What's Up? - 18 September 2017

Karen Tapahe, the Council's Community Relations Coordinator (and social media guru) has started posting a Citizen's Agenda to help translate the jargon and legalese into something that is more helpful for the average citizen to follow. I'd like to think that my "What's Up" meeting previews helped inspire the Citizen's Agenda. To be more efficient and not duplicate her work, I'm attempting to add my commentary to her descriptions. Perhaps in the future, my comments, along with any other Councilor's, will be published inline with the Citizen's Agenda. I formatted this "What's Up?" in a way that might work if other Councilors want to add in their own thoughts. Just hover your mouse over the button with my name on it to see my thoughts on that agenda item.

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.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Joint Meeting with Planning Commission

Agenda

11:00 AM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

1. A discussion on recent changes to the public noticing process for Planning Commission and Council hearings
• Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes.
There are no documents associated with this item in the current packet, but this is related to the changes that the Council approved back on August 8th. In short, it improves the development approval process so that by default, neighbors get more and better notice before land use items are heard by the Council, the public gets more opportunity to address the Council on these items, the Council gets a better opportunity to consider that input, and the applicants/developers get a shorter wait before finding out if the proposal will be approved. Does that sound too good to be true? Take a look at the details.
2. Additional questions and discussion

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. A discussion on the UDOT & H.W. Lochner 500 West Project (100 N to 800 N/Center to 1230 N) (17-117)
• UDOT is evaluating improvements to 500 West between Center Street and Bulldog Boulevard in Provo. These improvements will include changing the pavement type from asphalt to concrete, planted medians, the addition of bike lanes and a multi-use path along the corridor.
Significant improvements are planned for 500 W, just east of Center Street. This is an extension of the great redesign and reconstruction of State Street in Southeast Provo, and across 300 S. My biggest concern at this point is the removal of the tunnel beneath 500 W that the school children use, so they don't have to cross a very busy section of State Street. Apparently, the combination of foot traffic and vehicular traffic doesn't warrant an enhancement like a tunnel or a sky bridge, but since that infrastructure is already there, I believe it warrants special consideration if the State really feels like they need to remove it. If they don't want to build a bridge, perhaps they should consider leaving the tunnel.
2. A discussion on parking (17-096)
• This is a followup to the August 8 work meeting where the new Provo City parking manager presented information and answered questions.
Today's Policy Lunch was held in Joaquin Park. It was a good reminder and illustration of just how bad parking is in this area and the almost-non-existent enforcement of parking regulations. There was one particularly unsafely parked car at the nearest intersection. I was parked right on the corner and was blocking the crosswalk/sidewalk. I feel that the City needs to step-up our parking enforcement, but I also feel that every driver should be given a warning if they have no previous warnings or tickets within the past year. Educate first, then penalize those who willfully break the law and make our neighborhoods less safe for others. This is but one of many issues that our Provo Parking Administration needs to address.
3. A discussion on the appropriation for the Freedom Lot on Block 90 (RC Willey conversion) (17-106)
• This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center.
The biggest question in my mind is, "Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?" I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used through out the City.
4. A presentation on complete streets and the 500 N transportation pilot project (17-118)
• The North Park Neighborhood Chair and Timp Neighborhood Chair, along with a member of the Provo Bike Committee will be briefing the Council on the recent pilot residents executed on 500 N. In addition, they will be talking about walkable and bikeable neighborhoods and complete streets.
The redesign that went along with the repaving of a section of 500 W was a great project. The Provo Bike Committee was awarded a grant from the Utah Department of Health to pilot some ideas to make 500 W friendlier to active modes of transportation (think bikes, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.). It turned into a great community event. There were some aspects of the project that were quite painful, but through diligent efforts on all sides, we came to a good resolution. I am concerned that without appropriate care and effort, small holes in our growing transportation network will significantly decrease the effectiveness of the network.
5. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage (17-110)
• This discussion about how signage is regulated in Provo City Code is intended to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing code changes in a future meeting. This was discussed at the previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed.
This one is all about electronic signs. The premise is that appropriately-controlled, static (low-churn) electronic signs are as obtrusive as an old-fashioned back-lit sign so they could be permitted anywhere that back-lit signs are currently permitted without negatively affecting the community. Low-churn signs could be changed up to three times a day. They can not have any animation or motion-video. The brightness is regulated and is restricted more at night. After looking at the proposed changes, by biggest concern is if the 8-second minimum hold time for high-churn electronic signs are enough. I know that is an industry standard, but perhaps what is good enough for our freeways isn't good enough for inside our city. High-churn signs are only permitted along certain stretches of commercial roads in our city. I was surprised to see that Center Street, between the freeway and State Street, is one of these designated corridors. Right now I can't think of any of these signs on that stretch right now. I'm not certain that a high-churn sign would be a good fit for that section of the street.
6. A presentation on Provo City's Media Services and Channel 17 (17-108)
• During budget discussions this summer, Council members had some questions regarding the media services budget. This presentation will give an explanation of what is covered in this budget as well as projects being done by Channel 17.
When we had iProvo when we first moved here, we had access to Channel 17. Since then, we get our TV "over-the-air" and I've only seen Internet video's produced by Channel 17. Are they still "broadcasting" on cable?
7. A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule (17-102)
• An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was discussed at the previous work meeting and additional information was requested.
At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project.
8. A discussion on conducting fee reviews (17-116)
• For the past two years, the Council has been reviewing City fees in order to understand what services the City may be subsidizing. This discussion will be centered on discussing how to best proceed with fee reviews in the future.
I feel like the reviews have been helpful, but only a few actual changes have come out of the effort. It will be interesting to see if the staff conducting the reviews feel that the outcome has been worth the effort.
9. A discussion on the zoning disclosure requirement (17-119)
• Provo City Code Chapter 6.25 requires that a seller or lessor of residential property must disclose the property’s zoning requirements to potential buyers or lessees. The Council’s Zoning Committee has discussed this requirement and would like to share a few ideas pertaining to zoning disclosure with the Council.
Back when we bought our house in Provo, I only had the fuzziest of notions about zoning. I remember receiving a zoning disclosure which led to a good discussion about zoning and land use and what uses are permitted on the property that I was buying. Even though I wasn't planning on using my property in any unallowed ways, I still felt it was a very valuable conversation. I imagine if I had been planning on using it in an unpermitted way, I would have found it even more valuable to know of the permitted uses before I bought the property.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. Provo City Public Works Department requests an amendment to the Aspen Loop road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. 17-0002SV  
• The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road.
The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed.
11. Gordon Jacobson requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to R1.9 for 1.056 acres of property, located at 2585 North Timpview Drive. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. 17-0014R
• The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone.
I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots.
12. Matt Evans requests a Zone Change from Agricultural A1.1 to Residential R1.10 for approximately 1.30 acres located at 1520 West 1150 South to facilitate a three-lot subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. 17-0015R
• This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties.
No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though.
13. Provo City Public Works Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to add Section 15.03.020(3) to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-Wide Impact. 17-0017OA
• This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards.
This seems fairly straightforward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced.
14. Provo City Community Development Department requests Amendments to Section 14.14E.050 to increase the required setbacks for front yards and side street yards from a maximum of 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet for commercial frontages and a minimum of 10 feet for residential frontages. Joaquin Neighborhood. 17-0006OA
• The Campus Mixed Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes.
In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings.

Closed Meeting

15. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
• Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

• Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for September 2017
2. Justice Court Annual Report
There are no support documents for this item. I assume that Judge Romney will present a summary of the work of the City's Justice Court.

Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.

Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (17-089)
• The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
• Natalie Gibbs, Parks & Recreation Board
• Stuart Wheeler, Arts Council
• Scott Glenn, Arts Council
I've said it before, but it bears repeating, Provo benefits greatly from the willingness of her residents to be involved and to donate their time, efforts, and talents to the community. Look no further than our boards and commissions for many examples of extremely accomplished individuals donating their expertise for the betterment of the community.
4. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
• Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. This proposed addition to the City Code is a step in achieving that goal. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold. First, it educates landlords and tenants regarding the legal requirements regarding the occupancy restrictions of a particular residence. By requiring landlords to provide tenants with a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and the Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities document, both the landlords and the tenants can have a clear understanding of their legal obligations so that they do not unwittingly violate the City Code. Additionally, it provides a way to indirectly enforce occupancy restrictions against landlords who intentionally violate the City Code. Landlords who are willfully violating occupancy restrictions are forced to choose between informing prospective tenants that they are breaking the law or violating this section of the code, as well. This will be the first of two public hearings on the ordinance.
This is the first of at least two hearings. There is a partially related open house on the 20th. I think the proposal has generated a lot of good discussion. I have heard a few really good suggestions for improvements already. I'm guessing that the proposal will evolve a bit before it is passed.
5. A  resolution approving the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to the Utah Municipal Power Agency and approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement. (17-115)
• This is a request from Utah Municipal Power Association (UMPA) to transfer the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to UMPA as agreed upon in the January 1, 2016, sale agreement.
The Energy Department is proposing that the assets be transferred to in accordance with past agreements. It seems pretty straight forward to me, and in the City's interest.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to add Conditional Uses within Public Facilities zones. City-wide Impact. (17-0012OA)

• The applicant is requesting that standard land use (SLU) #4603 be added to the public facilities zone as a conditional use. It is uncommon to have privately owned land within the Public Facilities Zone. The applicant believes that the current zone ordinance is too restrictive while the proposed use would be appropriate within the zone and allow a viable economic return on the property.
What is the long-range plan for this property? Why is it zoned Public Facilities if it is privately owned?

7. **CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.642 acres of real property, generally located at 925 East 1140 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
• This item was continued before it was ever presented to the Planning Commission, so it will not come to the Council until a future date. This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.30 acres of real property, generally located at 1520 West 1150 South, from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (17-0015R)
• This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties.
This item was heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #12 ("No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though.")
9. An ordinance amending the Aspen Loop Road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. (17-0002SV)
• The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #10 ("The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed.")
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.056 acres of real property, generally located at 2585 North Timpview Drive, from R1.10 to R1.9. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (17-0014R)
• The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone, but could qualify for R1.9.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #11. ("I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots.")
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-wide Impact. (17-0017OA)
• This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #13. ("This seems fairly straight forward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced.")
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding setbacks for front yards and side street yards in the Campus Mixed-Use Zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. (17-0006OA)
• The Campus Mixed-Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #14. ("In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings.")

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

13. A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters. (17-114)
• Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund.
This item was continued from the last meeting. Here is what I wrote before the last meeting, "Many of these commitments were made by a previous Council. I feel a fairly strong obligation to live up to our commitments. I'd only vote against this if I strongly felt like it was not in the communities best interest, or if I felt there was a better way to fulfill our commitments. Fortunately, I do believe that the expansion of Duncan into the City will be a very good thing for the City overall and that the commitments made were reasonable and the programs used were exactly what the programs were for."
14. A resolution appropriating $478,000 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
• This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #3. ("The biggest question in my mind is, 'Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?' I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used through out the City.")

Stormwater Special Service District

13. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule. (17-102)
• An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was originally set to be heard at the August 29 Council meeting, but was continued due to requested changes raised in the August 29 work meeting.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item 7. ("At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project.")