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.