I usually try to highlight a few of the most impactful or interesting items. We don't have any blockbusters, but several could have a significant lasting impact. Should Provo have its own disaster recovery fund? The State thinks so and has incentivized us to do so. What about large-scale private energy production that interfaces with our grid? What can we/should we do about rising housing costs? Impact fees play into the housing affordability conversation. Some advocate for low/no impact fees, but does that doesn't make the related costs go away, it only shifts the costs to others. Finally, there is a newly added item that would raise the bar for homes eligible for home-purchasing assistance.
These should be some of the more interesting meetings to watch.
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda
12:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018
- A discussion on the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2019
The Council is required to publish a schedule for the next calendar year. A draft has been put together for Council to consider. The schedule looks good to me...but as Vice-Chair I've already seen it and have given my input. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. - A presentation on the option for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund
A presenter from the Division of Emergency Management under the Utah Department of Public Safety will speak to the Council about the option in State Code for municipalities to create a local government disaster fund. The State wants local governments to take on a more active role in preparing for disaster, rather than just assuming that the state or federal government will swoop in a fix everything. They have created an incentive to encourage local governments to create their own disaster fund. From one perspective, this is a horrible time for Provo City to try to set aside even more money. After decades of letting tax and utility revenue dwindle, we have been playing catch up to responsibly maintain our services and infrastructure. From another perspective, though, if we can't set money aside for disaster recovery in the midst of this period of lauded prosperity, we never will. I've very torn on this. Presentation only. - A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify that unauthorized energy generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits
Provo City Code prohibits self-generation of electric energy unless the generation is licensed by the Provo City Energy Department. Additionally, licenses for electric self-generation by industrial and commercial customers have only recently been authorized by the code. Because self-generation without a license it prohibited, such generation would not qualify for any rate or bill credits. However, with rising interest in self-generation by residential, commercial, and industrial customers, the Energy Department believes it would be prudent to add language to the code explicitly stating that entities that engage in unauthorized self-generation shall not receive any rate or bill credits. This seems a bit unnecessary, but clarity is good. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. - A presentation about the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce
Councilor David Harding asked Rona Rahlf, President of the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, to present to the Council about the Chamber's efforts on affordable housing. She will also provide an overview of their Valley Visioning initiative. Initially this started with me reaching out to our local Chamber about the Housing Resolution that the Salt Lake Chamber was asking us to pass. From this discussion, I learned that the Utah Valley Chamber has a number of initiatives of their own that they are pursuing to help address the threat of rising housing costs to our business environment. Presentation only. - A presentation on the Timp Kiwanis Bounous Park (TKP) LWCF Final Environmental Assessment Review (17-036)
This update covers the last of the public comments received as part of the process. I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. - A discussion on a request for amendments to Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2018 standards to 2019 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
Each year, the Provo Public Works Departments updates utility construction standards, street design standards and other development standards. Staff is particularly interested in those standards which have a visible impact on the built environment and clearly fall within the purview of the Planning Commission. The standards under consideration for revision are generally related to underground utility construction. The current street design standards are not proposed for revision because an update to the Transportation Master Plan is currently in progress. These street design standards will come before the Planning Commission as part of the review of the Transportation Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. - A discussion on a request for an Ordinance Text amendment to Section 14.34.350 Recreational Vehicle Storage and Towing Impound Yards to increase buffering requirements when adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
Provo City Code has a section that identifies zones where impound yards can be and are subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). Some of the zones allow impound yards as a Permitted Use which is conflicting with 14.34.350. A number of existing impound yards in the City have been identified. Many existing impound yards are adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. The applicant has expressed concerns with the existing buffering requirements of impound yards near residential zones. Staff finds that there are inconsistencies in the zoning code related to impound yards and where they are Permitted or Conditional Uses. Staff has proposed ordinance revisions to clean up the inconsistencies and move towards having them be permitted uses subject to meeting established criteria that the Planning Commission feels would mitigate impacts related to these land uses. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the "established criteria" will indeed properly "mitigate impacts related to these land uses". Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. - A discussion on a request for a zone change from R1.10 to Low Density Residential (LDR) for 2.94 acres of land, located at approximately 1080 E 1320 S to facilitate a 44-unit townhome development. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
The applicants obtained the property in the last year with the intent to build a townhome project. The request comes with a concept of a 44 unit townhome project. The proposal has met all zoning requirements of the LDR zone and has satisfied the majority of city department issues. The remaining concern is that the roads to access the site are not completed at this time. This will have to be done before the final project plan is approved, and will be tied to that application. The adopted Southeast Neighborhoods Plan appendix of the General Plan shows the subject property as part of the LDR zone in the Future Land Use map. The LDR zone allows for townhomes with a maximum density of 15 units per acre. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. - A report on the impact fee review process (18-099)
There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion. Presentation only. A presentation on this item was already scheduled for the November 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The public hearing on this item will be held at the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. - 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. None requested.
Business
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
Business
Closed Meeting
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda
5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 27, 2018
- A presentation of the Employee of the Month for November 2018
- A presentation on the establishment of the proposed impact fees (18-099)
There is a clear cost of growth in any community. A city's infrastructure provides a given quality of life in a community, and growth can put strain on that infrastructure. Water, electricity, sewer, street systems, and more must be modified to address the needs resulting from new growth. State law provides a mechanism, called impact fees, to collect funds to offset the City's cost of accommodating that growth. Provo City's ordinance provides that impact fees and capital facilities plans should be reviewed on five year intervals. The Impact Fee Review Committee (comprised of Council members, City staff, developers, and community members) has been meeting since early 2017 and working with a consulting firm to bring forward updated recommendations. The results of their work was presented at an Impact Fee Open House on November 8, 2018. Council will be holding public hearings at the November 27 and December 11 meetings and will then vote on the adoption of updated impact fees. Current impact fees are listed on the consolidated fee schedule. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I think it is wise to account for the public costs that come with growth. I think it is reasonable to expect the people creating the costs to pay for the costs. I also think that there may be reasons why we wouldn't want to charge the full amount. This should be a good discussion."
The actual vote won't take place until 11 December at the earliest.Presentation only.
Opening Ceremony
Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards
- 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.
- An ordinance amending Provo City Code to Public Works standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180348)
This is item 6 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "This is a routine update. I didn't see anything consequential, but I'll ask this question during the presentation." A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting was approved 7:0. - An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.94 acres generally located at 1080 E 1320 S, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180102)
The is item 8 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I'm interested in this item, and looking forward to learning more and possibly asking questions during the presentation. I believe this is in the area that we signaled an interest in developments targetting our young single professional population. I'm curious if the developer is tailoring the proposal to better fit the needs and desires of this group." Approved 7:0. - An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase buffering requirements and transitional standards when certain uses are adjacent to a Residential Zone. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20180216)
This is item 7 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I support removing inconsistencies from the Code. I support adequate buffering between recreational vehicle storage and towing impound yards and residential areas. I am a little wary of moving these uses from conditional to permitted. I'll need to feel comfortable that the 'established criteria' will indeed properly 'mitigate impacts related to these land uses'." Continued to the December 11, 2018 Council Meeting. - A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment regarding a proposed Land and Water Conversion Fund property conversion (17-036)
This is item 5 on the work meeting agenda. From my preview of this item in the earlier meeting: "I believe this will be the final draft which, if approved, will be submitted to the federal government for their review." Approved 7:0. - A resolution approving a substantial amendment to the program year 2018 annual action plan, fourth year update to the five-year consolidation plan, as amended (18-100)
HOME Program regulations state that Participating Jurisdictions (PJ) utilizing HOME funds for activities assisting homebuyer and/or homeowner rehabilitation must use the Affordable Homeownership Limits (AHL) provided annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Alternatively the regulations allow the PJ to determine its own AHL by conducting a market analysis. City staff has conducted an analysis of the current local market in Utah County shows that the AHL provided by HUD, do not reflect the trends of the local market, limiting the choice of available homes for low-income families and individuals. The City, as Lead Entity of the HOME Consortium, is proposing to adopt its own AHL which reflect an increase of about 29% over the HUD limits. Increasing the AHL will enlarge the pool of available homes to low-income families and individuals and allow the PJ and partner non-profit agencies to better assist them. This is the first that I've heard about this item. I'm surprised that it is not on the Work Meeting. Well, I guess we'll see what it is about. The support documents are helpful. Approved 7:0.
Thanks, Elsie McClellan.
ReplyDelete