Council Meetings - 24 September 2019

Perhaps the best way to describe tomorrow's meetings is that they are a mixed bag, with everything from the most mundane code clean up to a discussion of a potentially controversial proposal. We have items that impact the whole city, and items with a very hyper-local scope. We have administrative oversight, bureaucratic minutia, committee proposals, and justice reports. We really have a little of everything.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 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 discussion regarding the carryover of certain Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget amounts into Fiscal Year 2019-2020. (19-098)
   Provo City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget ordinance allows for the carryover of certain approved unused budgeted amounts into Fiscal Year 2019-2020. All unused capital improvement fund budgets may be carried into the new year. Unused budget amounts from all other funds may also be carried over into the new year with the approval of the Mayor. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the City Council of the amount and nature of the capital improvement and operating carryovers. The practice of the City has been to take the money left over in budgets and put half of it back into the General Fund and put half of it into employee recognition which funds several things including tuition reimbursement and performance bonuses. The idea is to encourage and reward employees for working efficiently and coming in under-budget. As an alternative, sometimes supplemental requests (department requests for new money) that were not funded during the regular budget process may be funded using unused budgeted money from the prior year. Presentation only. I support the uses of money left over in last year's budget, as presented by the Administration. I also questioned if the current practice is properly balancing the roles of the two branches. I wondered why this is only a presentation and not an item that the Council is being asked to approve. The response in the meeting was that up until several years ago the Administration wasn't even making this presentation. We are continuing to look into this issue. Again, I support everything that is in the presentation, I just want to make sure we have the proper checks and balances in place, in case there are ever problems in the future.
2. A discussion regarding defining over-occupancy as a nuisance. (19-094)
   Because of Council establishing zoning compliance as one of their top priorities, various ideas have been put forward for discussion. One idea is to possibly add over-occupancy to the listing in City Code for nuisances. I first thought that making over-occupancy a nuisance would be an escalation. Instead, I believe it adds a lower step, allowing for civil prosecution rather than just criminal prosecution. I still know very little about this proposal and expect to learn much during this presentation. A motion to move this item to a future Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. This is a tool that our Zoning Compliance Office is asking for. It will be used to encourage people who knowingly are breaking the law and are resisting coming into compliance without having to get into a full criminal trial.
3. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Personnel Policies in Title 4. (19-082)
   This is a continuation of a discussion from the Work Session on July 9, 2019. As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, we noted a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. Some of the City practices on employee leave and compensation has been out of compliance with City ordinance for many years. This proposed amendment would update the City code and bring it into alignment with current practice. I support the overall effort, I just want to make sure that the Council's role in fiscal oversight is appropriately incorporated. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the Council on October 8, 2019. We had some good discussion on this item, and some tweaks will be made before it comes back to us on October 8th. These tweaks should strike the right balance.
4. A discussion regarding an improvement agreement to construct a road in the Mountain Vista Business Center. (19-099)
   Economic Development has requested a discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an improvement agreement with Scannell Properties and Hall Labs, a developer who is purchasing over 60 acres of land at the Mountain Vista Business Center and their long-term tenant. As a matter of sequence, Provo City will sell the parcel to Hall Labs who in turn will sell it to Scannell Properties. They intend to develop a business park consistent with the rest of the surrounding business park. Their plans for the 130,000 square foot building are currently in the development review process. A new road will need to be constructed to access the interior of the parcel. The project is anticipated to cost $3.6 million, with half coming from a matching grant with the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA). The City will use a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the land to pay the remaining half ($1.8). Hall Labs will purchase the parcel before the construction of the road, but would like an improvement agreement with the City. The City has already signed a Notice of Award with the EDA and so would not be committing any more to Hall than has already been committed to the EDA. In order to facilitate the sale before the Work and Council Meetings on September 24, Economic Development has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding. The memorandum states the following, among other things: 1. Provo City has signed a Notice of Award with the EDA for the construction of the road, 2. the road in on our Local and Collector Street Master Plan, and 3. Provo City intends to build the road to the interior of the parcel as described above. Timing is of the essence because this property falls within a federally establish Opportunity Zone which provides major tax relief for capital gains investments. However, there are also established timeframes for deploying capital which Hall Labs and Scannell Properties are fast approaching. 2 Economic Development is certain that the sale of the land would proceed if there were no need for the road. This is a solid next step in the build out of the Mountain Vista Business Park. I'm glad that the sale of the property will cover our cost of the road. As the background explains, this is not committing to something that we haven't already committed to. Which is comforting in one way, but concerning in another. Why is the Council being asked to approve something if the City has already committed to it? A motion to substitute for the implied motion a version of the resolution that authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute an agreement that reflects the deal points which have been discussed was approved 5:0, with Gary Winterton and David Harding excused. It's been a decade in the making, but Moutain Vista is beginning to fulfill the vision of what we wanted it to be.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion regarding a zone change of approximately one acre of real property, generally located at 674 E 3230 N from Residential Agriculture (RA) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190175)
   The applicant currently has a single-family home on an acre of land in the RA zone. The applicant would like to subdivide the lot into three lots. To accomplish this, she is requesting a rezone from RA, that requires half-acre lots, to R1.10, that requires 10,000 square-foot lots. The existing home on the property would remain and become Lot 1. Two flag lots would be created behind Lot 1 with access from 3230 N. running parallel to the eastern boundary of the property. The property has RA zone to the east and west and has R1.10 zone to the north and south. Planning Commission recommended approval. While not ideal, I feel this is a reasonable request to allow in-fill development. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 24, 2019. My opinion didn't change because of the presentation.
6. A discussion regarding proposed ordinance amendments regarding accessory apartments. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190120)
   This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. The public was invited to submit comments over the past few weeks. The actual language still has to be finalized, but the Committee has incorporated public feedback and made a few adjustments to the proposal. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 8, 2019. These changes should improve the experience for landlords, tenants, and neighbors.



Business

7. A discussion regarding recommendations from the Sign Ordinance Committee. (19-102)
   The Council tasked the Sign Ordinance Committee with reviewing and updating Provo City Code with regards to electronic signs. The committee has worked since the end of March and identified six areas of sign policy: location, churn, animation, brightness, size, and buffer zones. The committee will present their recommendations regarding location, churn, animation, and size. They have decided not to make any recommendations regarding brightness and buffer zones at this time, but will revisit the issues at a later date. There is not much information to go on, so I'll have to just wait and see what is presented. A motion to forward the proposed change to Provo City Code Section 14.38.010 to the Planning Commission for review was approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. There was a lot of discussion on what role we see electronic signs playing in our community.



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. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

A presentation of the Justice Court Annual Report. (19-097)
I've come to look forward to Judge Romney's annual report. He has to be one of the best speakers in the city. His reports also instill a lot of confidence in the management of our Justice Court. Presentation only. I think Judge Romney should teach a course on civics.

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

A resolution appointing individuals to boards and commissions. (19-003)
Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Arturo Soza be appointed to the Civil Service Commission and Patricio Hernandez to the Energy Board. These two have impressive resumes and will make great additions to their respective boards. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. I'm grateful that we have so many good people willing to provide service to the community through their work on boards and commissions in Provo.

A resolution appropriating $289,399 in various funds and transferring $50,460 from the General fund to correct elements of the FY19-20 budget and account for a position moving from the Development Services Department to the Mayor's Office. (19-095)
Some errors have been found in the FY20 budget, and Finance would like to resolve them sooner than later. Dixon Holmes’ appointment as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer also requires moving his salary from Development Services to the Mayor’s Office budget. The impact of corrections are less than the description makes it seem. More money will be going out of the General Fund, which is shown here, but also more money will be going Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. The appointment of Mr. Holmes as Assistant CAO is important for the smooth transition and continuation of operations in the City.

A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the sale of a ladder truck to the Nolensville Volunteer Fire Department. (19-100)
The City owns a 105-foot ladder truck that was replaced by a new truck this past spring. The City listed the truck with Brindlee Mountain Fire Apparatus to assist with finding a potential buyer. The agreement was for them to list and advertise the truck for a 10% fee on the sale if it was under $125,000. The Fire Department recently lowered the price to $95,000 and found a buyer willing to pay the $95,000 pending an inspection. The potential buyers are from a volunteer fire department in Nolensville, Tennessee. Sounds like a win-win for all involved. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It is estimated that this is significantly more than we would have received if the truck had gone to auction.

A resolution approving an improvement agreement regarding construction of a road in the Mountain Vista Business Center. (19-099)
This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It's been a decade in the making, but Moutain Vista is beginning to fulfill the vision of what we wanted it to be.

An ordinance amending Provo City Code to prohibit parking in bicycle lanes. (19-101)
Provo City Code 9.31.010 specifies in what sections of the roadways people are not allowed to park. It does not mention bike lanes. Provo Parking is asking the Council to make this an enforceable violation. Apparently, there is currently no regulation against parking in a bike lane. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. There was a surprising amount of discussion on this item, both during public comment and among the Council. I believe there was some confusion about what this item was doing.

An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190217)
The Bicycle Master Plan calls for improving the design and increasing the amount of bike parking in Provo City by making a minimum amount required as is done with car parking. This proposed ordinance text amendment creates a standard for design and quantity of bicycle parking for new developments. First, the code provides guidance for design on short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle parking. Short-term parking is designed for stops of two hours or less and is typically an uncovered bicycle rack that touches the bicycle at two points and allows for secure locking of the frame with a U-lock. Long-term bicycle parking is designed for stays of around eight hours or more and is to be secured and protected from weather. Second, the code provides a minimum standard for the amount of bicycle parking to be built. It has two tiers of minimums: one as a base level for all developments and a second as a higher level for developers who hope to offset the amount of car parking required with enhanced bicycle parking. These ratios come from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and are recommended in Provo City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. We continued this item last time to give the public more time to review and respond, but also to clean up some of the language. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It is important to promote alternative forms of transportation in order to allow our transportation system to better serve everyone across all modes of transportation.

An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately one acre of real property, generally located at 674 E 3230 N from Residential Agriculture (RA) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190175)
This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. While not ideal, I feel this was a reasonable request to allow in-fill development.

An ordinance to amend the Consolidated Fee Schedule and to ratify corrections to Provo City Code Title 10. (19-071)
This ordinance is intended to make and/or ratify several corrections in the city code. The Council approved Ordinance 2019-30 in June, which included an error among other updates to the consolidated fee schedule. The ordinance on the agenda tonight includes a correction to the Stormwater Impact Fees. The Council also approved Ordinance 2019-31 in June, which amended Provo City Code Title 10 (Water Resources). Code Publishing Company, who maintain the online version of the Provo City Code, shared several questions with Council staff regarding several points of clarification from the recent updates. After confirming the correct text with Public Works staff, the corrections have been made to the online code and the corrections are now being presented to the Council for their ratification and approval. This is pretty much correcting typos. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. Fixed.

***CONTINUED***Silverado Management (Dave Hunter) requests a General Plan amendment from Commercial (C) to Residential (R) for property at 1900 N Canyon Rd for a 120-unit apartment building for married/student housing. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED***Silverado Management (Dave Hunter) requests a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for approximately 1.34 acres, located at 1900 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED*** The Housing Committee of Provo City requests amendments to Section 14.37.050 to allow for reductions in required parking for residential uses subject to Planning Commission approval. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED*** The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. (16-0005OA)
This was not ready to be heard.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 September 2019

There is a strong development theme to these meetings. I think the most impactful item will be #1 on the Work Meeting agenda: Plans to pay for (and possibly accelerate) the installation of new infrastructure in Southwest Provo to accommodate growth. The Airport, Parking, and the Amanda Knight Hall building also appear on the agenda.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 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 discussion regarding sewer capacity west of I-15 and a consideration of options. (19-085)
   For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.
   
   With a number of forces at work, many land owners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.
   
   Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and land owners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.
   
   The Administration sees this as an important policy question that impacts the City budget, development pace on the west side, housing availability, agricultural preservation, transportation, and other important policy issues. The Council's consideration of any potential policy changes should be made carefully with good data and careful consideration, and these discussions are intended to begin a dialogue with the stakeholders to see if a change in current policy is warranted or advisable. "I've heard many voices asking that we don't rush development of West Provo. We, the community, have put in great effort to develop a strategy for growth in this area. We have established Development Policies. We have created a high-level land use map, a cornerstone of the Southwest Area Plan. But the Southwest Area Plan has not been completed yet. The text of the document, and the finer detail about how the various aspects will be balanced, is not yet complete. We had previously set a course which already is increasing sewer rates across the City by 300%. I am not convinced that we should raise rates even more to accelerate new infrastructure even more to speed development. There may be proposals for developers to front the money for this infrastructure to be paid back in time by the City. But are we really comfortable shifting the balance of power that much? Right now we regularly hear residents pushing back on developer plans before the Council, asking us to scale back the plans. Imagine if the developers could say, ""well, we have already put in the infrastructure, we can't scale back the plans now.""" Presentation only. The general feeling of the Council seemed to be that unless the public dictates otherwise by passing the School Bond in November, that we are content to continue with the seven year plan to get the sewer infrastructure in place in West Provo. Some development will be able to continue, particularly as sewer is rerouted east of the freeway, but development will be throttled until everything is in place. The alternatives are to increase utility rates across the City, or cede greater power to developers by allowing them to pre-pay for the infrastructure.
2. A discussion regarding the Downtown Pedestrian Plan proposed by Downtown Provo, Inc. (19-093)
   In discussing the Provo City Transportation Master Plan, the downtown business community felt a statement on the area from 500 W to 200 E along Center Street could be helpful to clarify their expectations. Specifically, they indicated agreement and support for the designation of Center Street from 500 W to 200 E as a pedestrian mall allowing for pedestrians to receive priority in this area. Further they have concerns about how this plan is being implemented. As part of their statement, they request that as decisions about parking, light patterns, traffic flow and other future projects keep pedestrian friendly environments as the top priority. Finally, they provide a list of suggestions that could help enhance this effort. They are as follows:
   • Enforcement of the 15 mph limit on Center, and other speed limits in high traffic pedestrian areas.
   • Synchronizing light patterns and new green arrows encouraging cars to use 100 N for freeway access.
   • Additional signage including new pedestrian way-finding signs.
   • Additional kiosks in public spaces allowing for way-finding and designated public announcement areas.
   • Physical changes that allow a driver to recognize a difference as they enter the “historic downtown” corridor. such as:
     1. Either raised crosswalks
     2. Crosswalk lights
     3. Or other physical changes
   Center Street, along this stretch, is a very special place. It has been designated as a pedestrian mall, but hasn't been treated as such. I'm very interested in considering these requests by the Downtown businesses. Presentation only. I support this request by the businesses. Center Street should be treated as a destination, not a thoroughfare.
3. **CONTINUED** A discussion on defining over-occupancy as a nuisance. (19-094)
   "In Provo City Code there are differing items which have been listed as a ""nuisance."" There are advantages that Provo City Enforcement gains by having over-occupancy on the list of nuisances. By placing over-occupancy as a nuisance creates a more effective way to enforce."
4. A discussion regarding an appropriation related to elements of the FY19-20 Provo City Budget that need to be revisited (19-095)
   Some few errors have been found in the FY20 budget, and Finance would like to resolve them sooner than later. In this meeting they would like to go over the details of an appropriation they intend to bring to the Council at the September 24, 2019 Council Meeting. Finance will be on hand to present their findings and available to ask questions. I don't know the nature or extent of these errors. The document packet doesn't specify, so I'll have to wait for the presentation to find out. Presentation only. Most of the mistakes cancel each other out. Some decrease one fund but increase another fund.
5. A discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to reduce off-street requirements for multi-family developments if certain considerations are met. (19-092)
   The Executive Housing Committee has met and discussed easing parking requirements for multi-family developments if they meet certain considerations. Currently there is no path for this reduction unless the project is being headed by a nonprofit. The Housing Committee would like to see this discussed first with the Council in Work Meeting to ensure there is sufficient support for the action before it is taken to the Planning Commission for consideration. There is also not a lot of information on this item, but I saw an early draft in a committee. The idea is that if a project can build in features that reduce parking demand, *and* they provide space that can be converted to parking in the future if the demand still is high, then they don't have to build all the parking at the beginning. A motion to send the proposal to the Planning Commission for review was approved 7:0. This is definitely worth further consideration



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

6. **CONTINUED** A discussion regarding an amendment to Provo City Code Section 14.34.295 to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
   As Community Development has processed applications for new development in the zones to which the design standards apply, staff has identified multiple ways in which the Downtown Development Design Standards (the standards), could be improved to better facilitate quality development. The current design standards, while having served well since their inception, contain some elements that are unclear or have led to multiple conflicting interpretations. Also, some numerical standards have also been shown through experience to be too high or too low. Lastly, staff has found regulatory areas that needed to be addressed more thoroughly, added in whole to the standards. The proposed amendment completely replaces the entirety of Section 13.34.295. The revisions add significant clarity and new regulation in the areas of Ground Floor Treatment, Massing, Architectural Detail, Parking, Access and Site Design, and broader area wide design elements including open space and pedestrian linkages. Also added are special standards for the Startup District and Center Street areas.
   
   Planning Commission continued this to their September 11 meeting.
7. A discussion regarding a request for a Provo City Code amendment to Section 15.03.035 to add clarification to grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
   The Council Office has requested an amendment to Section 15.03.035 of the Provo City Code to require project plan approval when cutting is involved as part of a grading permit except for when the permits related to the development of detached one-family dwellings. Having a project plan application be required before this type of grading is permitted will help ensure that all necessary departments are aware of grading work and what the purpose is for the request.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago. A motion to substitute for the exhibit the version that included the word ‘cubic’ and the proposed language “other than a permit related only to the development of a single detached one-family dwelling” was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was passed in the evening meeting. See my report there.
8. A discussion regarding an ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
   Upon reviewing Provo City's Bicycle Master Plan, Parking and Sustainability Coordinator Austin Taylor found need to apply its suggestions regarding bicycle parking to Provo City code. The master plan calls for improving the design and increasing the amount of bike parking in Provo City by making a minimum amount required as is done with car parking. This proposed ordinance text amendment creates a standard for design and quantity of bicycle parking for new developments. The Planning Commission recommended approval. If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was continued in the evening meeting. See my report there.



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.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



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. A resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Energy Department to the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements related to the new Airport terminal. (19-088)
   Public Works will need to install sewer improvements on the west side of the City in order to meet the requirements of a new Airport terminal. In order to meet the required timelines for terminal construction short term financial assistance is needed, which is available from the Energy Fund by means of an inter-fund loan. This short term $4 million loan would meet requirements of Utah State Code and would be repaid in full with interest. This is a short term (6-month likely, 12-month max) loan that allows a construction team that is already in West Provo to move directly into this project, rather than being sent home and asked to come back in 6 months when the new fiscal year begins. Approved 7:0. This was a smart move that reduces the cost of the project.
2. A resolution appropriating $4 million in the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements on the west side of Provo City, including at the airport, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (19-096)
   An Interfund Loan has been proposed where Energy is intending to loan Wastewater $4 million to accomplish necessary Wastewater infrastructure relative to the new Provo City Airport Terminal. This project has multiple stakeholders and because we have received both Utah State and Utah County funds to help with the expansion of the airport, this project has been placed as a priority for completion. Because the Council has opted for a pay-as-you-go funding source, the revenues need to first be collected so that Wastewater may pay Energy back. This is related to the first item which transfers the money. This item authorizes the expenditure of the money. Many entities are contributing to the building of the new terminal. This is part of Provo's share. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of the real property generally located at 800 North University Avenue and known as Amanda Knight Hall from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190244)
   Amanda Knight Hall, built in 1938-1939, is a women’s dormitory formerly associated with Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The dormitory is located at the corner of 800 North and University Avenue, just two blocks north of the original campus of the university. Brigham Young University sold the property earlier this year to Mountain Classic Real Estate of Salt Lake City to facilitate its preservation through a return of the building to its original use as women’s housing. This application is not accompanied by a concept plan as no substantial changes are proposed for the site or building exterior. The requested rezone facilitates the preservation of a significant historic resource and a return of the building to women’s housing under private ownership.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. This is what I wrote last time. I'm curious what the developer will come back with.
   
   'After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.
   
   'In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.' Approved 7:0. I have mixed feelings about this. This building is worth saving, but if we don't institute some manner of onstreet parking management then we are making the same mistake that previous councils have made that have made parking so bad in Joaquin to begin with.
4. **CONTINUED** The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Central Business District, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda.
5. An ordinance amending Section 15.03.035 Provo City Code for clarification of grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago.' Approved 7:0. "I believe that this will go a long way to preventing problems like we had a couple years ago near the mouth of Provo Canyon with the ""Gravel Operation""."
6. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards.' This item was continued by Council Rule to the Council Meeting on September 24, 2019. We continued this item to allow the public more time to provide feedback and to fix some problematic language.



Adjournment