Two of these three issues were discussed by the Council in our meetings last Tuesday. Below are my thoughts on all of the items addressed by the Council.
Black text comes from the agendas
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents.
I refer to comments by other councilors in this newsletter. I do this from memory and they might characterize their comments differently. I have tried to represent their comments as correctly as I can.
What Was Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- 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.
Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
The proposal changed again after more discussions with neighbors and going before the Planning Commission again. This item was discussed again in the evening meeting as agenda item 12. Please see that item below for a report on our action. - A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
A substitute motion for Planning staff to bring this ordinance text back to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated was Approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting but that discussion was also continued in conjunction with this motion.In our discussion, Councilor Van Buren advocated for allowing for more flexibility in placement of homes by not requiring a hard 20' rear setback, but rather allowing some portion of the home get as close as 15'. The problem was that the definition of this "average" set back was not well defined. We chose to continue this item for two weeks to allow Community Development the chance to better define that option. - 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
Discussion only. This item was already scheduled for the April 18, 2017 Council Meeting.See my description of this item 6 in the evening meeting. - A discussion on the operation of the Ice Sheet
Discussion only.
We had a good presentation about the history and the current usage of the Ice Sheet. This news article did a good job describing this presentation as well as our discussion afterward. - A presentation from the Water Division
Discussion only. The Water Division staff will give a presentation on Water Rights at the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting and a concluding presentation at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting.
Part 4. The focus of this session was on water quality and the testing that is involved. - A presentation on a Transit Oriented Development Study for Provo and Orem within half mile of the BRT line.
Presentation only.
The initial phase of this study is complete and looked at the experience of other cities who have installed BRT systems. We looked ahead at the rest of the studied and were asked if there were specific questions that we would like answered. Councilor Santiago would like to know what specific types of businesses flourish along BRT lines. We will be able to use this information to help attract such businesses to maximize the benefits of this investment. - A discussion on a possible appendix to the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan
Discussion only. Several council members expressed interest in seeing this appendix continue through the General Plan Amendment process. The Joaquin Neighborhood Chairs intend to gather additional feedback from council members, property owners, and residents of the Joaquin Neighborhood and to continue the process towards formal codification.
Here is a link to the plan. It was developed by a BYU class, in consultation with leaders from the Joaquin Neighborhood. If I remember right, there are around 70 pages, with a lot of good research and recommendations. I would quibble with a few of their suggestions and conclusions, but overall I believe there is good information that should be incorporated with the Neighborhood Master Plan. The Neighborhood would like to review and perhaps make some modifications before they recommend it. It will need to go through the appropriate process before it can be properly adopted. - A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
A motion to adopt this document as the intent of the Council regarding zoning compliance was Approved 7:0.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. - Closed Meeting
A closed meeting was held.
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, April 11th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A presentation on the Employee of the Year for 2016.
Presentation only.
Congrats Rylee Snelson! - A presentation on the Employee of the Month for January 2017.
Presentation only.
Congrats Amanda Ercanbrack! (You may come across this name later in the report as well) - A presentation on the Employee of the Month for February 2017.
Presentation only.
Congrats Matt Dunlap! - A presentation on the Employee of the Month for March 2017.
Presentation only.
Congrats George Hutchings!
Public Comment - A resolution consenting to the appointment of Amanda Ercanbrack as city recorder for the City of Provo, Utah.
Approved 7:0.
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. - A resolution opposing the proposed elimination and further reductions in funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment partnership programs.
Continued indefinitely 7:0.
I have full confidence in the way that the CDBG and HOME programs are implemented in Provo. They have been important tools in addressing poverty and urban blight. It would be difficult to replace these funds and continue the work if these federal funds are cut or discontinued.
In our Council Meeting, Councilor Van Buren brought up some concerns with how the overall programs are run across the nation. I realized that while I know enough about how the funds are used locally to support the programs locally, I don't know enough about the programs nationally to make an informed decision about recommending the overall programs. - 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.
Approved 7:0.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. - 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.
Approved 7:0.
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. - A resolution approving the Wastewater Self-Assessment in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.
Approved 7:0.
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. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
A motion to continue this item to the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0.
Some neighbors have indicated that the proposal is getting close to what they'd be willing to accept. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is getting close to being outside of what they are willing to pursue. I am very interested to see if the parties can find a mutually agreeable plan or if their desires are just incompatible.
I worry that we may find future proposals better aligned with the current zoning, but less desirable to both the neighbors and the City as a whole.
I did not feel comfortable voting to approve a change that has not been vetted by the neighbors. It will also be very helpful to have the Planning Commission weigh in on the latest changes. We asked the applicant and neighborhood chair to set up another neighborhood meeting to discuss the most recent changes. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the DT1, DT2, and ITOD Zones.
A motion to approve a 500-square foot minimum and 800-square foot average was Approved 5:2, with Council Members David Sewell and David Harding opposing.
It's not too unusual for me to be on the losing side of votes. But there are only a handful of times in the past year-plus that I've been on the Council where I really struggle with our decision afterwards and really feel like we've made a mistake. The last time I remember feeling like this was when we removed solar net metering without grandfathering existing customers.
I believe the Council was trying to address a specific concern, but decided to use a sledge hammer to drive in the finishing nail.
This item wins the award for the most chaotic during my short tenure on the Council. There weren't many people in the room, but all semblance of "decorum" went out the window.
This ordinance protects the City from the potential proposals that were causing the immediate concerns. But I believe it also negatively impacts some proposals which will be helpful to the community, and will have unintended consequences which will work against the precise outcomes that we are trying to achieve.
I am hopeful, now that we have addressed the immediate concern, that the Council can revisit the issue and craft some less blunt requirements. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
During the April 18, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council voted (7:0) to continue this item to the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting. The Council requested that Planning staff bring this ordinance text back with further clarification regarding how the averages of rear setbacks would be calculated.
As discussed in item 2 in the afternoon meeting, this item is continued for two weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment