Council Meetings - 7 May 2019

I'm excited to hear the ridership stats for UVX. The Millrace rezone will be back. We'll also be considering a rezone for a property on South State Street, where Rainbow Gardens has been. The Election Code Committee (which I've worked on) will be unveiling our recommended changes which would apply to this fall's election.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Board

12:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. Perhaps I'm biased, but I think that we have the best Parks and Rec Department in the country. There is a lot of credit to go around, and some of it should be given to our Parks and Rec Board.

Business

1. An update on the Regional Sports Park
   
2. A discussion on the community impacts of the Triple Play Membership
   
3. An update on trail improvements
   
4. A discussion on promoting health and active lifestyles in Provo
   
5. A discussion on efficiency in government
   
6. A discussion of the unique benefits of Parks and Recreation in Provo
   
7. Additional discussion on items of mutual interest as time permits
   
   

   Adjournment

   I hope that we can move through the other items quickly. I think that it is valuable to have a discussion with the board about how we can support their efforts and work together more effectively. It was a good meeting. Unlike TMAC, the Parks and Rec Board feels that they are getting good support and communication from the council and administration.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 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.

Business

1. A presentation on the Utah Valley Express ridership (19-045)
   In 2015, the Municipal Council approved the construction of the Utah Valley Express (UVX) project, previously known as Bus Rapid Transit. The project faced some public criticism and Council asked UTA to come and present on the project, including ridership numbers to help Council know about the success of the project. I've heard rumors that ridership is well above the predicted numbers. It'll be good to get the actual numbers presented directly from UTA. Presentation only. The ridership numbers are above what what projected for this point in the project (but below the prediction for ridership after 3 years). Will the numbers continue to grow? This fall will be interesting as the students return. The system wasn't fully operational at the beginning of the school year in 2018. Will more students decide to go car-free this fall? Will more people learn of the convenience of using UVX to get to events at the universities? Already this system is taking many cars off the road, impacting our air quality, and traffic and parking congestion.
2. A presentation regarding the bicycle plan for 500 North (19-055)
   Councilors are interested in learning about the benefits of bike lanes. Currently, the plan along 500 North requires the elimination of parking in return for bike lanes to allow for the transitions required to keep traffic flowing along the street. This discussion should help Councilors better understand the considerations of the parking and bike lanes issue. Check out this graphic: Presentation only. Quick and informative presentation on how bike infrastructure has impacted communities across the nation as well as Provo.
3. A discussion on the Airport Master Plan (19-052)
   The Provo City Airport has been engaged in a process updating the Provo City Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan has not been updated since early-2000's. There are elements of the Provo City Airport that need to be discussed in this Work Meeting. Public Works will have the Airport Master Plan consultant on hand to present to the Council on the updated plan. I don't know which elements need to be discussed. We've had a number of presentations already as the Airport Master Plan drafting process has been underway. Presentation only. This item will return to Council at a future date. This is an update of where we are at in the process. The draft plan will be released to the public soon for feedback. I know of one venue so far: Airport Master Plan Workshop, Wednesday 19 JUN at 6pm at the Provo Airport (Utah Fire and Rescue Academy)
4. A discussion on the potential of an aquifer storage and recovery program. (19-056)
   Council has expressed interest in pursuing aquifer storage and recovery as part of the current wastewater treatment plant. The Public Works Department has put forth an effort to gather information to bring back to the Council and share their insights. I think that aquifer storage and recovery is an interesting paradigm. We also use a lot of potable water in the valley for agriculture. I hope we compare ASR with the option of using wastewater effluent for agriculture. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the next possible Work Meeting. This was a very helpful discussion for me to better understand the scope of this idea. It isn't just about a potential use for our waste water effluent, and may not include effluent at all. Our ground water levels have been dropping over the decades, and ASR could be a good way to ensure that we have clean drinking water for generations to come.
5. A discussion on a parking reduction on an affordable housing project. (19-057)
   The project is preliminarily comprised of 64 two-bedroom condo units. Section 14.37.060 of the Provo City Code requires 2.25 spaces per unit for two-bedroom units. Using this ratio, the parking requirement for the project will be 144 spaces (64x2.25). The site plan that the applicant has submitted shows 134 stalls (which is a 2.09 stall/unit ratio). They may also lose a few stalls to meet the landscaping requirements, but it looks like they will easily meet two stalls per unit. Essentially, they would have to reduce their unit count by 5 (59 units total) to make the existing parking work. Because the buildings are 4 units to a floor they would need a substantial redesign or they would be forced to reduce the number of units by at least 8 for it to work structurally. The issue is that they will either need to sacrifice some units to meet the parking standard or we need to amend the code to allow them to ask for a parking reduction. I sometimes feel dizzy from how often we adjust our parking standards up and down. A proposal comes in requesting a decrease, so we decrease the standard, problems ensue so we increase the standards, but the very next project comes in to request a decrease, so we decrease the standard again. Presentation only I suggested that we focus on project enhancements designed to reduce parking demand that would qualify a project for a lower parking standard, rather than just lowering the parking standard.
6. A discussion regarding enacting a free expression ordinance (19-058)
   This item is an ordinance which provides guidelines for Provo City to regulate expressive activities on both public property which is a traditional public forum and also on public property which is not a public forum. It also authorizes the Mayor to establish policies and practices consistent with this Section for City property, and may delegate such authority to Department Directors with regard to the City property they manage. The state legislature passed a law this spring that requires us to address this topic. The state legislature took up this issue because of complaints coming out of Provo and Orem during the referendum effort about BRT. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. This is a good plan to meet the new state law, and have clear guidelines for individuals to follow as they seek to exercise their right to expression.
7. A discussion regarding a code amendment suggested by the Election Code Committee to update portions of the code related to Provo City elections. (19-002)
   The Election Code Committee has been meeting to make a few changes to the Provo City code related to elections. Some of the changes include:
   • Retitle to Election Code (from “Campaign Finance Disclosure) (2.05)
   • Update to modern forms of payment (2.05.020(1))
   • Disclosure requirements
   • Remove report in aggregate option for below $500 (2.05.040(3)(b))
   • Consolidate campaign committee and candidate requirements
   • Clarification for Pre-declaration and post-election donations and expenditures.
   I've been working on this committee and we have tried to work through several issues but have been on a very tight timeline. I feel these changes will increase transparency for the public and will make it easier for the campaigns to comply. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. The councilors will have a couple more weeks to look over the details, but I feel that they were generally receptive to the committee's recommendation.
8. A discussion on the county form of government (19-060)
   There is a petition circulating by Strengthen Utah County, PIC (a Political Issues Committee) that would put the question [of whether or not to change the county form of government to a Council - Mayor form of government] on the November 2019 municipal ballots. Utah County Commission has also established the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board (GGAB) "to facilitate research, analysis, public outreach, and provide recommendations to the Utah County Board of Commissioners related to a potential modification of Utah County’s form of government."
   
   If the Council as a body wishes to influence the recommendation of the GGAB by way of resolution, it must do so before the GGAB formulates its recommendation(s) on the afternoon of May 23. The Council has a regular meeting on May 21. I support the county moving from a 3 full-time member commission, that holds both administrative and legislative duties to a 7 part-time council and a full-time mayor who split the legislative and administrative roles. I feel that the current form of government has not well served the residents of the county for quite some time. Presentation only. At the request of the mayor, we decided to hold off on issuing a resolution. I am hopeful that the GGAB will issue a recommendation similar to what was proposed by the "Stregthen Utah County" group.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

9. A discussion on a zone change request from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 442 & 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. 17-0010R
   The applicant is requesting a zone change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) at this location to allow for a four-story, 32-unit apartment, a three-story, 24-unit apartment and a two-story, 4-unit townhomes on the corner of 500 South and State Street. These proposed sixty units would be on commercial property that is to be rezoned to High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR zone would allow for more units and additional building height than is being requested, therefore, a development agreement would be advisable to ensure that only what has been proposed would be developed. The City Council continued the zone change request and instructed the applicant to go back and work with the neighborhood and address their concerns. The applicant has now done that and made changes to their original proposal of 64 units in 2 four-story buildings. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I think that this project has evolved quite a bit in the years-long process that it has taken to get here. I think it is a good project. My main question now is if the "two-story, 4 unit townhomes" that front 500 South are actually two stories. I believe they are one story, but on top of parking. The neighbors have pushed for housing that will encourage some longer-term residents. I think that true two-story townhomes, on top of parking, would be far more attractive to potential longer-term residents. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on May 7, 2019. See my report for this item in the evening meeting (below, #6)



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. A closed meeting was held for the Redevelopment Agency Governing Board.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. A presentation of the FY 2019-2020 Provo City Budget (19-004)
   Presentation only.



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 approving two amended Interlocal Agreements between Provo City and Utah County regarding the funding of the Lakeview Parkway. (19-051)
   The Lakeview Parkway project is designed to provide access to the west. As part of the building of the parkway, the County agreed to help with the initial build through interlocal agreements. One of the agreements is for Lakeview Parkway from Mike Jense Parkway to Center Street and the other is for Lakeview Parkway from 620 North to 1280 North. Both of these agreements are to provide the 10% contingency funding for the projects. The southern section of Lakeview Parkway provides and additional $661,700 to project number 431-1209 and the northern section provides an additional $149,328 to project number 431-3133. Council approval is needed to appropriate this additional funding. We are being asked to modify an existing agreement with Utah County about their contribution to the construction of the Lakeview Parkway. They are increasing the amount that they will contribute to the construction. I believe, but it isn't totally clear from the supporting documents, that in exchange for this increase, Provo will take on sole responsibility from the maintenance and upkeep of this road. Approved 7:0. There was no adjustment to the maintenance responsibilities. This was solely to allow for the contingency funds to be allocated to the city.
3. A public hearing regarding a resolution approving the Program Year 2019 Annual Action Plan, Fifth Year update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended. (19-059)
   This is the first of two public hearings for the 2019 Annual Action Plan for use of CDBG and HOME Program funds. Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken. This is the city's plan to use two pools of federal money for the coming year. It covers the Community Development Block Grant and HOME monies. If you are interested in how Provo addresses blight, homelessness, and services to vulnerable populations, this is a good place to start. Hearing only. The handful of eligible agencies in the valley are starting to coordinate with each other more to reduce the paperwork and duplicate reporting requirements for the community service providers. There appears to still be a few wrinkles to work out. There are many great charities that are covered by this plan who are making an impact in the lives of many in our area.
4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit an application for a Utah County Municipal Recreation Grant to be used for Lakewood Park Playground. (19-053)
   This is an annual grant offered by Utah County for communities within the County. Funding for the grant comes from the “Restaurant Tax.” Funds are distributed to communities based on population estimates from Mountainland Association of Governments 2017 Utah Census population estimates. Based on Provo’s population, the grant allocation for 2019 is $58,575.07. This is pretty much lining up a project that we are already doing that meets the requirements of this county grant. The grant allows us to make improvements to our parks and recreation system. Approved 7:0.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to update and revise the street cross-sections. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190136)
   This item is an update and revision to the city’s street standards and street cross-sections. The City’s Public Works Department has been working with a private consultant (Parametrix), and utilized reviews and input by other City departments and the City’s Transportation Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) in the creation of the proposed update and revisions. Planning Commission recommended approval. We discussed this in a previous Work Meeting. The street standards are being updated as part of the Transportation Master Plan, but Engineering would like to start using the new standards and cross-sections even before the rest of the plan is adopted. Approved 7:0. Developers can now begin using these updated street cross-sections.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 442 and 490 South State Street from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR). Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote above, "I think that this project has evolved quite a bit in the years long process that it has taken to get here. I think it is a good project. My main question now is if the "two-story, 4 unit townhomes" that front 500 South are actually two stories. I believe they are one story, but on top of parking. The neighbors have pushed for housing that will encourage some longer-term residents. I think that true two-story townhomes, on top of parking, would be far more attractive to potential longer-term residents." Continued to Council Meeting on May 21, 2019. The mood has changed quite drasticly in the year since we last considered a rezone for this property. As this was the first hearing (since the Planning Commission issued their recommendation on this iteration of the proposal), it was appropriate to continue it for two more weeks to make sure everyone has ample chance to consider the proposal and provide us with feedback. I still think it'll be a good development.
7. A resolution requesting a Certificate of Registration (COR) from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (19-054)
   The Urban Deer program is reliant upon a Certificate of Registration in order to continue the program past August 1, 2019. In order to renew our Certificate of Registration with the Division of Wildlife Resources for another three-year period the City must have two public hearings. This is the first step in that process. We are still discussing what changes should be made to this program, but we are starting the renewal process now. Approved 7:0. We will have some sort of program, but just what it'll look like is still being discussed. Many councilors have expressed interest in emphasizing the trap and euthanize option to more fully focus on the truly urban deer.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 3.7 acres of real property, generally located between 500 S. to 600 S. and from 100 W. to University Ave. from ITOD to Mill Race PRO Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190047)
   This was first considered in a council meeting two weeks ago, but was continued to allow a development agreement to be proffered by the applicant in order to address lingering concerns by the community and the council. Approved 7:0. It has been great to work with this developer who is confident in and committed to their proposal. It was a collaborative effort to craft a development agreement that addresses the concerns of the councilors while keeping the flexibility of the developer to best reach the vision of the development.
9. ***CONTINUED*** Todd Sinks request a Zone Change from Regional Shopping (SC3) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF) for 22.12 acres, and to Campus Mixed Use for 8.94 acres, located at 178 E 1860 S. East Bay neighborhood. PLRZ20180321
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Community Development Department requests Ordinance Text Amendments to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. PLOTA20190120
    This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment