Council Meetings - 5 February 2019

I'd say that growth is the main theme of Tuesday's meetings. Two plans will be presented, one for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the other for the area surrounding the Frontrunner station. We will also be deliberating on regulations tied to growth: housing, and parking. There is a proposal to update the accessory apartment code and continued discussion on how to improve parking in Provo.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 5, 2019

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

Approval of Minutes



1. Approval of Minutes for the January 10, 2019 Legislative Breakfast
   Approved by unanimous consent.

Business



2. A discussion on items related to the Wastewater Treatment Plant site and process selection (18-052)
   After receiving low interest loan authorization from the State, Public Works is returning to the Council with recommendations on the location of the future plant and the treatment process to be used. This is a pretty big deal. We've been discussing and studying this for some time. It sounds like we are going to get the final recommendation as to where we should build our new sewer treatment plant. Presentation only. The recommendation is to build the new treatment plant at the current location. They had been leaning to the site near the airport, but because the State loan came in smaller than hoped, the recommendation changed. The current site will allow us to build in more stages and come up with less money up front. They completed and reported on a net-present-value analysis of the State loan. Certain strings are attached which increase the costs, but overall it is still a good deal for Provo. We requested a similar analysis to see if adding a bond now to suppliment the loan and allow us to move to the airport site will save Provo tax payers money in the long run.
3. A discussion regarding an agreement between Provo City and West Union Canal Company regarding water rights (19-025)
   West Union Canal Company owns water rights that are used to provide shareholders with untreated water for irrigation and other uses. The company has decided to distribute some of its assets. Provo City is one of the shareholders and the Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement to surrender company stock in exchange for water rights. Provo City has company stock, but no real interest in the West Union Canal Company. The Company will give Provo City water rights in exchange for the company stock. The water rights, though small, are of value to the City. It's not stated anywhere, but I think that there is also value in severing our potential liability in a canal company, particularly one that we don't have any real interest in. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 5, 2019. This is good for Provo City. We shed liability and gain a small amount of more water rights.
4. A discussion on the proposed Storm Drain Master Plan (18-102)
   The Storm Drain Master Plan has been prepared and is ready for adoption. The Master Plan was last updated in 1986. Public Works has given us a preview of the major findings previously, and are now presenting the full report, which weighs in at almost 100 pages. Overall we are doing well, but need to continue to maintain our system, address trouble spots, and upgrade the infrastructure where it is needed to accommodate development. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 19, 2019. There were no surprises.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission



5. A discussion on an ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.98 acres of real property, generally located at 672 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to Single-Family Residential (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (17-0019)
   This is a request for a rezone to facilitate the division of the property into two lots, each containing an area of just over 20,000 square feet, meeting the R1.10 Zone’s minimum lot size requirement. This request has been delayed while the City addressed sewer issues. Planning Commission recommended approval. The requested zone change conforms with the General Plan and the Neighborhood Master Plan. The sewer issues have been resolved. The neighbors support it. Community Development Staff recommend it, as does the Planning Commission. Initially I was concerned with the future upgrades to the road in front of the property, but that is addressed in the report. My only remaining concern is this appears to be “leap-frog” development, it will be a small island of residential zone inside a sea of agricultural. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 5, 2019. No new utilities will need to be extended. The site does not conflict with any of the plans for future development. This addresses my leap-frog concern.

Budget Committee



6. A presentation of the Economic Development and Redevelopment Departments and potential budget requests (19-004)
   In preparation for the FY 2019-2020 budget, different departments and divisions will be making presentations regarding their operations and budget needs. We use the assembly of the City budget as an opportunity to meet with each department to check in on how things are going. Presentation only. This was mostly a review of what had been accomplished and what they are working on. Redevelopment is not funded through our budget or directly by our taxes.

Business



7. A discussion regarding parking enforcement in Provo (19-018)
   Austin Taylor, Parking and Sustainability Coordinator, was invited to discuss with Council how he intends to manage parking issues within Provo City. Mr. Taylor was recently hired into this position. It will be good to hear his vision and plan for confronting the parking challenges in our city. Presentation only. We went well over time on this item. Parking is a hot topic. Mr. Taylor presented some changes to code that he would like to see to assist with parking enforcement. We spoke briefly about his plan to improve parking, but we'll have him back for a more in depth discussion.
8. A discussion regarding the proposed amendments to the Accessory (A) and Supplementary (S) overlay zones and the proposal to combine and simplify these zones (19-022)
   At the December 5, 2017 Work Meeting, Community Development came and discussed the occupancy restrictions in general and relative to the Accessory (A) and Supplementary (S) overlay zones. Over the course of the past year, the Housing Committee and Council staff have been engaged in the combination of these two overlay zones. Because this is an amendment relative to Provo City Code sections relative to Title 14 this must go through the Planning Commission before coming back to Council. This is presented as merely a reorganization of the code to make it clearer and more concise. But I also believe that it would make detached accessory apartments permitted in the areas currently covered by the A and S overlays, whereas only attached accessory apartments are permitted. I generally agree with that change, but I feel that the community needs to be made aware of the proposed change and be given ample opportunity to react to the proposal. A motion to send this proposal to the Planning Commission for review was approved 7:0. Our zoning code is big and complex. I worry that some of the changes might have unintended consequences, and I think we need to look holisticly at the changes. I like the move to rental dwelling licenses and I like the idea of allowing detached as well as attached accesory apartments, but I definitely think that we need to make sure that the public is aware of the proposed changes.
9. A discussion on a Neighborhood Program ordinance amendment related to fee waivers and vice-chairs (19-017)
   The Neighborhood program has a few amendments that have been discussed by the Neighborhood Advisory Board and are ready to bring forward for Council to discuss. The first is the discussion regarding the number of vice-chairs. A few years ago, Provo City Code was changed from having the option of one Vice Chair to encouraging the election of two or more Vice Chairs. This was intended to give more support to overworked Neighborhood Chairs and possibly bring in additional points of view. Because there was no limit placed on the number of Vice Chairs, many neighborhoods ended up approving all who were willing to serve. Several neighborhoods ended up with 5-10 Vice Chairs. This has become a difficult situation in several ways. With more people serving, we’ve noticed that many end up ending their participation after a month or two. In some cases, vice-chairs have brought opposition against the Chair. The Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) felt that it would be better to have a more manageable number of vice-chairs. The Chair can still appoint people to help as necessary if they have the need, but they wouldn’t be on our official lists.
   
   The NAB recommended a limit of two Vice Chairs, but Council may consider altering that number as a policy consideration. For the proposed limits on Vice-Chairs in the Neighborhood Program, Council would need to consider how to handle the current situation if this change is approved. Should immediate elections be held to reduce the number of Vice Chairs? Or the current Neighborhoods with too many could be changed at the next Chair election. Council staff could also reach out to see if any Vice-Chairs are interested in being removed.
   
   The following Neighborhoods currently have more than two Vice-Chairs:
   Dixon (4), Franklin (7), Grandview North (3), Grandview South (7), Joaquin (9), Maeser (5), Pleasant View (3), Provo Bay (4), Provost South (10), Rock Canyon (3), Spring Creek (3), Timp (4).
   
   The fee waiver was proposed as a way to allow greater input from the Neighborhood about what they would like to see happen within their area. The NAB can analyze projects and offer waivers to projects that have broad support from the Neighborhood. The actual proposed language was not included in our document packet. I don’t have strong feelings on this one. A motion to move this item to a future Work Meeting was made, but subsequently withdrawn. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 5, 2019. Most of the debate on this one centered around the length of term of the Chairs, which is only peripherally related to this item.
10. Further discussion on Council Committees, including a review of Council Board and Committee assignments and Council goals (19-002)
    The Council has a number of goals and priorities they would like to accomplish. Each year, the Council has a discussion where the Council committee assignments are established. Here are the items that we have discussed wanting to look at:
    • Accessory Dwelling Units
    • Short Term Rentals
    • Parking Policy (Joaquin/Downtown)
    • Zoning Compliance (enforcement/outcomes/reporting)
    • Rental Dwelling Licenses
    • CIP Review
    • Election Code Review
    • Ranked Choice Voting
    • Housing Audit
    • Foothills Protection (mining/loopholes)
    • Fireworks
    • HOA engagement/communication
    • Ensure best outcome of facilities
    • Police issues
    Continued to the Work Meeting on February 19, 2019.
11. A discussion on the frequency of joint meetings (19-024)
    The Council regularly meets with the Orem City Council and the Provo City School District Board. Meetings with each of those groups are currently scheduled on a quarterly basis. This is a discussion on whether adjustments need to be made to that schedule. Sometimes we struggle to find items to include on the agendas and sometimes attendance at these meetings is sparse. Both seem to be indications that we are meeting too frequently. A motion to reduce the scheduled joint meetings with the Orem City Council and Provo School District to two meetings per year, with the ability to add additional or emergency meetings as necessary, was approved 5:2, with Councilors Gary Winterton and David Knecht opposed. I think it is a good compromise. We can always schedule an additional meeting if needed.



Closed Meeting



12. 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
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• A presentation by the Utah Transit Authority on their Station Area Plan (Item 1: Planning Commission Study Session - January 23, 2019).
  Wow. Click on the link to see a 28 page plan, with lots of graphics, showing a proposed area plan for the blocks surrounding the Provo Central Frontrunner Station. It is bold. Community Development was part of the team that put this together. They fully support the Plan. I've learned from subsiquent conversations that all that is proposed in the Plan is already allowed under our ITOD zone. I think that the Council should adopt the Plan as an appendix to the Downtown Master Plan.



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



1. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.98 acres of real property, generally located at 672 South 1600 West, from Agriculture (A1.1) to Single-Family Residential (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (17-0019R)
   This is item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 in the afternoon meeting. Approved 7:0. As I reported on the earlier meeting, "No new utilities will need to be extended. The site does not conflict with any of the plans for future development. This addresses my leap-frog concern."
2. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with West Union Canal Company to surrender company stock in exchange for Water Rights. (19-025)
   This is item 3 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 3 in the afternoon meeting. Approved 7:0. As I reported on the earlier meeting, "This is good for Provo City. We shed liability and gain a small amount of more water rights."
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code and the Consolidated Fee Schedule regarding the makeup of the Neighborhood Program and Implementation of a fee waiver program. (19-017)
   This is item 9 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 9 in the afternoon meeting. Approved 6:1, with Council George Handley opposed. As I reported on the earlier meeting, "Most of the debate on this one centered around the length of term of the Chairs, which is only peripherally related to this item."
4. ***CONTINUED*** A request for a General Plan Amendment for 078 acres from Public Facilities to Residential to allow 6 townhomes in a proposed LDR zone at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190009)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
5. ***CONTINUED*** A request for a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for .78 acres, located at 862 E Quail Valley Drive. Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180430)
   This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment