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
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.) - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
Presentation only.
Congratulations to Sharon Kuttler who serves as the Library Services Manager. - 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. - 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 - A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
- 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.
I believe there are other nominations in the works.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 - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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'. - 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. - 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment