Council Meetings - 3 October, 2017

***UPDATE: Rather than copying all of this information into a new post, I'm updating the old post with the results, and my reports on the various items.***

The big topic for tomorrow will still be the rental contract proposal (items 4 and 11 in the Work and Council meetings, respectively). The appointment of a new Police Cheif is big news (CM3). People may also find the discussion of electronic signs (WM3) and Setbacks for South Campus (CM8) interesting.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 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 proposed code revisions from the Sanitation Department (17-123)
   The proposed changes are to establish a minimum requirement for sanitation services at all residential dwellings throughout the City. They explain when and where refuse collection service is required and clarify requirements for refuse container size. It looks like the biggest change is that a minimum volume per dwelling unit is being set.
   There is a phrase in the proposed language that says, "or the owner of a dwelling contracts to have the owner’s refuse collected and disposed of by a commercial hauler". I think the second "owner's" should be changed to "dwelling's" or "residents in the dwelling's".Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting. There were actually two parts to this presentation. The first part was to introduce a proposed change to clarify the city code: All SFD homes are required to use city garbage collection, multi-family units can use city services or the owner/manager can arrange a separate service, but must meet the required weekly volume capacity (95 gallons). In the second part of the presentation, Public Works proposed that we continue with the recently adjusted can fee rate structure through at least the end of this fiscal year (June 2018). We will resume discussion on structural changes through the regular budget process which starts in January.
2. A discussion on the Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan Fee in the Stormwater Consolidated 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 two previous work meetings and additional information was requested. We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   A motion to move forward with the table of stepped fees to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. Builders would prefer a table to a formula. I feel better about the stepped rates because the intervals make more sense now. There is still some question if the rates are too high. Public works will verify the calculations before it comes to the Council Meeting.
3. 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 a previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed. The basic idea is that static electronic signs are no more obtrusive than back-lit signs, so we should consider allowing them anywhere back-lit signs are allowed. We had a good discussion in our last Work Meeting, but a few questions came up, like what to do with "scrolling" signs. Hopefully, we will have good recommendations on these questions this time.A motion to move this item to the next Planning Commission meeting was Approved 7:0. Looks like all of the kinks have been worked out. I'm comfortable with the "low churn" signs (which can not be changed more than 3 times per day. I'm still uncomfortable with the "high churn" signs which can change every 8 seconds. I think we need to carefully consider which areas in our city allow high churn signs. Perhaps we need a mid-churn level.
4. A discussion on a proposed zoning ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.26.150 (17-104)
   The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. Council has discussed this in work and regular meetings, has held an open house and posted surveys on Open City Hall to get public input on the topic, and has held public hearings during the regular Council meeting. The Zoning Committee met to discuss this feedback and will update the Council in preparation for tonight’s regular Council meeting. Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
   Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.A motion to utilize version 2 of the draft [which included definitions] was Approved 7:0. A motion to postpone a vote on this item until the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council members Kim Santiago, George Stewart, & Kay Van Buren. Several improvements were made over the past two weeks. We discussed voting on it in our evening meeting, and the possibility of waiting until either the next or following meeting to vote. In the end we narrowly voted to continue it for two more meetings before voting on it. This will allow for more time to fine tune the proposal, as well as to reach out to help clear up some of the misunderstandings surrounding this proposal.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. A discussion on a zone change request of approximately 0.642 acres from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR), on property generally located at 925 East 1140 South. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   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. It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here is the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below
6. A discussion on a zone change request on approximately 2.29 acres from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8) on property generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
   This rezone request is to facilitate the creation of a seven lot residential subdivision that would include incorporating two existing homes. The property is currently illegally subdivided into five parcels and the proposed R1.8 zone is potentially inconsistent with the General Plan policies on density. Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated. The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below



Business

7. A discussion on a proposed Business Loans of Utah Revolving Loan Fund (17-121)
   In an effort to strengthen small businesses, the Economic Development Department is proposing a revolving loan fund designed to stimulate redevelopment and utilization of deteriorated commercial and industrial properties. Funds for this program were appropriated as part of the FY 2017-18 budget. Economic Development presented this program to us a number of months back. Basically we can access $7 for every $1 that we contribute in a first-loss position, to use as loans for small businesses who haven't quite made it to the point that commercial banks are willing to lend to them. We may earn money off of the interest of these loans, but we would also be in the position to lose the money that we front, if the businesses default on their loans. The real return on the investment is in higher property taxes, sales taxes, new jobs, and a more vibrant city. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting. The program changed a little. We had previously approved it, but the Office of Economic Development wanted to make sure that we still supported the program after the change. I think the change is in our favor.



Closed Meeting

8. 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. A closed meeting was held.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
(and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF PROVO)
(and STORMWATER SERVICE DISTRICT)
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A proclamation pertaining to Provo's sister city, Meissen, Germany (17-121)
   "No files found" in the document packet. Presentation only. I was in Dresden a few weeks ago for business. I should have looked it up because Meissen is not far from Dresden and I could have visited.



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

2. 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:
   • Jeff Rose - Energy Board
   • Elizabeth Smart - Library Board
   • Deon Turley - Planning Commission
   • Ben Markham - Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee
   I have interacted with all four of these individuals, and Provo City is fortunate to have such quality individuals willing to serve on our boards and commissions. Approved 7:0. Welcome aboard, and thank you for serving!
3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Rich Ferguson as the Chief of the Police Department for Provo City. (17-122)
   Rich Ferguson was appointed interim police chief in March after the resignation of former police chief John King. Ferguson has been with the Provo Police Department for 27 years. After the recent upheaval, I am grateful that our next Chief has been with the Provo City Police Department for so long. Chief Ferguson's character and competence are well known. He will serve the Department and our city well. Approved 7:0. I've been impressed with Chief Ferguson over the past several months as he has served as the Interim Chief. I hear more stories, both in public and in private, of our officers going above the call of duty and providing great service than I do from angry or upset citizens. Chief Ferguson has been a part of the Provo PD for decades and is ready to lead the department.



Stormwater Service District

4. 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. This issue was heard in the earlier meeting as item #2. (We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   
   ) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with Provo City and a Development Agreement with Provo City and Duncan Aviation. (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 has been on the past several meeting agendas and was part of a larger group of items. This is part of the fulfillment of past commitments and will bring a project that will have a significant positive impact on our economic development. Approved 7:0. It seems like items related to the Duncan expansion at the airport has been on every agenda for the past several months. I believe this is the last of them...until the financing is lined up.



Action Agenda

6. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and a Development Agreement with the Agency and Duncan Aviation. (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 is the same agreement in the last item, but now we are considering in our role as Council, rather than our role as the board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo. No action was required on this item; the Council previously authorized these agreements on August 29, 2017 as part of Resolution 2017-40. This was incorrectly noticed.
7. 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. This is the second hearing for this land use item. I didn't hear any new arguments over the past two weeks. I support the request. Approved 7:0. The majority of the neighborhood was in favor of this, but one couple adjacent to the lot was opposed. The proposed project meets almost all of the requirements for the current zone, and would meet all of the requirements once the flag lot regulations are fixed. It makes sense to rezone to R1.9 to allow this to move forward now.
8. 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. This will also be the second hearing. I invited feedback from a number of Provo-centric Facebook groups. I was surprised that the feedback was more nuanced. I expected "Yes, of course, the setbacks need to be increased," but instead there were plenty of differing opinions but the overall message was, "What's wrong with this building wouldn't have been fixed with setbacks." Approved 7:0. I was on a business trip the week before this meeting and had the opportunity to walk around three different cities and looked at many examples of small setbacks and no setbacks. I came away comfortable that this adjustment to the setback will not be harmful to what we are trying to achieve in this area. But I made sure the message I heard on social media was conveyed, that what's wrong with the building on 700 N and 900 E will not be fixed by setbacks alone. I think everyone agrees on that point. Community Development will continue to bring fixes to us.
9. 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 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. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #5. (It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here are the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   
   ) Approved 7:0. This proposal fits this plot very nicely. I like how it fronts the road.
10. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.29 acres of real property, generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road, from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
    This rezone request is to facilitate the creation of a seven lot residential subdivision that would include incorporating two existing homes. The property is currently illegally subdivided into five parcels and the proposed R1.8 zone is potentially inconsistent with the General Plan policies on density. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #6. (Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated.) A motion to continue this item to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. The applicant requested a continuation to allow him to supply the requested information to Community Development. I, personally, won't be voting in favor of the rezone unless the proposal, now with all of the required information, goes back before the Planning Commission. I rely on the Staff report, the Planning Commission report, and the neighborhood input. The process can not proceed properly if certain information is not provided until the last stage.
11. 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 is the second public hearing on the ordinance. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #4. (Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
    Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. The vote was continued until November 14th. Please see item 4 in the Work Meeting above.



Adjournment