What's Up? - July 24th, 2017

Black text comes from the agenda
Bold text describes the action taken
Blue text are my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents
Light blue text comes from my previous comments.

Background information on the agenda items are given more in the meetings preview. This meeting report focuses on the thinking behind the votes.

As always, the documents are all available to the public. Click here for more information on how to access them.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, July 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of a prospective Arts Council appointment
   Presentation only.
   Heather Jensen will make a great addition to our Arts Council. She is a BYU Art History Professor and has served on a number of Arts related boards during her career.
2. A discussion on an interlocal agreement with Utah County regarding the 2017 Municipal Election
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   Provo is contracting with Utah County to conduct the election this Fall. This agreement lays out all of the roles and responsibilities, and what we will pay them.
3. A presentation regarding the Economic Development Department's efforts to create jobs in Provo
   Presentation only.
   Part two in a series of presentations better familiarizing the Council with the roles and efforts of the Mayor's Office of Economic Development. The main thrust of this presentation is how the Office courts and responds to outside businesses looking to relocate or expand into new areas.
4. An update regarding recommended long-term sanitation rate changes
   Presentation only.
   This has been an ongoing policy discussion. We made an interim change as part of the new budget, but there was a desire to spend more time to consider longer term structural changes to our sanitation fees. A couple of the previously proposed options were dropped and a new one was added. The base fee would cover both the black and blue cans, and the green can could be added for a small monthly charge on the months when the cans are picked up. It's not my preferred option, but perhaps a middle ground option that most Councilors could support. I like that the complex discounts and "triple play" penalty are removed. It is a far simpler structure. (See item #5 in the 23 May What's Up? for a description of previously proposed options.)
5. A presentation by the Utah County Commission on the Utah County Resource Management Plan
   Presentation only.
   The County reached out to local governments with one last opportunity for feedback on the proposed Resource Management Plan. It looks at public land and facilities across the County and lays out the desired policies for all of them. It allows better coordination between public agencies for the management of the land and resources. It's a dense, 129-page documents. The table of contents lists these topics: Land Use; Economic Considerations; Agriculture; Air Quality; Canals + Ditches; Cultural, Historical, Paleontological, and Geological; Energy Resources; Fire Management; Fisheries; Floodplains + River Terraces; Forest Management; Irrigation; Land Access; Law Enforcement; Livestock + Grazing; Mineral Resources; Mining; Noxious Weeds; Predator Control; Recreation + Tourism; Riparian Areas; Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species; Water Quality + Hydrology; Water Rights; Wetlands; Wild + Scenic Rivers; Wilderness Areas; Wildlife
   If you have a particular passion about one of these areas then I recommend reading that section of the plan. I applaud the County's efforts to produce this plan. I wasn't able to read through all of it, but from what I did read, it is well done.
6. A discussion with the Redevelopment Department
   Presentation only.
   Similar to the past presentations by the Water Division and the current presentations by the Office of Economic Development, the Redevelopment Agency is presenting their role and effort to the Council.
7. A presentation of the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
   Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There were no surprises in the presentation. Just a quick review of the latest update to the plan. This plan is required for jurisdictions to qualify for certain disaster relief if disasters do occur.
8. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Subsection 14.10.080(3) regarding street-side yards on corner lots. City-Wide Impact.
   Presentation only.
   As advertised: This proposal would bring the side yard requirements for corner lots into harmony with the front lot requirements we recently adjusted...It is being proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
9. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Chapter 14.06 and Subsection 14.10.090(4) regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. City-Wide Impact.
   Presentation only.As advertised: Patios are allowed to project into the setback area, but, with this proposed change, they can't get within 8 feet of the rear property line. This was also proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
10. David Gardner requests an Ordinance Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) Zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
    A motion to adopt the staff recommendation for the draft of Provo City Code Section 14.26.020 (5)(f)(iii): “Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted within 600 feet of a residential zone boundary unless approved by the Planning Commission as part of a Project Plan Application” was Approved 4:0, with Council members Kim Santiago, Gary Winterton, and Kay Van Buren excused. This item will be scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
    This item is already scheduled for our first Council meeting in August. The vote was to change the proposal that we will be considering to have a soft 600 ft buffer as suggested by the Planning Commission, rather than the 500 ft soft buffer as originally proposed. (I call it soft because the Planning Commission will have the discretion to waive it.)
    I originally abstained from the vote, because I am uncomfortable with the whole proposal. But because there were only four Councilors there, it would not have passed without my vote and the only impact would be that we'd be starting with the 500 ft buffer at our Council Meeting.
    This site is located on a narrow strip of land, between the rail road tracks and Independence Ave. It is across the street from Independence High and Freedom Academy. It is isolated from any neighborhood (with a lower case "n"). There would be 30 small units for businesses, office and warehouse space, and roughly half of the units would have an attached residential unit on the top floor. So we are looking at roughly 15 residential units going into this area. The idea is for this to be a "live/work" arrangement. Allowing for a young entrepreneur to rent some space for their fledgling business and live on the premises.
    I am uncomfortable with the proposal because I fear it has the potential to become a sketchy area for people to live. There are no provisions in the proposal to require the residential renter to be the owner of the business renting the space below. It doesn't even have to be an employee. We already have code that allows "caretakers" to live on site at businesses, but they have to be bonified employees. We already hear stories of people living in storage units. It is easy to see why this is not a good thing for the community. I fear that as proposed, this project could become a half step up from that. This area is so isolated from any other residential area that I fear the renters would be cut off from the community.
    During the meeting, a staff member pushed back (which I appreciate; I think robust discussion is important) saying that if this project was built in the 'Startup District' (south of 300 S and north of the Front Runner station) that people would be lining up to live there. And I fully agree. This would be a great project for the Startup District. I am concerned, though, about it going in where it is currently being proposed.
    
    
    
    
    
11. Provo City Economic Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.105(1) to increase the amount of signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in the Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
    This item was heard at the end of the later meeting. Please see the description there.
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congratulations to Sharon Kuttler who serves as the Library Services Manager.
2. A presentation of the employee of the month for July 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congratulations to Ralston Ramkissoon, Recreation Program Coordinator. It's pretty impressive that a part-time employee was nominated by his peers.
3. A presentation of the American Public Works Association-Utah Chapter Awards.
   Presentation only.The Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association selected the Provo Westside Connector project as the Public Works Project of the Year. And recently retired Division Director for Public Services, Greg Beckstrom was awarded the Utah APWA Member of the Year Award.
   Consent Agenda
4. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
5. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 and Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
   An implied motion to approve the consent agenda was Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused.
   I've said it before, but it bears repeating, Provo is a better place to live, work, and play because of the efforts of many volunteers, including those who serve on our various boards and commissions. 

   Marc Liebman	Parks and Recreation Board	June 30, 2020
   Jeffrey Kahn	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Heather Jensen	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Jane Wise	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2018
   Valerie Lee	Provo Housing Authority	June 30, 2021

   I believe there are other nominations in the works.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 9.925 acres of real property, generally located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West, from One-family Residential (R1.7) to One-family Residential Accessory Apartment Overlay (R1.7A). Sunset Neighborhood.
   Denied 5:2, with Council members David Harding and David Sewell in favor.I was deeply torn by this proposal. I feel that accessory apartments have a role to play in our community. They can be particularly helpful when homes are designed and built with them (as opposed to homes that are split and converted). They have also brought problems into areas of the City. (See my in-depth discussion for item 6 in the 10 July What's Up?) I believe that we can have the benefits of accessories with out the negatives, but it will take vigilance by the neighbors and zoning enforcement by the City. I voted for this because it received support from the neighbors, a recommendation from Staff, and a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. Several of the Commissioners live in areas of the City that have the 'A-Overlay' (like me) and haven't seen downsides (unlike me). It would have been more difficult if I had been a swing vote. I realized that this wasn't going to pass regardless of how I voted.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.095 to allow for larger signage in certain areas of the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:0, Council member Gary Winterton excused.
   This will only affect the Provo Towne Centre mall. Instead of two smaller signs, they want to combine the area and have one bigger sign. It is next to I-15 and shouldn't affect any residences.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 59.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1560 South 1100 West, from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential Performance Development Overlay (R1.8 PD) and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1). Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   Denied 7:0.
   For all the reasons listed in the last What's Up? (agenda item #8, Council Meeting), I voted to deny the request to rezone.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.5 acres of real property, generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 900 East And Center Street, from One-Family Residential (R1.6) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
   Denied 7:0.
   The neighbors were against it. The Landmarks Commission was against it. Community Development Staff were against it. The Planning Commission was against it. And I agree that the proposed project doesn't fit into the character of the surrounding area. I look forward to the completion of the effort to write a design corridor for this section of Center Street so that we can more clearly communicate with potential developers interested in the area.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the uses allowed in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. City-wide impact.
    Approved 7:0.
    Resturants and Professional Services (with some exceptions) were allowed in 'historic buildings' now they are only allowed in 'existing commercial buildings. Personal Services (with some exceptions) are now also allowed in 'exisiting commercial buildings'. This only applies to areas zoned 'Residential Conservation'.
11. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 58.6 acres of real property, generally located at 1500 South State Street, from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    A substitute motion to continue this item for 6 weeks was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    There were some land owners who opposed the rezone. One, in particular, was just about to sell the land to someone who wanted to put in more storage units. For the City's and Neighborhood's vision for this area to be realized, we need to be fully committed and not allow new industrial uses to go in. While the discussion played out in the meeting, potential partnerships and agreements between developers and land owners were being explored. I applaud these conversations but I didn't think the Council Meeting was the best place for them to take place. I am confident that land owners and developers will be able to work out the details to move forward to redefine this area of Provo. I think we should have just moved forward with the rezone and allow the parties to work the rest out. But I was willing to support the continuance, as long as we eventually end up moving toward the community's vision. 
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.105(1) to increase wall signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway zones. City-wide Impact.
    Approved 4:2, with Council members Kim Santiago and David Harding opposed, and with Council member Gary Winterton abstaining.
    I was on the flip side of this item. I think we should have continued it to allow more study. I probably would have supported if we had more information about the consequences of approving or denying the proposal. 
    It is my understanding that this will only affect the Zions Bank and Wells Fargo buildings. At some point, the plan was to allow only one sign per building side facing a public street. Now there is already two signs on one side of one of the buildings and another business wants to put up a sign on the other building.
    I didn't comfortable voting to change the regulations without better understanding the consequences.

What's Up? - 17 July 2017

I have more colors than last time:
Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents
Light blue text comes from my previous comments, and
Green text indicates a quote from someone else.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of a prospective Arts Council appointment
   Continued from last time, we'll meet one more prospective appointee to the Arts Council.
2. A discussion on an inter-local agreement with Utah County regarding the 2017 Municipal Election
   Provo City and Utah County will be working together to administer a vote-by-mail election for the 2017 municipal elections. The interlocal agreement specifies the responsibilities for each entity. 
3. A presentation regarding the Economic Development Department's efforts to create jobs in Provo
   As a part in a series of ongoing presentations to better familiarize the Council with the purposes, goals, and work of the Economic Development Office, this presentation will focus on their efforts to create jobs.
4. An update regarding recommended long-term sanitation rate changes
   At the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council received a presentation from the Public Works regarding the Sanitation Fund. Council was informed of five options in which a proposed 10% rate increase in FY18 could be implemented. Sanitation makes money on the black cans, but loses money on the blue and green cans.
   Then, at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting, Council asked Sanitation to return with a final recommendation regarding Sanitation fees. 
   No word on what their recommendation will be.
5. A presentation by the Utah County Commission on the Utah County Resource Management Plan
   The State requires all counties in Utah to produce a Resource Management Plan (RMP) by August 1, 2017. Utah County has been working on its RMP for approximately two years, and the County is getting close to approving a final version. There was an extensive public comment period last year, and many of the ideas provided by the public have been incorporated into the latest RMP draft. Commissioner Lee would like to give community leaders throughout Utah County one last chance to provide input as the County gets closer to finalizing its RMP.
   This is a 129-page document, and a fairly dense one at that. I'm only part way through it, but I don't want to hold up my "What's Up?" any longer. I'll finish reading it after I publish this.
6. A discussion with the Redevelopment Department
   The purpose of this item is to, "To help Council members better understand the Redevelopment Agency’s roles and objectives." Similar to past presentations by the Water Division and the current presentations by the Office of Economic Development.
7. A presentation of the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
   The Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is revised every five years. Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) has recently revised the HMP with input for the multi-county jurisdictions included in the plan. MAG received a Federal Grant to review and revise the plan. The plan was reviewed and accepted by FEMA and all jurisdictions included in the plan are advised to adopt their portion of the plan.
   It a 46-page document summarizing the potential disasters we face in Utah County. Much of it focuses on our history of disasters and it has a little discussion about how to mitigate the potential damage we face in future disasters.
8. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Subsection 14.10.080(3) regarding street-side yards on corner lots. City-Wide Impact.
   This proposal would bring the side yard requirements for corner lots into harmony with the front lot requirements we recently adjusted. Originally there was an off-street parking component to the proposal, but that has been withdrawn for the time being. It is being proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
9. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Chapter 14.06 and Subsection 14.10.090(4) regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. City-Wide Impact.
   This proposal is also in response to the recently updated front and rear setback requirements. Patios are allowed to project into the setback area, but, with this proposed change, they can't get within 8 feet of the rear property line. This was also proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
10. David Gardner requests an Ordinance Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) Zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
    Community Development Staff, along with the Planning Commission, recommends approval of this proposal, but I'm struggling to understand its purpose, or even what is being requested. In one section it's talking about projects with ten or more units, in another, it states that only one unit is permitted per parcel. Is residential use really something we want to allow in a manufacturing park? I'm pretty open to living arrangements that others are interested in even if they don't interest me, but I'm having a hard time seeing the upside of having residential units in a manufacturing park. I've heard of people living in storage units, but I don't see that being in the communities interest either. I have a lot of questions on this one, including the 500' buffer which appears to make this effectively a spot-zone. I hope to understand this better after the presentation.
11. Provo City Economic Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.105(1) to increase the amount of signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in the Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    There are interested parties wanting to advertise by using wall signs in downtown Provo. The current code does not provide for additional signage for larger buildings. This amendment was proposed to provide more wall signs for larger buildings in the Downtown.
    Why was this limitation implemented in the first place? What is the downside to allowing more wall signs? Is it really in the overall best interest of the Downtown community? I wonder if this is a case where a building already has a second sign installed and is now requesting a change to city ordinance to make it legal.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
2. A presentation of the employee of the month for July 2017.
   There is no further information in the Document Packet so we will be kept in suspense to see who is being recognized.
3. A presentation of the American Public Works Association-Utah Chapter Awards.
   The Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association will present two awards. The Public Works Project of the Year award is being presented to the City for the Provo Westside Connector project and the Utah APWA Member of the Year Award is being presented to Greg Beckstrom. Congrats!
   
   Public Comment 
4. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
   Listed in the Document Packet are

   Marc Liebman	Parks and Recreation Board	June 30, 2020
   Jeffrey Kahn	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Heather Jensen	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Jane Wise	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2018
   Valerie Lee	Provo Housing Authority	June 30, 2021
   Andrew Howard	Planning Commission	June 30, 2020
   Shannon Ellsworth	Planning Commission	June 30, 2020

   I believe there are a few other names that have been proposed. Perhaps they will be added before we vote in the evening.
   "I am continually impressed at the quality of individuals you recommend for these boards. It's wonderful that we have people like these in our community, and great that they can be identified and are willing to serve." Take a look at their introductions. Provo is a better place because so many great individuals are willing to serve their community.
5. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 and Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
   This will be discussed as item 2 in the Work Meeting. We've already committed to a Vote-by-Mail election this fall being run by the County. This would just formalize the agreement.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 9.925 acres of real property, generally located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West, from One-family Residential (R1.7) to One-family Residential Accessory Apartment Overlay (R1.7A). Sunset Neighborhood.
   In my last "What's Up?" my most voluminous reaction was to this item before we heard it in the Work Meeting (item #6). I have fairly strong mixed feelings about this proposal. I voiced my unease and my concerns were shared by some of the other Councilors, but the discussion didn't help me resolve my conflicted feelings. I suppose we will hear from residents in favor and in opposition to the proposal tomorrow night.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.095 to allow for larger signage in certain areas of the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   This was item 7 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote last time, "The Planning Commission report was a little sparse on this item. It mentions that the Commission brought up questions about brightness and messaging, and that the applicant addressed the questions, but it doesn't explain what the questions were or how they were addressed. I am also concerned about possible impacts on surrounding neighbors. Being adjacent to the freeway will hopefully help. The Commission must have had their concerns adequately addressed as they recommended approval on a 5:0 vote. Freeway drivers should also be considered. I imagine I'm not the only person who has experienced painfully bright and distracting video signs on the freeway." In our Work Meeting discussion, Staff discussed the 8-second hold on electronic displays, and that sign brightness is already covered in the City's existing sign regulations.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 59.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1560 South 1100 West, from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential Performance Development Overlay (R1.8 PD) and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1). Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   This was item 8 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote at that time, "Both Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of this request at the present time. Both groups have indicated that much of the proposal has merit in the long term, but that conditions are not yet right. Major concerns are the current redesign of the sewer infrastructure which won't be settled for a couple more months, as well as ongoing work on the details of the Southwest Area Master Plan.
   After spending so much time and effort with the other members of the Westside Planning Committee, it was neat to see our work referenced when evaluating this project."
   This is what was written in the local newspaper as the highly experienced developer didn't like the direction the approval process is headed and turns to the press.
   This is what Wayne Parker, the Provo City's Chief Administrative Officer, said in response to the article and the discussion it generated on Facebook, "I'd like to share a couple of thoughts about this having been involved in the discussion for several months now. For many years, the City's general plan called for this area to be agriculture in the 20-30 year time horizon, except for possible non-residential development near the airport. So very little investment was made in infrastructure like water, sewer and storm drainage. Once Duncan Aviation came on to the horizon in earnest about 6 years ago, the General Plan was amended to residential in the area (with an environmentally sensitive designation) and the City's capital improvement plans began to reflect this need for city infrastructure. As the Lakeview Parkway funding began flowing in from federal and state sources, we knew that development pressures would follow, and we were working on a systematic plan to fund infrastructure that would support Duncan and possibly other development. But it takes a long time to get projects like water, sewer and storm water improvements going. The City needs to do studies to determine ideal locations for lines and lift stations for sewer and storm water improvements, to budget for the projects, to test soils, and to acquire rights of way and easements. Master plan studies for sewer and stormwater were done about 5 years ago, and we are now in the midst of land acquisition and geotechnical studies to determine the best alignment for these lines. As the article indicated, we now anticipate the lines going in during the 2018 construction season. So additional insights - first, the developer in question is a great developer and we would love to have them building in Provo. The land they chose and put under option is land that is not currently served by city utilities. There is a lot of land in Provo like that. The developer has the choice to install those utilities in accordance with the master plans or to wait until the City has the infrastructure ready. So, our answer has been consistently "no" to the development because of timing. The developer will now have the opportunity to appeal all of those "no's" to the Municipal Council this week. That is how the process works. Second, I certainly understand their position that their 3-year effort to get approved has been stymied, but they acquired a piece of property that has no access to utility infrastructure. If and when the utilities are in place, that is the time to discuss the rezone and possible land uses. This is an issue that the City deals with almost daily with developers who are ahead of the city infrastructure. But I don't know any city where every piece of property in the city is shovel-ready for development. And, as Beth Alligood points out, this specific development proposal is still in conflict with the West Side Development principles that have been adopted by the Municipal Council. I hope this helps, even though the post is way longer than I would like."
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.5 acres of real property, generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 900 East And Center Street, from One-Family Residential (R1.6) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
   This was item 9 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote last time, "Staff and the Planning Commission are both recommending denial of this request as well but for different reasons. The main reason for this one is that the design does not fit the character of the surrounding area. I appreciate the shout out from Commissioner Rowan for form-based code which would more clearly communicate these expectation to potential developers, and I appreciate the efforts of some of the neighbors to draft language for an East Center Street Design Corridor."
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the uses allowed in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. City-wide impact.
    You might be detecting a trend. All of the land use items from Work Meeting last week are on our agenda for the Council Meeting this week. Here is what I wrote about this item last week, "The RC zone is mostly used in older parts of the City. It was used decades ago as a place holder until a final zoning determination could be made for each area. Sometimes there is nothing as permanent as a temporary designation. I am a proponent of allowing neighborhood-scale commercial within our neighborhoods, so, in general, I am in favor of this request. I am worried, though, about the lack of feedback. This could indicate that no one in the community has concerns, but it may indicate that people aren't paying attention who may be upset later on."
11. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 58.6 acres of real property, generally located at 1500 South State Street, from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    This was item 11 on last week's Work Meeting. Here is what I said about it, "The Southeast Area Master Plan identifies this area as a good place for higher density housing. In particular, I believe the idea is that this area could be designed specifically for the "young professional" demographic. I'm excited to see what can be done if developments are designed from the ground up for this group.
    Unfortunately, there are already businesses in this area, some new, some have been around for a long time. Some have been sitting on their land for a long time with an eye to developing it for manufacturing uses sometime in the future. This area could also be a cohesive manufacturing strip in the City providing jobs and industrial services.
    My biggest fear is that if we try to split the difference and tuck multi-family developments between the manufacturing sites we will fail to get a quality area for either use."
    In our meeting last week we voted to change our implied motion (start point for discussion) to be a rezone of the entire area, without exceptions for the properties that don't currently have manufacturing uses, but were planning to use the land for manufacturing uses some time into the future.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.105(1) to increase wall signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway zones. City-wide Impact.
    This item will have been heard earlier in the day, rather than last week. See item 11 in the afternoon meeting above.

What's Up? - 10 July 2017

I apologize for my extended absence. Between work travel, family vacations, the holidays, and starting a reelection campaign, I've fallen a few weeks behind. I hope to do a post-meeting report on the last three batches of meetings later this week. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer as much as I am, though I'm looking forward to it calming down just a bit.

So far I've been blogging the regular Work Meetings and Council Meetings, but there are other public meetings that the Council participates in. On Tuesday we are having a joint meeting with the Provo Metropolitan Water District Board. I figure I should give y'all a heads up on these other meetings as well.

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

What's Coming Up?

JOINT MEETING WITH THE METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD

12:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the mission of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo, its relationship with Provo City, and developing a cooperative and productive relationship.
   In December 2016, the Council inadvertently made some inappropriate changes to MWD Board. In February 2017, we undid our mistakes. And in March of this year, we filled the vacancies on the Board. This Joint Meeting will be a good opportunity to make sure that everyone is on the same page about the purpose and work of the MWDB and to ensure we have good communication and cooperation to meet the needs of Provo residents.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of prospective Board & Commission Appointments.
   Prospective appointees include:
   • Valerie Lee, reappointment to Housing Authority, four-year term
   • Marc Liebman, appointment to Parks and Rec, three-year term
   • Natalie Gibbs, appointment to Parks and Rec, one-year term
   • Shannon Ellsworth, appointment to Planning Commission, three-year term
   • Andrew Howard, appointment to Planning Commission, three-year term
   • Jane Wise, appointment to Arts Council, one-year term
   • Stuart Wheeler, appointment to Arts Council, one-year term
   • Scott Glenn, appointment to Arts Council, two-year term
   • Jeffrey Kahn, appointment to Arts Council, three-year term
   • Heather Jensen, appointment to Arts Council, three-year term
   I wrote this to the Mayor upon receiving these recommendations: "I am continually impressed at the quality of individuals you recommend for these boards. It's wonderful that we have people like these in our community, and great that they can be identified and are willing to serve." Take a look at their introductions. Provo is a better place because so many great individuals are willing to serve their community.
2. A presentation from Downtown Provo, Inc. Executive Director regarding their efforts
   DPI has a new Executive Director, Quinn Peterson. I am optimistic that DPI will finally reach its potential under his leadership. 
3. A presentation regarding Economic Development efforts in the downtown Provo
   As part of the budget review process, the Council felt like they needed to better understand the Economic Development Department’s efforts and what they plan to do moving forward. This presentation is part of a four-part comprehensive presentation to better understand the following topics along with what Economic Development is doing regarding them:
   • Downtown
   • Retail and Incentives
   • Job Creation
   • Retaining businesses
   • Future of Westside, including Housing, Commercial development, and the airport, and
   • Mountain Vista
   Similar to the presentations given by the Water Division, these presentations will give the Council better working knowledge of Economic Development's efforts.
4. A proposal from the Rules Committee regarding Minutes policy
   New state law says that you satisfy the requirement to capture the substance of a meeting if you have a link to an audio recording that has time stamps available. The Rules Committee is considering altering minutes policy to rely more on the video/audio rather than to capture everything in the written record.
   As part of the Rules Committee, we reviewed the new law and explored various options. We feel this will improve the ability of the citizenry to access the information they desire while relieving a significant workload on Staff.
5. A discussion on the video component of OnBase Agenda Online
   As an ardent reader of my blog, you know that most of the documents I link to are hosted on the City's SIRE Public Access System. And you know the frustrations of all links breaking each time any update is made, as well as all sorts of quirks and limitations. The City is moving from the SIRE system to OnBase and I am naively optimistic that it will solve all of the problems. We are getting very close to the switch over, and I assume that this agenda item has to do with that. Perhaps we'll be asked if we want to pay more for a video feature.
6. A zone change request from R1.7 to R1.7A to allow for accessory apartments for homes located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West. Sunset Neighborhood.
   
   
   
   I have mixed feelings on this one, but apparently the Planning Commission does not. With a 4:0 vote they are recommending approval. Their discussion included multiple comments that they see no potential negative consequences. Accessory apartments allow the owner of a home to rent out a portion of that home, as long as the owner lives in the other part. The idea is that the owner will be very careful about screening tenant, will take care of nuisance problems quickly, and will be responsive to tenant needs, because they are living in such close proximity. There are several upsides to accessory apartments. At their best they allow a new family to own a home sooner, with the renters helping to pay the mortgage. Later, as earning potential goes up as does the need for more space, the growing family can expand into the "accessory" space. Later still, when the baby birds leave the nest, the spare space can be rented back out to help fund a retirement. This is just one example of how the flexibility can help address our communities housing needs and provide more stability. At their worst, allowing accessory apartment removes homes from the market for growing families and leads to all sorts of zoning infractions. I would say the number one housing need in my own neighborhood is for homes with enough space and bedrooms for an average Provo family. Over the past decade I've known so many families who come here as young families, still students or young professionals, and they fall in love with the neighborhood and want to stay forever, but after a few years and a couple of kids they are forced to move away because there are no houses available to meet their needs. Many of the houses with three or more bedrooms in my neighborhood have been converted into multi-family housing. This is due in large part to the 'A overlay' which allows accessory apartments. Many are not legally compliant accessory apartments because they were not created with a building permit, many do not meet the requirements to become legal accessory apartments, and many were once used as accessory apartments, but over time and multiple owners, they are functioning as duplexes, without the owner occupying one part of the house.
   I wish there was a way to get the benefits of accessory apartments without the negatives that have crept in over time. I hope the applicants understand the potential negative consequences that may not be obvious in the short term.
7. A request for an amendment to Section 14.38 to allow for larger signage in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone for the Provo Towne Center Mall. East Bay Neighborhood.
   The Planning Commission report was a little sparse on this item. It mentions that the Commission brought up questions about brightness and messaging, and that the applicant addressed the questions, but it doesn't explain what the questions were or how they were addressed. I am also concerned about possible impacts on surrounding neighbors. Being adjacent to the freeway will hopefully help. The Commission must have had their concerns adequately addressed as they recommended approval on a 5:0 vote. Freeway drivers should also be considered. I imagine I'm not the only person who has experienced painfully bright and distracting video signs on the freeway.
8. A request for a zone change from RA & A1.5 to R1.8(PD) & Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1) Zone for property located at approximately 1560 South 1100 West. The proposed R1.8(PD) Zone includes 55.24 acres. The proposed SC-1 Zone includes 4.46 acres. Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   
   
   Both Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of this request at the present time. Both groups have indicated that much of the proposal has merit in the long term, but that conditions are not yet right. Major concerns are the current redesign of the sewer infrastructure which won't be settled for a couple more months, as well as ongoing work on the details of the Southwest Area Master Plan.
   After spending so much time and effort with the other members of the Westside Planning Committee, it was neat to see our work referenced when evaluating this project.
9. A request for a zone map amendment from the R1.6 (One-Family Residential) and RC (Residential Conservation) zones to the MDR (Medium Density Residential) Zone on approximately 2.5 acres generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection at 900 East and Center Street. Foothills and Provost Neighborhoods.
   
   
   Staff and the Planning Commission are both recommending denial of this request as well but for different reasons. The main reason for this one is that the design does not fit the character of the surrounding area. I appreciate the shout out from Commissioner Rowan for form-based code which would more clearly communicate these expectation to potential developers, and I appreciate the efforts of some of the neighbors to draft language for an East Center Street Design Corridor.
10. A request for an amendments to Section 14.32.020 to allow Eating Places and Personal Services within the Residential Conservation (RC) zone in existing commercial structures. City-Wide Impact.
    The RC zone is mostly used in older parts of the City. It was used decades ago as a place holder until a final zoning determination could be made for each area. Sometimes there is nothing as permanent as a temporary designation. I am a proponent of allowing neighborhood-scale commercial within our neighborhoods, so, in general, I am in favor of this request. I am worried, though, about the lack of feedback. This could indicate that no one in the community has concerns, but it may indicate that people aren't paying attention who may be upset later on.
11. A discussion regarding a Provo City Community Development Department request for a Zone Change of approximately 58.6 acres of property generally located at 1500 South State Street from Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone to Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    The Southeast Area Master Plan identifies this area as a good place for higher density housing. In particular, I believe the idea is that this area could be designed specifically for the "young professional" demographic. I'm excited to see what can be done if developments are designed from the ground up for this group.
    Unfortunately, there are already businesses in this area, some new, some have been around for a long time. Some have been sitting on their land for a long time with an eye to developing it for manufacturing uses sometime in the future. This area could also be a cohesive manufacturing strip in the City providing jobs and industrial services.
    My biggest fear is that if we try to split the difference and tuck multi-family developments between the manufacturing sites we will fail to get a quality area for either use.
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, June 6th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

The evening Council Meeting has been CANCELLED because there were no action items on the agenda.