As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.
Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text is my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents, and
Light blue text comes from my previous comments.
What's Coming Up?
COUNCIL WORK MEETING
12:00 Noon, Tuesday, Aug 8th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center
- A discussion on an appropriation for an Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis
Impact fees are paid by developers to cover the development's impact on City infrastructure. Impact fees are regulated by State law and cities must go through a specific analysis when establishing or updating the fees. The administration is recommending to appropriate funds to develop an up-to-date and complete Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) for Energy, Water, Wastewater, Storm Drain, Roadways, Parks and Recreation and Public Safety. Through the standard proposal process, Zions Public Finance was selected to assist the City with the process. A total appropriation of $111,650 is proposed, of which $32,631 would come from the General Fund. The Energy Department's portion is all ready to go.
I support the analysis of our current impact fees so we can ensure that the proper amount is being charged. - A discussion on refunding the Recreation Center General Obligation Bond
After the bonding for the Rec Center was approved by voters, the City issued $39M in bonds. The present amount is now down to a little over $34M. Up to $30M of this is being proposed to be refinanced. The estimated savings due to this refinance would be $2.8M over the 15-year life of the bond. At first glance, this looks like a 'no brainer'. I'm curious if there are extra up-front costs or if it all gets rolled into financed amount. - A discussion on road funding
We will review past years' construction and maintenance levels and will discuss the proposed future projects. - An update on Victim Services grants
The Provo Police Victim Services Division is mostly funded by local, State, and Federal grants. We are required to now provide the Council with two updates per year on the grants. - A discussion with the Economic Development Department on retail incentives and retaining business
This is the latest installment of an ongoing series of presentations by the Office of Economic Development. The objective of this presentation is to: Inform Council Members regarding what Economic Development does in terms of providing incentives to retail and in retaining business. - A discussion on parking
This is a discussion to introduce the interim direction and priorities of the Provo Parking Administration to the Municipal Council and seek their initial feedback.
Provo City recently created the Parking Administrator position and hired Matt Taylor, former City Council Director, to overhaul the parking situation in the City. This will be the first presentation to the City Council as a whole. I am looking forward to the improvements that will be made as we devote significant focus and effort on our parking problems. Take a look at the draft Strategic Parking Managment Plan. - Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.02.010 to make city noticing requirements consistent with state law. Citywide impact.
The accompanying documents talk only about making the noticing requirements consistent with state law and eliminating confusion caused by different noticing requirements listed within the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. They don't talk about what is actually being changed. This will be confirmed in the discussion, but, if I remember correctly, City noticing requirements went beyond State requirements, meaning the City required more noticing than the State. So with these changes, our practice could change to give shorter notice than before. I am glad that we will be discussing this item in conjunction with the next item. - A discussion on the Development Approval Process Review Committee's recommendation on noticing land use items
We've been talking about these recommendations since March and have made a few tweaks. I'm hopeful that we will move forward with these recommendations. This is a rare opportunity where there are no downsides and only positives to a proposal. There will be longer noticing, and more robust opportunity for public input, and more opportunity for Council consideration, AND the approval process is simultaneously streamlined so developer gets a decision faster. Sound too good to be true? Check out the proposal. (Notice that the last paragraph on the second page is basically item 7 above.) - Scott Bowles requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. Citywide impact
Provo Towne Centre Mall wants to put in larger signs on University Parkway. I see the obvious reasons why the Mall wants larger signs. I would like to discuss what the broader, longer-term impacts might be by allowing larger signs along this corridor. As I have written about other proposals, I want to understand why the City put the current regulations into place and if anything has changed to make the old regulations obsolete. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it. The only discussion point listed in their Report of Action is regarding sign brightness.
- McKay Christensen requests an Amendment to Section 14.21A.110 to eliminate the facade stepback for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
In this case, I remember when the facade stepback was implemented. I remember what a great job Community Development did in advocating for the stepback, explaining why it was such an important component in preserving the historic feel of Provo's Center Street.
Now Staff no longer feels it is important. I am very interested to learn why their position has changed. The Planning Commission voted to support this proposal 4 to 1. I have yet to be convinced that this is a good thing. - McKay Christensen requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.21A.090 to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
I support this change. I believe that many who are looking to live Downtown would like to live in smaller apartments. If the market pushes towards larger units, this regulation doesn't prevent developers from building larger units. This project addresses many aspects of our vision for Downtown renewal. It is all market rate units and has ground floor commercial. Staff supports it and the Planning Commission unanimously recommends it. - Closed Meeting
COUNCIL MEETING
5:30 PM, Tuesday, Aug 8th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center
- A presentation of the Employee of the Month for August 2017
- A presentation by the Covey Center on the play "Murder by the Book."
The show is playing for two more weekends, Thursday through Saturday.
Public Comment - Public comment on the Provo River Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion Draft Environmental Assessment
The purpose of this proposal is to allow the public and City Council to provide comments about the Draft Environmental Assessment for the LWCF Property Conversion. Some land was purchased almost 40 years ago using money from a federal program. Five years ago it was disposed of, but not following the requirements of the federal program. This oversight wasn't noticed until recently. This assessment considers the proposed action to remedy the situation. A parklet is proposed at roughly 300 N and 2950 W, on the banks of the Provo River. Plans for this site include a looped trail, interpretive area for wetlands and sitting areas. - A presentation on disaster preparedness and a resolution adopting the Mountainland Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan.
This was item 7 in our Work Meeting three weeks ago:
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. - An ordinance amending City Code to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
This was item 10 in our Work Meeting three weeks ago. Here is what I said before the meeting: 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.
Here is what I wrote afterward: 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.
- An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding street-side yards on corner lots. Citywide impact.
Item 8 from the previous Work Meeting: 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. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. Citywide impact.
Item 9 from the previous Work Meeting: 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. - A resolution appropriating $111,650 in various funds for the funding of an Impact Fee Study for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
This is item 1 from the Work Meeting earlier in the day. - A resolution authorizing a special bond election for the purpose of reworking the Recreation Center General Obligation Bond.
This is item 2 from the Work Meeting earlier in the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment