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
- An introduction of a prospective Arts Council appointment
Continued from last time, we'll meet one more prospective appointee to the Arts Council. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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
- A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
- 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. - 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 - A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
Listed in the Document Packet are
I believe there are a few other names that have been proposed. Perhaps they will be added before we vote in the evening.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 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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." - 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." - 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." - 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. - 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment