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
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
Business
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
A discussion regarding updates to Title 18 of City Code Including Associated Drainage Manual and Management Program. (19-109)
Adjournment
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda
5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 29, 2019
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - ***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. - ***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. - ***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.
No comments:
Post a Comment