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