There were no notable surprises in these meetings, just an uneventful continuation of processes in doing the work of the City. But isn't that what we want from our City government, particularly the Council? Boring, predictable, with no surprises?
What Was Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 21st, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- A presentation regarding property management and parking issues
Presentation only.
Parking has been an issue around Startup Crossing ever since it opened. It is hoped that the opening of the BRT line will have a significant impact on the number of cars the tenants bring with them. But that is still more than a year away. Representatives of the company that manages Startup Crossing came to talk with us about why parking is such an issue and what they are doing about it. The most notable is that an adjacent plot of ground is going to be graveled to allow for off-street parking. - A discussion regarding Vote by Mail Presentation only.The report focuses on the Vote by Mail process and the safeguards that are used to prevent voter fraud. I personally feel that VBM is at least as safe as voting at polling stations.
- A presentation of the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Project Report
Presentation only.
The City's 5-year CIP is 180 pages long. It can be considered very dry and boring. Or it can be exciting to see all of the projects that are planned. If you really want to see what the City is up to, where your tax-dollars are going, I recommend reviewing the CIP. - A presentation from the Water Division
Presentation only.
This is round 2. Continuing with our conservation efforts, Provo should have sufficient water rights well into the future. One challenge that we face, though, is that water is spread across the whole year. Provo's water demand is highest in the summer when resources can be stretched the thinnest. We don't have the storage capacity to "bank" the water when it's not needed for when it is. One promising technique to address this is "artificial groundwater recharge". - A discussion regarding a resolution to appropriate funds for the abatement of asbestos and the demolition of the former Utah County Security Center
Presentation only.
The total comes to about $725,000. We appropriated this amount in our evening meeting. See item 5 below. - A discussion regarding the Zoning Committee recommendations
The Zoning Compliance Committee will invite Peter Christensen, Utah Central Association of Realtors, to provide input on the recommendations before the April 11, 2017 Work Meeting.
Many ideas were submitted on how we can improve zoning compliance. The committee sorted and consolidated the submissions into seven goals:- Enhanced enforcement efforts reduce financial incentives for violators and result in greater compliance.
- Enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses leads to greater compliance by landlords.
- Increased regulation and enforcement of zoning disclosures and verifications leads to decline in over occupancy/illegal rental market.
- Adequate staffing and training of code enforcement personnel allows for timely and efficient enforcement efforts.
- Increased communication with, and education of, residents leads to reduction in violations and better cooperation in enforcement efforts.
- Engagement with stakeholders increases awareness, cooperation, and compliance.
- Clarifying current zoning laws and advancing new ones results in a code that is clear and provides the tools enforcement officers need.
- A discussion on a 2017 Utah County Recreational Municipal Grant
Presentation only.
This one is very straight forward. See the last "What's Up?" for a description. - A discussion regarding a resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Towne Centre Mall.
Presentation only.
[T]he Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of Provo Towne Center Mall requires the [Redevelopment] Agency to approve of any change in the ownership of the mall. I don't believe this change will affect anything other than giving the current owner access to more capital. - A discussion on a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.080 regarding yard requirements in the One-Family Residential Zone, specifically eliminating the combined front/rear yard requirement. City-Wide Impact.
Discussion only. This item is scheduled for the April 11, 2017 Council Meeting.
The proposal is to change the setback requirements (how far a home is away from the front and back of the property) in R1 zones and to better specify how those setbacks are measured. The proposed changes make sense to me. - A discussion on a proposed amendment to the Provo City Code Sections 14.21A.090, 14.21B.080 and 14.23 to adopt minimum dwelling unit sizes in the Downtown One, Downtown Two, and ITOD Zones. City-Wide Impact.
Staff was directed to prepare two versions of the ordinance: one utilizing the previously codified standard, the other reflecting the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Discussion of this item will continue at the April 11, 2017 Work and Council Meetings.
It is clear to me that the Council will be reinstating some sort of minimum dwelling unit size. This is an example of what I personally feel has been one of the Provo Municipal Council's biggest weaknesses over the years. I've been paying attention long enough that I remember with the DT1 and DT2 zones were put into place. I remember the discussion on the role of minimum dwelling unit size in the zoning code. Later, I was in the room when the Council decided to remove the minimum dwelling unit provisions. Remove, mind you, not reduce, not tweak, but remove. It was at the request of the applicant for the very first development to be proposed after the new zones were in place. If I remember correctly, it was a proposal for developing land that had been acquired by Provo's Redevelopment Agency. So you had an associated agency also advocating for the change so that they could maximize the return on the investment (of tax-payers money). I was disappointed at the time. I wasn't necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I didn't feel that the Council explored the request deeply enough. "Why were these provisions put in in the first place?" "Has our thinking/vision changed so much since this zone was created?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" Perhaps these questions were asked outside of the Work Meeting and Council Meeting, but from what I saw, the only question that seemed to matter was, "What do we need to do to make this development happen?" Here we are a few years later ready to reinstate a minimum. So I have to ask, "Why was the minimum previously removed?" "Has our thinking/vision changes so much since then?" "What are the possible unintended consequences of making this change?" I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but I want the reasoning to be sufficiently developed that the next time a developer dangles a pretty proposal in front of the Council that we won't continue oscillating back and forth. I'm all for being nimble and flexible, but I don't think that large shifts in public policy, accommodating the desires of the latest petitioner, is good governance.
Right now the question is what structure with the minimums have, and how high will they be set. - A discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 14.50(22) of the Provo City Code to allow an apartment complex buffered by 10,000 square foot single family lots located at 31 West 4800 North. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
Motion for the Council to request that, following a meeting of the neighborhood with the developer, the Planning Commission hear this item on April 12, 2017 and that this item be scheduled for Work and Council Meeting on April 18, 2017. Approved 7:0.
The proposed development has been met with some resident opposition. The proposal has been changed in response to that feedback and concerns on the Planning Commission. One of my biggest concerns was that the proposed changes had not been heard by the neighborhood or the Planning Commission. We were guessing as to whether the changes truly addressed the concerns. I am very pleased that proposal will go back to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. I would like to see this process always followed. - A request for an ordinance text amendment to Provo City Code Chapters 14.02, 14.31, 15.01, 15.03, and 15.04 to consolidate development and subdivision plan application submittal requirements and expiration deadlines found in the various chapters of the Provo City Code. City-Wide Impact.
This item was moved to the agenda for the Development Approval Process Review Committee Meeting on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
The proposed changes help prepare for the coming adoption of Provo 360, and new software platform for unifying workflow across the City. But it was also beginning the shift away from preliminary project approval to conceptual approval. This would be a significant shift and we felt that the DAPR committee should make a recommendation on it, rather than just discuss it a few times, like we have. - A discussion regarding a request for a zone change from A1.1 to R1.8 for 22.5 acres of property located at approximately 890 South 1600 West, in order to facilitate Final Subdivision Approval for 70 lots of at least 8,000 square feet. Sunset Neighborhood.
Discussion only.
This is related to the Scott's Corner proposed development that we heard last fall and helped kick off the Westside Planning Committee. The project has continued to evolve, and the applicant feels that they have addressed the most pressing neighborhood concerns. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 21st, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- Public Comment
- A joint resolution of the Provo City Mayor and Municipal Council appointing temporary Justice Court Judges for the Provo City Justice Court.
Approved 7:0.
The Temporary Justice Court Judges appointed were:- Judge Sherlynn Fenstermaker (Springville City Justice Court)
- Judge Scott Cullimore (Utah County Justice Court)
- Judge Reed Parkin (Orem City Justice Court)
- Judge Morgan Cummings (Lehi City Justice Court)
- Judge Steven Ridge (Utah County Justice Court)
- A resolution ratifying the Redevelopment Agency's consent to a change in ownership interests in the Provo Town Centre Mall.
Approved 7:0.
See Item 8 in the Work Meeting agenda above. - A resolution appropriating $725,000 in the General Fund to pay for the cost of asbestos abatement and demolition of the former Utah County Security Center, generally located at 1776 Buckley Lane.
Approved 7:0.
The history on this, in a nutshell: Years ago the County decided to build a new jail. The County planned to sell the jail to a private prison company. The nearby residents were not thrilled with the idea and plead with the City to do something. Since the County owned it, there wasn't much the City could do besides buying it. Just about anything sounded better than a private jail to the neighbors, they plead with the City to buy it. The money came from funds the City was planning to use for a park. The plan was for the City to sell the land for development that would repay the park fund. Once the imminent threat of the private jail was gone, the neighbors were less interested in seeing the development go in that would reimburse the City. The neighbors have since fought to limit the intensity of the development. The amount that they City is selling the land for will mostly be used to pay for the asbestos abatement and demolition of the old jail. The amount left over will not fully pay back the park fund. An interesting wrinkle over the last couple of years is that a Provo-based "maker" group has proposed to rehab the old jail and use it for a makerspace. The City did not choose to accept their proposal. I believe the group has filed in court to take possession of the property from the City through eminent domain. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adjust the parking ratios for off-street parking.
The ordinance making provision for use of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was Approved 6:1, Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
The ratio for South Campus went from 0.7/bed to 0.8/bed + 0.2/unit. The ratio for Downtown and ITOD zones went from 0.75/unit (one bedroom) and 1.13/unit (multiple bedroom) to 1.13/unit and 1.69/unit, but the Planning Commission can lower the ratios if the proposed development includes a parking mitigation plan. They can lower it down to 1/unit and 1.5/unit if the Commission feels that the plan warrants it. - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 22.5 acres of real property, generally located at 890 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Sunset Neighborhood.
Approved 7:0.See Item 13 in the Work Meeting agenda above. - An ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule to add a Meter Reading Fee for customers who elect not to have an AMI Meter.
Approved as amended 7:0.
After deliberation, a majority of the Council voted to amend the ordinance to reduce the fee from $25/month down to $10/month. We hope that the number of customers opting out of the smart meters will be very few. - A resolution appropriating up to $70,980 in the City Recorder’s Office for the funding of Elections for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.
The Vote-by-Mail resolution was Approved 6:1, Council Member George Stewart opposed.
I voted against selecting the vote-by-mail option, but the majority of the Council voted for it. Once that method was selected, I voted for the appropriation. "Vote by Mail" was already available, but it wasn't the default, people had to take an extra step to have a mail-in ballot sent to them. Voting in person will still be available, but it no longer will be the default. Extra effort will be necessary as the number of polling locations will be greatly reduced. The administration's "Provo Pulse" opinion polling showed overwhelming support for VBM. The Council's "Open City Hall" showed a 60/40 split favoring VBM. But of the comments submitted, it was as close to 50/50 as it could get. - An ordinance amending the Official Neighborhood Map.
Approved 7:0.
Three different Neighborhood boundary adjustments were made. The Downtown Neighborhood proposal was removed from this batch so more thought and discussion can go into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment