at this work meeting and is asking the Council to decide on it in the later Council Meeting. The central question, in my mind, is, would this development be too intense for this location of the City.
   The neighbors I am hearing are saying that they are not against multi-family housing at this location and would support this type of project if it was north of 4800 N, but (paraphrasing in my own words) development at this location should not exceed MDR (medium-density residential) in character. The overall density of the project is just under the MDR limits, but that is because the density of the single-family detached lots in the back is being averaged with the density of the HDR (high-density residential) apartments in front.
2. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   This item was continued on the 11th because of some discrepancies between the drafts. Perhaps the biggest question remaining is if we want to have a hard minimum of 20 ft for the rear setback, or if we are willing to allow a minimum average setback of 20 ft and a hard minimum of 15 ft. After discussing it here, we will be voting on it as item 14 in the evening meeting.
3. A discussion on a joint resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs
   CDBG and HOME are federal programs which give local communities money to fight poverty and urban blight. I appreciate the local aspect of these programs, allowing us to focus the money where we feel it will make the biggest impact. Last year CDBG money supported the Community Action Services and Food Bank, the Center for Women and Children in Crisis, the Downtown Facade Renovation program, the Egress Window program, House of Hope, RAH, Victim Services, Project Read, and many more.
   The federal government has proposed cutting or eliminating these funds in the upcoming budget. We are considering a joint resolution with Orem City to communicate our support of these programs to our Congressional Delegation.
4. A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
   Round 2. Here is what I wrote about our last discussion: After reading the comments by our County Commissioners in the newspaper, I wondered if Provo City was over reacting, and causing unjustified alarm in the community. After listening to our attorneys explain the legal contract and the provisions that have been invoked, it doesn't appear that we are over-reacting. Perhaps it is a simple mistake and a misunderstanding that we can quickly correct, but the words of the Commissioners in the newspaper do not appear to align with the notice that we received. If the County is simply looking for another public agency to take over their position, then they should have invoked Section 15e of the contract. Instead, they invoked Section 15c which gives us an opportunity to buy their position, otherwise the whole facility goes up for sale, and we lose our position as well. I hope it's true that if the County can't find an interested party to take over, then they will continue as our partner, but that is not what the legal notice that they gave us says. Until that notice is withdrawn, we have to respond as if it will be carried out.
5. A presentation from the Water Division
   Part 4. 
6. A presentation from Zions Bank Public Finance on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem.
   From looking at the support document, this looks more like an introduction to a study that is just starting, rather than a report on what the study found.
7. A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
   This appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan was produced by the Provo City Lab, a class of students at Brigham Young University who received assistance and guidance from the Joaquin Neighborhood Board and the Planning Division of Provo’s Community Development Department. Input from the residents of Joaquin directed and augmented the research of the Provo City Lab.
   This appendix will serve as a reference point for future development projects within the Joaquin Neighborhood and offer recommendations on their implementation in order to preserve a vibrant sense of community, promote walkability, improve livability, support beautification, and allow for future growth and development.
   The appendix is nearly 70 pages long with "Current Status," "Case Studies," and "Recommendations" on a number of topics which affect the livability of the neighborhood.
8. A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
   These strategies were presented to the Council in our 21 March Work Meeting. I believe the only difference now is that the document has been presented to the Utah Central Association of Realtors and the Utah Apartment Association who have indicated their comfort with the document.
9. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

3. A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
   Congrats Rylee Snelson!
4. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
   Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack!
5. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
   Congrats Matt Dunlap!
6. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
   Congrats George Hutchings!
   
   Public Comment
7. A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
   This is what I wrote after her introduction to the Council: Amanda Ercanbrack comes highly recommended by the city employees who have worked with her over the years. She seems like a very capable person. I am glad that she will have a chance to shadow our current Recorder, Janene Weiss until she retires at the end of the year, and head up the implementation of the new OnBase document management system.
8. A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
   See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.
9. A resolution appropriating $800,000 in the Water CIP Fund and $350,000 in the Wastewater CIP Fund for construction of Stadium Avenue applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
   A $1.1M advance from the water and wastewater CIP funds that is scheduled to be used in FY17-18 but would be helpful if we can use it this year. 
10. A resolution appropriating $48,089 in the General Fund, Streets Division for snow removal overtime and costs associated with snow removal applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
    We had so much snow this winter that we blew through our salt budget and incurred overtime for the plow operators, to the tune of $48K.
11. A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
    In 2012 the state of Utah implemented a general permit for wastewater collection systems in order to “develop programs for the prevention, control, and abatement of new or existing pollution of the waters of the state.” Provo City submitted a Notice of Intent at that time stating that we will comply with the requirements of the general permit. Compliance requires review and adoption of the program documents by the City Council. The Municipal Wastewater Planning Program SelfAssessment Report for Provo 2016 fulfills the annual reporting requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, gives Provo City points on the Utah Wastewater Project Priority List/System, and gives operators completing these forms continuing education credits for each form returned. 
    I appreciate the professionalism and care with which our waste-water team tackles their job. It appears that all is in order, other than our system is aging, and we have not set aside enough money for replacement and upgrades.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
    See my description of item 1 in the afternoon meeting.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
    When the DT1 and DT2 zones were first created, they had a hard minimum unit size of 600 sqft/unit and a minimum average unit size of 800 sqft/unit. The ITOD zone has never had a minimum. In 2012, the Council decided to remove the minimum size restrictions. At the beginning of this process, Community Development Staff recommended a 400 600 sqft/unit minimum or a 600 800 sqft/unit minimum average.The Planning Commission recommended both a 400 sqft/unit minimum and a 600 sqft/unit minimum average.
    Community Development Staff has since adjusted their recommendation to 400 to 500 sqft/unit minimum and 800 sqft/unit minimum average.
    The bulk of the discussion was centered around the hard minimum. Should we select 400, 500, or 600 sqft/unit? I want 400/800, some other Councilors wanted 600/800, but they did not have enough votes, 500/800 was finally selected to be used as the[starting point for our deliberations].
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
    See my description of item 3 in the afternoon meeting.