Council Meetings - 19 November 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, November 19, 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 regarding Utah Valley University's Vision 2030 Plan. (19-124)
   The Board of Trustees of the Utah Valley University recently approved the Vision 2030 Plan for the university. They would like to present the plan to all of the City Councils in Utah Valley. There are no documents on this in the packet. It will be interesting to see what they present. Presentation only. The University is a great asset for our community. The presentation made a big point about UVU being a "dual-mission" institution that spans the scope of traditional community colleges through to many master's degrees.
2. A presentation regarding the financial audit. (19-134)
   Jeff Miles will report his findings from an audit of Provo City's finances including a discussion on carryover diversion approvals. This is part of the annual audit. Presentation only. We discussed the audit, including some steps we can take to improve our safe guards. We will look to create an audit committee in the new year. What we didn't talk about was carry-over diversion, but I'm not sure why.
3. A discussion regarding updates to the Wastewater Impact Fee Facility Plan. (19-138)
   The Public Works Department has requested an update the Wastewater Impact fee Facility Plan (IFFP) to include the Wastewater infrastructure needs for the Medical School and the Mix projects. I haven't heard anything about this and there isn't anything in the packet. So it'll be interesting to see what this is about. Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the December 10, 2019 Council Meeting. These proposed developments have accelerated some infrastructure needs. By putting the infrastructure projects on the Impact Fee Facility Plan, we can use the full range of tools for financing the projects.
4. A presentation regarding the Utah Valley Hospital Expansion Project. (19-122)
   Kyle Hansen is the new Administrator at Utah Valley Hospital. He will provide an update on the Hospital Expansion Project as well as on additional services that are offered by the hospital. Someone asked if this was about the expansion that has been taking place over the past few years or if they are coming to introduce a new expansion. I don't know for sure, but I assume it is the former. Presentation only. It was interesting to hear the presenter explain that healthcare delivery is changing so quickly that if they were starting the project today, rather than finishing, the project would look fairly different.
5. A discussion regarding the authorization of a 108 loan agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund infrastructure for the airport. (19-136)
   When Duncan Aviation relocated to Provo, Provo City committed to building some of the infrastructure necessary to make that possible (see the attached resolution from 2017). One of the funding sources to pay for the infrastructure was a 108 Loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). We are in the process of finalizing our loan documents with HUD. One of HUD's requirements is that the City’s governing body passes a resolution authorizing the City to enter into this loan agreement with HUD. Since the City will need to complete all documentation before the end of the year, a resolution would need to be passed in the Council Meeting on December 10, 2019 to agree to this loan. We already committed to this. Now we just need to sign off on the execution. Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the December 10, 2019 Council Meeting. This is an example of the economic development that our airport drives.
6. A discussion regarding recycling in Provo City. (19-137)
   Councilor George Handley and Bryce Rolph (Public Works Sanitation Manager) will discuss recycling in Provo City including a summary of the City's current efforts and potential changes Recycling programs have taken a beating these past few years. China had been the major processor in the world and had undercut everyone else so the US really didn't build the facilities to recycle material. Over the past few years, China has significantly scaled back imports of material to be recycled, sending the market value of recyclables into a nosedive. It is now much more expensive to run a recycling program. On the bright side, I've heard that companies in the US are now able to build and run recycling facilities for a profit. Hopefully the market for recyclables will be stabilizing soon. Presentation only. Our waste district, of which Provo is a major portion, has one of the highest rates of "recycling contamination" in the State. Almost half of what we recycle has to be rerouted to the landfill. I think that this is mostly an education problem, that we haven't gotten the word out well enough about the do's and don'ts of recycling. I was surprised to learn that much of my household recycling was being turned away. We collect our recycling in a kitchen garbage bag and then take it out to the can when it is full. I learned that the recycling center won't open up bags to recycle the contents. We are now informed recyclers. How can we help others become informed as well so we can increase the amount of our recyclables that actually get recycled?



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. A discussion on an ordinance amending the West Gateway Zone to better meet the purpose and objective of the Zone. Dixon and Franklin Neighborhoods. (PLOTA20190376)
   The West Gateway Zone (3.5 blocks between 800 West to 100 West) was adopted in 2012. It was developed from the Gateway Zone, but reduced the strictness in design codes in hopes to encourage redevelopment between the Gateway Zone and newly adopted Freeway Commercial Zone, while leaving in transitional single-family development standards meant to provide a protective transition to adjacent low-density residential areas. The amended zoning has not spurred redevelopment of the area. It is proposed to strengthen residential protections while making the permitted use list more consistent with the adjacent Gateway Zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I have a few questions on this one, but overall am supportive of the requested changes. So far I haven't heard of any concerns from the public, and it has recently gone to two neighborhood meetings. Generally, an ordinance request like this would be heard over two Council meetings. The applicant would like a decision on the first. I'm a bit torn and may vote for it this time unless I hear of some concerns. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 19, 2019. The presentation answered my questions and I voted for it in the evening meeting.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.11 acres of property generally located at 688 N 100 W Residential Conservation (RC) to High Density Res. (HDR) and Med Dens. Res. (MDR) at 650 N 100 W. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190173)
   The applicant has requested to rezone some properties from Residential Conservation (RC) to High Density Residential (HDR) for new development and to rezone the adjacent parcels from RC to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
   
   The proposed MDR properties are already developed. The reason that they are being included with this request is to provide a transitional zoning buffer between the proposed HDR zone and surrounding RC zoning so that a ten foot wide landscape buffer is not required. The majority of the block consists of apartment complexes with student housing but is all zoned RC.
   
   The applicant feels that the highest and best use for his property would be multi-family housing due to the similarities of surrounding development and proximity to schools, work, public transportation, and grocery stores. The applicant has met with the neighborhood about the proposed rezone and development. Planning Commission recommended approval. This would definitely be densifying the area. The homes there currently don't look too bad, but the surrounding structures are all apartment buildings so this would fit right in. And the proposed design of the building looks better than much of what would surround it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 19, 2019. I didn't see anything that concerned me.
9. A discussion on resolutions authorizing the RDA to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Provo City, Utah County, the Provo School District, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District authorizing the use of Tax Increment Funding. (19-130 to 19-133)
   As part of the Mill Race Owner Participation Agreement, the Redevelopment Agency agreed to use its best efforts to collect tax increment to help fund the parking associated with the project. The four proposed resolutions (with accompanying Interlocal Agreements) would allow for the Redevelopment Agency to capture a portion of the tax increment that will be generated by the Mill Race construction and use it to help pay for the construction of the parking necessary for the Mill Race project. We already agreed to this in principle, though I think we should look at some of the details. I believe the tax increment participation helps pay for the pedestrian bridge which will be open to the public, and that there will be some public component to the parking garage that this is going to. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 19, 2019. I think this is a good example of when tax increment incentives are productive.
10. A resolution designating a survey area, authorizing the preparation of a draft Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget, and authorizing and directing all necessary action by the Redevelopment Agency, staff, and legal counsel. (19-135)
    Qualtrics, an important member of the Provo community, is seeking to expand their office space and employment base in Provo. This resolution would be the first step in creating a new Community Reinvestment area for the Riverwoods Business Park to help Qualtrics provide new office space and structured parking. I am THRILLED to hear that Qualtrics is expanding here in Provo. They are a great Provo success story. I am questioning, though, the wisdom of creating a Community Reinvestment Area for the Riverwoods Business Park and returning property taxes back to the company. This business park appears to be thriving. The proposed parking garage is needed because there is so much activity and it is just growing. Recently, Provo voters rejected a school bond due, in part, to concerns over rising taxes. We need to be very responsible with the taxes that we are collecting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 19, 2019. This proposed expansions will bring many high paying jobs to Provo and deepens the roots in the area even while the company expands elsewhere. I'm still struggling with the idea of diverting property tax dollars in an area and isn't in dire need of reinvestment.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

11. A discussion of an ordinance adopting a new Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan as an element of the General Plan. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20190194)
    The Provo City Department of Development Services is requesting a General Plan Amendment to adopt the Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan as an element of the Provo City General Plan. The current Moderate Income Housing Plan was adopted in 2018. New State Code requirements necessitate the updating of the plan to address those new requirements. All municipalities within the State of Utah are required to provide “a plan that provides a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income housing.”
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval of the findings of the document, while continuing the review of the Moderate Income Housing Plan to allow a fuller discussion regarding recommendations for housing goals. This plan has a wealth of data on our housing stock and our demographics. It also lists goals and steps we can take to help address the need for housing that is affordable for the people in our community. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 19, 2019. The new State law requires that all cities select at least 3 strategies, off of a list of 24, to address the housing affordability problem in the State. Provo is already doing 23 of the 24.



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
Board of Canvassers Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 19, 2019

1. A resolution of the Mayor and the Municipal Council sitting as the Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the vote for General Elections held on Tuesday, November 5, 2019. (19-086)
   This is a presentation of the final vote tallies in the municipal general election. http://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/ClerkAud/Elections/ResultsTracking.html




Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

6:00 PM, Tuesday, November 19, 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. An ordinance adopting a new Provo City Moderate Income Housing Plan as an element of the General Plan. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20190194)
   This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda This plan has a wealth of data on our housing stock and our demographics. It also lists goals and steps we can take to help address the need for housing that is affordable for the people in our community. Approved 7:0. The new State law requires that all cities select at least 3 strategies, off of a list of 24, to address the housing affordability problem in the State. Provo is already doing 23 of the 24.
2. An ordinance amending the West Gateway Zone to better meet the purpose and objective of the Zone. Dixon and Franklin Neighborhoods. (PLOTA20190376)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda I have a few questions on this one, but overall am supportive of the requested changes. So far I haven't heard of any concerns from the public, and it has recently gone to two neighborhood meetings. Generally, an ordinance request like this would be heard over two Council meetings. The applicant would like a decision on the first. I'm a bit torn and may vote for it this time unless I hear of some concerns. Approved 7:0. The presentation in the earlier meeting answered my questions and I decided to vote for it.
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.11 acres of property generally located at 688 N 100 W Residential Conservation (RC) to High Density Res. (HDR) and Med Dens. Res. (MDR) at 650 N 100 W. North Park Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190173)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda This would definitely be densifying the area. The homes there currently don't look too bad, but the surrounding structures are all apartment buildings so this would fit right in. And the proposed design of the building looks better than much of what would surround it. Approved 7:0. There were no concerns brought up from the public, and I feel like this will help improve the neighborhood.
4. An ordinance to enact Provo City Code Section 15.03.105 (Temporary Limitations on Certain Sewer Connections). Citywide application. (PLOTA20190392)
   The request to amend this section of the Provo City Code is in response to limited sewer capacity west of I-15 in Provo and the potential for new development in that area to exceed the current capacity. The proposed text amendment would apply to any applications for new development in that area. Because of the length of the proposed amendment, staff suggested that the proposed language become a new code section (15.03.105). Planning Commission recommended approval. This puts two main policies into code. First, it makes it clear that sewer capacity won't be allocated to a project until it has proper zoning. Second, it throttles the allocation to 40 connections per project until that project has completed at least half of what they've been allocated. The most important part of prioritizing how we use sewer connections while more are being built will be how the Council chooses to approve new zoning requests. Continued to the December 10, 2019 Council Meeting.
5. A resolution authorizing Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing the use of Tax Increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (19-130)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda Items 5 through 9 are all related. In this item, we, as the Municipal Council of Provo, will be asked to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with the RDA. The RDA is technically an independent body, though the Council and Mayor make up the Board of the RDA.
   
   As for the question at hand, we already agreed to this in principle, though I think we should look at some of the details. I believe the tax increment participation helps pay for the pedestrian bridge which will be open to the public, and that there will be some public component to the parking garage that this is going to. Approved 7:0. This tax incentive will help pay the developer back for public infrastructure that will be built as part of the project, and the project will help revitalize this area of the City.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

6. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Provo City authorizing the use of Tax Increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (19-130)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda See the description for item #5. In this item, we, as the RDA Board, will be asked to authorize the RDA to enter into an agreement with the City. Approved 7:0. See the report for item #5.
7. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Utah County authorizing the use of Tax Increment in the South Downtown Community Redevelopment Project Area. (19-131)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda See the description for item #5. In this item, we, as the RDA Board, will be asked to authorize the RDA to enter into an agreement with the County. Approved 7:0. See the report for item #5.
8. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Provo School District Authorizing the use of Tax Increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (19-132)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda See the description for item #5. In this item, we, as the RDA Board, will be asked to authorize the RDA to enter into an agreement with the School District. Approved 7:0. See the report for item #5.
9. A resolution authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of Provo to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District authorizing the use of Tax Increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (19-133)
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda See the description for item #5. In this item, we, as the RDA Board, will be asked to authorize the RDA to enter into an agreement with the Water Conservancy District. Approved 7:0. See the report for item #5.
10. A resolution designating a survey area, authorizing the preparation of a draft Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan and Budget, and authorizing and directing all necessary action by the Redevelopment Agency, staff, and legal counsel. (19-135)
    This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda I am THRILLED to hear that Qualtrics is expanding here in Provo. They are a great Provo success story. I am questioning, though, the wisdom of creating a Community Reinvestment Area for the Riverwoods Business Park and returning property taxes back to the company. This business park appears to be thriving. The proposed parking garage is needed because there is so much activity and it is just growing. Recently, Provo voters rejected a school bond due, in part, to concerns over rising taxes. We need to be very responsible with the taxes that we are collecting. Approved 6:1, with Councilor Kay Van Buren opposed. I'm willing to support a study that is necessary before a Project Area can be designated.



Action Agenda

11. ***CONTINUED*** Daniel LaFontaine requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to Low Density Residential for 1.07 acres for a townhome development, located at 50 E 3900 N. Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190265)
    This was continued by the Planning Commission and not ready to be heard.
12. ***CONTINUED*** Community & Neighborhood Services Department requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Ch14.33 and 15.05 of the Provo City Code to update the development requirements of lands located in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190328)
    This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 12 November 2019

These agendas have some long-range items (policy discussion on housing affordability and electronic signs), medium-range items (policy discussion on sewer-line capacity allocation and residential parking permits), short-term items (decisions on requests for an S-overlay, rezones, and parking stalls transfer), and some bureaucratic items (adjusting city code to align with recent state statute changes, year-end code updates).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, November 12, 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 voter participation areas. (19-127)
   State statute amendments regarding initiatives and referenda (see UCA 20A-7-401.3) have created something called “voter participation areas.” In order to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, one must show a certain level of interest across the city to prove that it is not a neighborhood or regional issue. In addition to needing to get a certain threshold of signatures city-wide, a sponsor must also meet signature thresholds in at least 75% of the voter participation areas. Cities with council districts that are not at-large may use those districts as voter participation areas. Otherwise, they must create eight voter participation areas that meet certain criteria. If the Council chooses to create the eight voter participation areas rather than use the city's council districts, they must either act immediately or wait until 2022. I see no need to create voter participation areas when our current council districts will function just fine in this role. My only question is if using our 7 school board districts is an option. Per State statute, we only have the option of using our 5 council districts or creating 8 new voter participation districts. We are supporting the use of the five districts now, but we may reconsider as we go through the redistricting process in 2022.
2. A discussion regarding an amendment to Provo City Code regarding the disposal of certain confiscated guns and a resolution authorizing the Police Department to apply the proceeds of those sales to public interest use. (19-125 and 19-126)
   Provo City Code Section 9.01.040 (Lost and Stolen Property: Disposition) regarding the disposal of certain confiscated firearms currently references portions of Utah State Code that have been repealed. This proposed ordinance would update those code references and bring the City's code into compliance with state law.This resolution partners with the ordinance in the previous item to update Provo City Code regarding the disposal of firearms. Rather than requiring the Police Department to seek approval for how to use the proceeds of each sale of certain confiscated firearms, this resolution would direct the Department to apply all proceeds to public interest use as directed in Utah Code Section 24-3-103.5(3)(a). The Department plans to apply the proceeds to the training and supplies budget. This will update our code to be in compliance with recent changes to State Statute. There are roughly 400 guns in police custody right now. Unsafe guns must be destroyed, and so can safe guns, but they may also be sold. Provo's practice is to sell the guns to a federally licensed gun dealer and then uses the proceeds to fund training and supplies.
3. A discussion regarding affordable housing policy. (19-121)
   The Housing Committee has discussed different methods of providing affordable housing and improving housing affordability and are ready to present some of the policy options for further Council feedback and direction. We have talked a lot about the rising costs of housing in Provo. I believe our housing stock should reflect the full cross-section of our community. The Housing Committee has discussed several methods of addressing rising housing costs, but we are a long way from implementing any of them. Provo is a vibrant community made up of many interacting individuals. Many people play a part in the community and the services and products we enjoy: store clerks, school teachers, police officers, doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc. I believe our housing stock should reflect and accommodate the people who participate in our society. It's great that some people live in Provo and work or go to school outside of Provo, just as there are people who live outside of Provo and come into Provo for work, school, and play. But there shouldn't be whole groups of people who participate in our community who do not have a place to live among us.
   < br/>So, if this is the goal, how can we encourage its reality? Inclusionary zoning is one tool that is used by some other communities across the country. Much of our discussion centered on the financial impact of such programs. If a small portion of all new housing developments must be affordable (generally considered to be housing costs no more than 30% of income) to at least half (or some other number) of the people who live in the area, then does that mean that developers make less money? Does that mean that the people who by the rest of the new homes have to pay more? Does that mean that the sellers of the land will make less money? One way to reduce or eliminate any "subsidy" towards the affordable (to those making 100% AMI or more) housing is to allow, or even require, a diversity of housing types in a development.
4. A discussion regarding the policy direction for the allocation of sewer connections for developments west of I-15. (19-110)
   This discussion follows presentations and discussions on the topic in two Work Meetings on October 8, August 27, September 10, and October 8, 2019.
   
   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 landowners 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. 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.
   
   Council asked staff to draft policy options for them to consider. I feel like most of this discussion affects how Engineering and Development Services decides whether building permits can be issued. I think the most critical question for prioritization of the allocation of sewer capacity sits with the Council when we decide whether the land should be rezoned. I think the Council should set some policies on how we decide the rezones and then communicate these to the development community. Will the 40 unit throttle thwart a home-run development? The most important way that we will prioritize the allocation of sewer capacity is through rezoning. We have enough capacity for everything that has already been rezoned, and a vast majority of the land will need to be rezoned before it can be developed.
5. A discussion regarding parking permit programs policy. (19-120)
   As the Council discusses parking permit programs across the city, it has been requested that the Council discuss their general approach to them. This was continued from last time, as I am the presenter and I was not able to be to the last meeting. Here is what I wrote as a preview last time: "Since I started paying attention to issues before the Council, I've seen several parking permit programs proposed, but only one or two actually created. Usually, the applicants withdraw their request once they realize all that they entail. With our new license plate readers and with the direction of the Joaquin and Downtown parking committees, Parking Permit Programs have changed and I believe that they will continue to change in the near future. We've already made the change to LPRs, and I believe the city will be considering a new mobile payment system. I believe that we should have a cohesive and coherent system across the City, but I don't know what that looks like in the established areas and in the areas that are currently expressing interest in starting new programs. I think we should accommodate residents in their desires for their neighborhoods, but I also think we need to be careful about assigning public resources to private use. And I definitely feel that permit programs should pay for themselves over the long run. " Rearview mirror hangers are gone. License plate readers are in. Will the guess passes (a limited number are allotted to each address in the permit area, and must be requested by phone) also disappear, replaced by mobile payment for visitors?



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to update Public Works Standards from 2019 standards to 2020. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190366)
   This is a regular annual update to the public works standards. This is a routine update to the standards for water, wastewater, stormwater, streets, etc. Public Works did a great job making the changes from 2019 to 2020 clear and easy to identify. I'm an engineer, though not a civil engineer, and found the standards and the proposed changes to be interesting to review. Public works did a great job making it easy for the Council (and public) to see the changes that are being made this year.
7. A discussion on an ordinance applying the Supplemental Residential (S) overlay to the One-Family Res. (R1.8) zone for real property generally located between 2320 N and approx. 2100 N, and between 350 E and approx. 250 E. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190094)
   The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Supplementary Residential Overlay to the existing R1.8 zone. The S Overlay would allow accessory apartments if the home is owner-occupied. The applicant has received support from the majority of the residents in the proposed rezoning area. The majority of homes in the Pleasant View neighborhood already have an “S” or “A” Overlay applied to them. This area is surrounded by areas with the S-overlay or other higher-intensity zones. I'm comfortable making this change and am glad to learn that it has broad support for the residents in the area. Of the 36 houses in the area, 18 owners signed a petition in support, 2 were opposed, many owners are out-of-town (or country) and their properties are rented. (The S-overlay provisions are not applicable to non-owner-occupied properties.)
8. A resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Parking License Agreement between the RDA and 63 East Investors to Base Camp 63, LLC. (19-123)
   There is currently a parking lease for the spaces in the Wells Fargo parking structure used by the residents of 63 East. The Redevelopment Agency needs to approve the assignment of that lease in order for the residents to have continued use of the parking. This seems like a simple request to grant. The apartments are being to another owner and the parking should go with the apartments. I do think it deserves a closer look, though, because the City invested redevelopment resources into this project because it felt that this project would advance our goals in Downtown. I want to make sure this is still true. Year ago Provo City made an investment of resources to make this project a reality in order to pursue specific goals in the Downtown Area. As the project changes hands, I am watching to see that the project continue to contribute towards those goals.



Business

9. A discussion regarding electronic sign policy. (19-118)
   This discussion is continued from the Work Meeting on October 29, 2019. In order to proactively establish a standard policy for the permitted minimum hold time for electronic signs, the Sign Ordinance Committee proposes a one-minute citywide hold time. A citywide hold time would be easier to enforce than separate high- and low-churn areas with grandfathered exceptions. It will also make signage more predictable and fair for business owners. In past previews I've made it known that I'm not convinced that dropping the maximum churn rate for electronic signs from 3 times per day to every 8 seconds in the current "low-churn" areas is in the best interest of the community. I am still unconvinced, but I want to understand how I can see this issue so differently from some of my colleagues. I hope this doesn't just go to a split vote because we don't see movement in members of the Council. There is definitely a range of opinions on this issue on the Council. The most encouraging thing we agreed on is that there will be a robust public outreach before and changes are made.



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, November 12, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards




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 Provo City Code to comply with current state law regarding firearms disposal. (19-125)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. This will update our code to be in compliance with recent changes to State Statute.
2. A resolution authorizing the Provo City Police Department to apply to public interest use proceeds from the sale of certain confiscated or unclaimed firearms. (19-126)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. This is related to item #1.
3. An ordinance applying the Supplemental Residential (S) overlay to the One-Family Res. (R1.8) zone for real property generally located between 2320 N and approx. 2100 N, and between 350 E and approx. 250 E. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190094)
   This is the second hearing for this item. The first hearing was held on May 21, 2019. The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Supplementary Residential Overlay to the existing R1.8 zone. The S Overlay would allow accessory apartments if the home is owner occupied. The applicant has received support from the majority of the residents in the proposed rezone area. The majority of homes in the Pleasant View neighborhood already have an “S” or “A” Overlay applied to them. We continued this item back in May because we were actively updating both the S and A overlays. We will have discussed this as item 7 in the work meeting. Here is what I wrote for that preview: "This area is surrounded by areas with the S-overlay or other higher-intensity zones. I'm comfortable making this change and am glad to learn that it has broad support for the residents in the area."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Planning Commission approval of reductions in required parking, including for multi-family residential uses. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190289))
   The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of Section 14.37.050 of the Provo City Code, relating to Reduction in Off-street Parking Requirements to remove the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and to allow residential developments to apply for a reduction in off-street parking requirements based on a Transportation Demand Management plan approved by the Planning Commission in a Project Plan application. Planning Commission recommended approval. As I stated in my report after the first hearing, "I'm comfortable that this change will be a win-win-win for both the community, the future residents of the developments, and the developers."
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.50 to establish the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180292))
   This is the second hearing for this item. The first hearing was held on October 29, 2019. This request for an ordinance amendment consists of two parts.
   1. To adopt the proposed 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use PRO Zone. The principle intention of the proposed PRO zone is to allow a higher number of shared parking spaces between the two major uses (residential and office) in order to facilitate the development of an additional six-unit apartment building on the site. The proposed zone also attempts to restrict the types of uses that could be located on the property.
   2. To amend Table 14.37.100-1, to adopt minimum aisle width requirements for a one-way aisle with parallel parking spaces, as it is not currently specified in the ordinance. This amendment pertains to the site plan and is intended to allow more parking area on the site than could be realized with a wider aisle requirement. However, since the aisle width applies to the City’s parking standards as a whole rather than just for the proposed PRO Zone, staff has determined this particular amendment request should be made as a separate application. Therefore, staff has created that application for consideration at the October 23, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, thereby allowing it to be considered with the associated items by the Municipal Council at their scheduled meeting of October 29, 2019. It should be noted that in Dr. McClean’s application, he mentions a total of 20 residential units and indicates six units within the office building. However, the request has been amended to 19 total units, with only the five existing units within the office building.
   During the two-week break between meetings, I reached out to residents in Dixon Neighborhood. The general consensus is that the property owner has been a good neighbor and has maintained and managed the existing apartments well. There are some concerns about any new housing that isn't single-family detached, but most respondents felt that adding 6 additional units will be a net positive for the neighborhood.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately one acre of property, generally located at the 385 N 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293)
   This is the second hearing for this item. The first hearing was held on October 29, 2019. This item is the requested rezoning of approximately 0.91 acres (1/4 of the block) from the RC to the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use PRO Zone. The creation of that PRO zone is being presented in a preceding item. The property is currently zoned RC Residential Conservation. The existing uses on the properties to be rezoned include a duplex, a six-unit apartment building, and a medical clinic. The medical clinic also includes five legal residential units in its basement. The intent of the proposed rezoning would be to allow an additional six-unit apartment building on the site. As with the existing six-unit apartment building, the new building would include six, two-bedroom units.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. This is connected to the previous item.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to update Public Works Standards from 2019 standards to 2020. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190366)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda This is a routine update to the standards for water, wastewater, stormwater, streets, etc. Public Works did a great job making the changes from 2019 to 2020 clear and easy to identify. I'm an engineer, though not a civil engineer, and found the standards and the proposed changes to be interesting to review.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

8. A resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Parking License Agreement between the RDA and 63 East Investors to Base Camp 63, LLC. (19-123)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda This seems like a simple request to grant. The apartments are being to another owner and the parking should go with the apartments. I do think it deserves a closer look, though, because the City invested redevelopment resources into this project because it felt that this project would advance our goals in Downtown. I want to make sure this is still true.
9. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests approval of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Plan, which is an update to the existing plan. Citywide. PLGPA20190194
   This was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the General Plan regarding a designation change from Residential (R) to Commercial (C) for approximately 1.2 acres of real property, generally located at 1009 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190191)
    This was not ready to be heard.
11. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.2 acres, generally located at 1009 West 2000 North, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Commercial (CG). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190192)
    This was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 29 October 2019

Wow, this was a marathon meeting. I was on a work trip out of the country for my "day" job. I had hoped to call in during the meetings, but was not able to. The only thing better than sitting through 6 hours of meetings, is watching six hours of meetings on YouTube! You might notice a different tone in my "previews" for this meeting. Once I realized I wouldn't be able to call in, I hastily typed out my thoughts on the issues to share with my colleagues on the Council.

The parking and "xeriscaping" items are pretty cool, but I feel most passionately about Electronic Sign discussion.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, October 29, 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.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

1. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Planning Commission approval of reductions in required parking, including for multi-family residential uses. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
   The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of Section 14.37.050 of the Provo City Code, relating to Reduction in Off-street Parking Requirements to remove the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and to allow residential developments to apply for a reduction in off-street parking requirements based on a TDM plan approved by the Planning Commission in a Project Plan application. Planning Commission recommended approval. In a committee meeting, the now-director of our new Department of Development Services explained that in areas where this is already an option, much good came from even small reductions (one or two spaces). This does give the Planning Commission quite a bit of power, but I believe that it will be worth it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. If developers want a reduction in the number of parking stalls they are required to provide, this would give them an option to create a plan to reduce the parking demand and then have a traffic engineer study and issue a report on their plan and requested reduction. The Planning Commission would be allowed to reduce the parking requirement based on the proposed plan and the engineer's evaluation.



Business

2. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council authorizing the acceptance of a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for the Airport. (19-087)
   The Public Works Department intends to apply for a $5 million State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund loan to front the costs of infrastructure for the new Airport Terminal. The application for the loan will be considered before the Utah Department of Transportation Commission in September. Prior to receiving funds, the Commission requires a resolution by the Council. It is anticipated that MAG funding to be programmed for 2023-2024 will be used to repay the loan. I support this. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The application has been approved by the State. Interest rate: 2.1% APR, 5-year repayment after the project is finished.
3. A presentation regarding the Young Single Professionals Committee. (19-115)
   Amber Savage and Bill Hulterstrom have requested time to present to the Council about the Young Single Professionals Committee. This committee was created by Mayor Kaufusi. I am glad that the Mayor put together this committee. Young single professionals are an important part of Provo and help make us who we are as a community. Some people have claimed that our efforts to encourage compliance with occupancy laws are evidence that we don't value the young single professionals in our city. This is unfortunate because it is simply not true. All are welcome here, but we do expect everyone to follow the law. Continued.
4. A discussion regarding the policy direction for the allocation of sewer connections for developments west of I-15. (19-110)
   This discussion follows presentations and discussions on the topic in two Work Meetings on October 8, August 27, and September 10, 2019.
   
   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 believe most, if not all, of the provided background information on this item is recycled from past agenda items. I believe that the thrust of this discussion will be on the outcome of the staff committee that Cliff heads to advise on how to allocate sewer connections when there is more supply than demand. My thoughts on this are that (1) we are likely to have a solid idea in a week whether Dixon Middle School will be moving in the next couple of years. (2) Barring the need to accommodate Dixon, I am comfortable with the current 7-year plan and believe that it is best for smart-growth to allow the availability of infrastructure to throttle growth, particularly if we can find a way to allocate the limited resource to the best proposals. We have a limited resource, let the proposals compete for the connections and let the best proposals rise to the top. (3) Even if we choose to accelerate by bonding or allowing developers to front the money, there will still be more demand than supply for some period of time. There is enough demand in the east and south-east portion of West Provo to use all of the connections until the parallel 36" is complete, so unless we limit the number of connections to this area, the west and north-west portions of West Provo won't have any connections until the parallel 36" is complete. Our decision on how we are going to allocate will likely affect the order in which the infrastructure projects are built. (4) I would like to allocate sewer connections based on how well a proposal aligns with City goals (i.e. I'd allocate all current connections to a development if that meant we get a grocery store in the near future), but I worry that we will be warned that this could be legally precarious. A motion to proceed with the next steps as proposed was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I think the committee made some good recommendations, and so far it sounds like the development community feels it is fair. Much of the property still needs to be rezoned and that is the time for the Council to ensure that the proposals are aligned with the policies.
5. A discussion regarding a potential Sensitive Lands ordinance amendment. (19-117)
   The Foothills Protection Committee has reviewed the Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone (FCOZ) currently in effect in Salt Lake County. The FCOZ provides protection to the aesthetic and natural elements along foothills and canyon areas in the County. Provo City Code Chapter 15.04 (Sensitive Lands) has some elements meant to protect areas that could be vulnerable to grading and cutting, however, there is interest from the Foothills Protection Committee to explore adopting elements of the FCOZ into the Provo City Code and attempt to further protect Provo Foothills in a similar manner to what Salt Lake County has done with the FCOZ. I like how the preamble to the SLCounty program talked about balancing the interests of all stakeholders. I'm looking for that in whatever proposal we entertain. How does this effort interact with the coming effort by CNS and residents in Northeast Provo to create an area master plan (similar to what was done in Southeast Provo)? A motion to move forward with developing a draft of an ordinance that is inspired by or drawn from the best elements of the FCOZ (Salt Lake County’s Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone) for the Council to look at in the future, and to move forward with creating the neighborhood plan was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. The discussion tied Foothill protections tightly with the planned development of a Northeast Area Master Plan. There is definitely some overlap, but I see these plans as fairly independent and focused on different things. I would support drafting the foothills protection ordinance to make sense for all of our foothills independent from the Master Plan drafting.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Section 3.08.010 (Officials' Oaths and Bonds Required). (19-113)
   Current Provo City Code 3.08.010 requires that certain city officials take an oath of office and provide a bond, but is somewhat ambiguous. In the 2019 regular legislative session, Utah Code Section 10-3-831 was enacted to clarify the bond requirement. The Legal Department proposes that 3.08.010 be repealed and replaced by language complying with the current Utah statute. Based on the material, I think this is addressing the issue that was being brought up by that one emailer asking to see the oaths and bonds by the elected officials in Provo. I'm glad that the State provide clarity and that we are complying with the State statute. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. This is a very small, but good fix to our code.
7. A discussion regarding parking permit programs policy. (19-120)
   As the Council discusses parking permit programs across the city, it has been requested that the Council discuss their general approach to them. Since I started paying attention to issues before the Council, I've seen several parking permit programs proposed, but only one or two actually created. Usually, the applicants withdraw their request once they realize all that they entail. With our new license plate readers and with the direction of the Joaquin and Downtown parking committees, Parking Permit Programs have changed and I believe that they will continue to change in the near future. We've already made the change to LPRs, and I believe the city will be considering a new mobile payment system. I believe that we should have a cohesive and coherent system across the City, but I don't know what that looks like in the established areas and in the areas that are currently expressing interest in starting new programs. I think we should accommodate residents in their desires for their neighborhoods, but I also think we need to be careful about assigning public resources to private use. And I definitely feel that permit programs should pay for themselves over the long run. Continued. There was quite a bit of discussion on the item before it was continued. I had first thought that they had skipped over this item in my absence, but I think they covered all the aspects that I hoped would be discussed.
8. A discussion regarding Downtown Provo parking program policy. (19-116)
   The Downtown Parking Committee has been involved in regular meetings since August 2019. At this point they feel prepared to meet and discuss a policy that could be adopted to guide the Administration as they move forward with implementing a parking program in the Downtown Provo area. I think the vision should be easy to adopt. It is a feel-good statement about all we want Downtown Parking to be. But it is also an important tool to focus our efforts and to help us know how to weigh options and choices as we strive to implement the vision. The proposed policy is a bigger deal. There will be real impacts if we choose to go down this road. This is a change from how we've been doing things. The Committee, made up of three Councilors, high-level Administrative Officers and Staff, and Quinn Peterson from DPI, feel that this change will give us much more value for the resources that we have invested and continue to invest in parking downtown. We feel that this proposal is aligned with the 2013 Strategic Downtown Parking Plan and while bold, is the next logical step in its implementation.
   
   The impact of this policy change can be illustrated by revisiting a recent downtown parking decision. When working with PEG on the Freedom Plaza project, which included the new State Courthouse and Convention Center parking, we stated that we aren't in the business of managing parking garages and instead paid millions into PEGs parking structure for them to manage. The long-term results of similar decisions in the past have been less than stellar. This policy change means that we are in the business managing garages and in the future we would be investing the same money into garages that the City would own and operate and that private developers could pay into to meet their parking obligations. This policy change would also enable us to look at past investments, and consider if it makes sense to take over the operation. A motion to adopt the downtown parking vision, downtown parking policy, and direction discussed regarding next steps was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if this is seen as one of the most important things I worked on while on the Council.
9. A discussion regarding an update on parking enforcement in the new department structure. (19-114)
   Provo City will be moving parking enforcement and licensing functions from Customer Service to Community and Neighborhood Services to improve coordination among the various functions in that department like parking management and code enforcement. This is a small but important step in the City's evolving role in parking. It is also aligning our operation with the recommendations of the 2013 Strategic Parking Master Plan. A motion to express support for what the Administration has done in this area was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I'm glad this was done.
10. A discussion regarding the Sign Ordinance Committee's proposed text amendment to clarify sign size requirements in 14.38.120-140. (19-119)
    As part of its comprehensive review of electronic sign regulations in Provo City Code, the Sign Ordinance Committee proposes new language and tables to clarify the sign size requirements found in PCC 14.38.120-140. The current graphs have not been updated in several decades and lack introductory text. The committee proposes that introductory text be added and that the graphs be replaced with tables. No concerns. A motion to send the proposal to the Planning Commission for review was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. This proposal wouldn't change anything, just present the standard in a clearer manner.
11. A discussion regarding hold time for electronic signs. (19-118)
    Currently, Provo permits electronic signs to change their message once per eight seconds in high-churn areas and three times per day in low-churn areas. The Sign Ordinance Committee has discussed amending these hold times and would like to hear the thoughts of the other members of the Council. When staff researched electronic sign policy in thirteen other local cities, they found that six of the 13 cities had a hold time of eight seconds. Eight seconds is also the state standard. Some cities permitted hold times as short as two seconds or had no hold time policy. None of the cities had hold times longer than eight seconds. I believe that I still don't understand this proposal, and I may be missing something important. I apologize if my comments aren't helpful due to this possible misunderstanding. This proposal seems to me like a major departure from the sign corridor work that the Council (including Kay and Gary) did before I joined. It also seems like a major departure from DS's argument that non-churning electronic signs are no more obtrusive than back-lit signs and should be allowed anywhere back-lit signs are allowed. I was totally convinced by that argument and supported that change. But by the same logic, I feel that electronic signs with appreciable churn are more obtrusive than backlit signs and still need to be convinced that they should be allowed everywhere that backlit signs were. I consider a once-a-day change to be no appreciable churn. I definitely thank that changes every 8-seconds is appreciable churn. I feel that changes three times-a-day is a generous amount for a sign being treated like a traditional backlit sign. Presentation only. The committee feels that 3-changes-a-day is too restrictive, but are split on whether a 60-second hold or 8-second hold would be best. We already have "high-churn" corridors that allow 8-second hold, this is for the current "low-churn" areas. I still don't support increasing the churn rate in "low-churn" areas.
12. A resolution appropriating $98,432 in the General Fund for an Economic Development Director position in the Development Services Department. (19-111)
    Recently, the Administration recommended and the Council supported a transfer of funds from the new Development Services Department to the Mayor's Office to fund the new Assistant CAO position. At the time, we believed that there were adequate funds in the Economic Development Division to fund their needs as well as the new position. Following a more comprehensive budget review, we realized that funds for a vacant position in the Economic Development Office had been taken during the FY2020 budget process and allocated elsewhere in the budget and that the Department has been left with a budget not sufficient to replace the Economic Development Director at a level commensurate with the Mayor's vision for this critical function. It is the recommendation of the Mayor, Administration, and the Director of Development Services that we appropriate $98,431 from the General Fund balance to the Department of Development Services to adequately fund the economic development functions of the City. As we prepare for the FY2021 budget, we will look for ways to fund the position on an ongoing and sustainable basis. This is growing the city government, but I believe that the City is to the point that we need an Assistant CAO (which caused this hole that needs to be filled). Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. This is also an important component for succession and continuity in the Administration.
13. A discussion regarding updates to Title 18 of City Code Including Associated Drainage Manual and Management Program. (19-109)
    The stormwater design manual has not been updated since 1986. This manual, along with the city stormwater management program and illicit discharge detection and elimination manual, are adopted into Title 18 by reference. The Public Works Stormwater team proposes updates to these manuals and other wording contained within Title 18. The documents look good to me, but there is a whole lot there. If I could participate in the presentation, I would ask if they felt that the updates contain any substantial changes to policy or practice. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 12, 2019. This a good update with a few good policy changes.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

14. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Provo City Code to identify zones where cannabis production is permitted. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190365)
    With a mandate from the State of Utah requiring that cannabis production establishments be allowed in all agricultural and industrial zones—unless the City acts to establish at least one (1) agricultural zone and one (1) industrial zone that permits such use—and an inquiry from the public regarding where such use can be conducted in the City, staff believes it is important for the City to consider where this use should be permitted within City boundaries.
    
    Staff notes the relative newness of the legal, medicinal use of cannabis in Utah and Provo City, as well as the laws for such. Further, approximately 50-percent of the land within the City lies in either an agricultural or industrial zone. It is staff’s opinion that the City should begin administering the use by permitting it in one (1) agricultural zone and one (1) industrial zone, only, with the idea that the City would consider cannabis production establishments in other zones through applicant initiated applications.
    
    If approved, this text amendment would permit cannabis production facilities in the A1.10 (Agricultural) Zone and the FI (Freeway Industrial) Zone. The A1.10 Zone requires a minimum parcel/lot size of 10 acres. Nearly all of the A1.10 zoned land is located near the airport (north and east of it). Currently, the cultivation of crops is a permitted use in the A1.10 Zone. All of the FI zoned land is located on the west side of I-15 on the very north end of the City. The minimum parcel/lot size in the FI Zone is 10,000 SF. Currently, drug related uses (e.g., manufacturing of medicinal chemicals or analgesics manufacturing) are conditionally permitted in the FI Zone. There is a combined total of approximately 480 acres of land in the A1.10 and FI Zone. The proposal also includes a definition of cannabis production establishment, which definition reads essentially the same as the definition for such in Subsection 4-41a-102(7) of the Utah Code.
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval. I am not comfortable with the tension between State and Federal law regarding cannabis. I support taking the bare minimum steps to comply with the State and to minimize our exposure and maximize the protection of our community. This proposal seems like a reasonable course of action to do just that. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The presentation and discussion went as I expected and described in the preview.
15. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify development landscaping requirements and allow for xeriscape. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190280)
    The Community Development Department has proposed to amend the Development Landscaping Requirements (15.20), Permissible Lot Coverage (14.10.120) and Illustrations (14.06.030). These amendments are to further the goals and objectives of the General Plan. One goal from the General Plan is to encourage xeric landscaping around the perimeter of residential projects. Staff has identified that additional standards to the aforementioned sections of Provo City Code would provide aid in community beautification and enforcement of code regulations. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support this effort and the proposal seems reasonable to me. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. When done poorly, xeriscaping looks bad, detracts from the surrounding area, and gives water conservation a bad name. When done well, it is good for the community in multiple ways. This code update clarifies what is allowed in the City.
16. A discussion on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 11.87 acres of real property generally located at 1400 S State Street from Residential (R1.10) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190154)
    John Kollman is requesting zone change approval from R1.10 to MDR for land between South State Street and the railroad tracks, and between 1320 South and 1512 South. The concept plan for this zone change consists of thirteen, four-story buildings with sixteen units each and a total of 470 parking stalls. The concept also shows a total of 29,672 square feet of open space, or about twelve percent of the gross floor area of the project. Approval of the zone change will require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a full project plan, showing that it will meet all code requirements associated with the MDR zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm not wild about the site plan. I don't think higher-density has to look like we are warehousing people. But I'm not the target demographic, so perhaps this is what some people are looking for. I wonder, though, if one of the reasons YSPs have congregated in some of the HOAs that they have is because they were looking more for a more homey feel than apartment towers scattered around a parcel, surrounded by parking lots.
    
    Oh well, despite my aversion to the aesthetics, I support the proposal, and hope the professionals have a better read on this than I do. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. After the presentation, I'm still in support of the proposal and still not a fan of the look and layout.
17. A discussion regarding a PRO Zone rezone and accompanying ordinance text amendment for one acre of property generally located at 385 N 500 W. Dixon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293 and PLOTA2018292)
    This item is the requested rezoning of approximately 0.91 acres (1/4 of the block) from the RC to the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use PRO Zone. The creation of that PRO zone is being presented in a preceding item. The property is currently zoned RC Residential Conservation. The Timpanogos Elementary School is located directly to the north of the McClean properties. To the east, across 500 West, is an RC Zone, mostly consisting of residential uses. Directly to the south the property is zone PO Professional Office, and is developed with an office building. To the southwest are the Dixon Place townhomes that are within an MDR Medium Density Residential zone. And, to the west the property borders an R1.6A area, with the closest dwelling being a duplex fronting on 400 North. In the R1.6A area, only one other dwelling is as close as 50 feet to the McClean property, with the others being over 100 feet away. The existing uses on the properties to be rezoned include a duplex, a six-unit apartment building, and a medical clinic. The medical clinic also includes five legal residential units in its basement. The intent of the proposed rezoning would be to allow an additional six-unit apartment building on the site. As with the existing six-unit apartment building, the new building would include six, two-bedroom units.
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval. The subject property is on my block. The applicant has done a great job over the years managing and maintaining the apartments that are already on the property. This gives me greater confidence that even with the requested densification this property will be a net benefit to the area. There always is the fear that the property will change hands and may not always be so well managed.
    
    I support the proposal, but don't consider it a routine request and I think that it should receive a second hearing to allow the neighbors the full chance to review the final proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The discussion mirrored my preview.



A discussion regarding updates to Title 18 of City Code Including Associated Drainage Manual and Management Program. (19-109)

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, October 29, 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 requesting the recertification of the Provo City Justice Court by the Utah Judicial Council. (19-112)
   Utah State Code requires Justice Courts to be recertified at the end of each four-year term. The current term of the Provo City Justice Court will expire in February 2020. I have no concerns. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. The Provo City Justice Court is the prime example in the State for how a Justice Court should operate.
2. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council authorizing the acceptance of a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for the Airport. (19-087)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #2 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. This is part of the State participation in the Airport Terminal build.
3. A resolution appropriating $98,432 in the General Fund for an Economic Development Director position in the Development Services Department. (19-111)
   This was item 12 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #12 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #12 in the Work Meeting.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Section 3.08.010 (Officials' Oaths and Bonds Required). (19-113)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #6 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #6 in the Work Meeting.
5. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to identify zones where cannabis production is permitted. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190365)
   This was item 14 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #14 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #14 in the Work Meeting.
6. A public hearing regarding the creation of a permit parking area at approximately 1625 North 300 West in the Carterville Neighborhood. (19-108)
   This public hearing is the first step in the process to study the creation of a permit parking area in the Carterville Neighborhood. A petition was initiated by Jim Gale regarding an area around 1625 North 300 West. I support initiating the study. I hope the applicants have realistic expectations about what is possible. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. The applicants did a good job talking with the residents in the area and in explaining the problem.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify development landscaping requirements and allow for xeriscape. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190280)
   This was item 15 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #15 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I'm grateful to Community and Neighborhood Services for their work on this code. We now have a strong, clear code on water-wise landscaping.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 11.87 acres of real property generally located at 1400 S State Street from Residential (R1.10) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190154)
   This was item 16 on the work meeting agenda See my preview of item #15 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I hope we don't look back at this approval with regret. Higher-density developments don't have to look like we are warehousing, "all the people coming to Provo". I assumed that this project would be geared toward the Young SIngle Professionals, but I'm not sure they are taking advantage of the allowances we are giving.
9. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to clarify that electronic display and animated signs are prohibited in Agricultural and Residential zones. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190351)
   The Provo City Department of Development Services is requesting a text amendment to Section 14.38.010, to add a clarification that Electronic Display and Animated Signs are prohibited in agricultural and residential zones. Although the prohibition can be understood from language in other sections of the ordinance, staff believes making the prohibition explicit in Section 14.38.010 reduces possible confusion that might occur without the change. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support this. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. Simple code cleanup.
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately one acre of property, generally located at the 385 N 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293)
    This was item 17 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #17 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. "Continued per Council rules" refers to our practice that land-use items generally get two hearings, unless they are entirely routine matters. We have created a rule that the item gets continued if even one Councilor asks for it.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.50 to establish the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180292)
    This was item 17 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #17 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. See my previous report.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Planning Commission approval of reductions in required parking, including for multi-family residential uses. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
    The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of Section 14.37.050 of the Provo City Code, relating to Reduction in Off-street Parking Requirements to remove the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and to allow residential developments to apply for a reduction in off-street parking requirements based on a Transportation Demand Management plan approved by the Planning Commission in a Project Plan application. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my preview of item #1 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. I'm comfortable that this change will be a win-win-win for both the community, the future residents of the developments, and the developers. Not all of my colleagues are as comfortable with it. I do support a second hearing because this definitely isn't routine.
13. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Commercial (C) to Residential (R). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
    The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Commercial, but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires a change in the designation from Commercial to Residential. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. It seemed like the developer and residents were not that far apart at the last meeting, particularly from where they started. I sure hope that they were able to come to an agreement. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. It seemed like the developer and residents were not that far apart at the last meeting, particularly from where they started. I sure hope that they were able to come to an agreement.
14. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
    The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current zoning designation for the site is Public Facilities (PF), but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires rezoning the property to a zone that allows that use. The applicant’s proposal consists of developing 120, one-bedroom units to help meet the demand for housing in the area. The project site is located at the intersection of Canyon Road and Stadium Avenue in northeast Provo, in the Pleasant View Neighborhood. The proposal to develop 120 units will require a zone change from the current PF Zone to a zone that will allow for multi-family, stacked units. The applicant has requested to rezone the property Campus Mixed Use (CMU) which allows for apartments or condominiums and has a height limit of 75 feet. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Surrounding zoning designations include R1.8A and R1.8S north and east of the property, PF for the institutional uses to the south, and RC and R4 for the apartments immediately west and north of the site. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. See the above preview. A motion to substitute for the implied motion the version of the ordinance with the development agreement, and the revised and executed development agreement as the exhibit, was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I support the rezone and feel that this will be a good use for this corner of the intersection.
15. ***CONTINUED*** Provo City Com Dev Dept requests amendments to Sec 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
    This was not ready to be heard.
16. ***CONTINUED*** Provo City Public Works Department requests amendments to Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2019 standards to 2020 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190366)
    This was not ready to be heard.
17. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests approval of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Plan, which is an update to the existing plan. City-wide. PLGPA20190194
    This was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment