Council Meetings - 15 December 2020

The biggest theme for tomorrow seems to be development, but I'm most excited to talk about Ranked Choice Voting.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Business

1. 
   A presentation from BYU regarding COVID-19 updates. (20-250)
   Mike Roberts, the new Managing Director of Alumni and External Relations, will introduce himself and update the Council about BYU's fall status and winter plans for managing COVID-19. There was a large surge of BYU-community cases when they first opened up in Fall. I was very impressed with the efforts that the BYU administration undertook to get things under control, and they have been a great partner. This should be a good discussion about what everyone learned from that experience and how to apply what was learned to the start of the Winter term. Presentation only. We are all hoping for and preparing for a smoother transition when the students return to campus at the start of the new year.
2. A discussion regarding Provo's parking policies and future growth. (20-247)
   Provo's current approach to parking will likely not be sustainable in the future as Provo's population continues to grow. Community and Neighborhood Services Director Gary McGinn will address some of these concerns and opportunities. Provo's approach to parking is something that I have been heavily involved in the last couple of years with studying and working on proposals for changes. I've very interested to hear this presentation. Presentation only. It was great to hear the Director talk about these important principles. We've been grappling with determining the best way to move forward on some specific parking aspects in committee, so it was great to take a step back and talk about the broader principles and realize that we really agree on just about everything at this level.
3. A presentation regarding the Economic Development's new approach to data analysis. (20-254)
   The Council has expressed the desire for a more data-driven approach to economic development. The Economic Development Department has worked on this and just finalized a contract with a nationally recognized company, Buxton, to provide very rich data analysis and resources. It's good to have data to guide decisions, but we also need to understand what we value as a community, what we are trying to accomplish, and the trade-offs we make to pursue those goals. Presentation only. It was a good discussion of the material presented in the document packet that I previewed.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow more options for conducting Neighborhood Chair elections. (20-253)
   Provo City Code 2.29.030 requires that those voting in the election of a Neighborhood Chair and Vice Chair(s) be present in person at the neighborhood meeting where the election is being held. Current pandemic conditions have restricted in-person gatherings in the interest of safety and health. There are some neighborhoods with Neighborhood Chair vacancies and others where the Chair's term has expired. Neighborhood meetings have moved entirely online now that it is too cold for an outdoor meeting option. An adjustment to the City Code is needed to allow the elections to be held in an online meeting. This is also an opportunity to establish a consistent set of rules to guide the elections. The Neighborhood Advisory Board met November 23, 2020, to review the proposed amendment and gave a unanimous recommendation to bring it to the Municipal Council for approval. I serve on the committee that recommended these changes, and I fully support the proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. See my report for item 4 in the eveing meeting.
5. A presentation from the Sign Committee regarding proposed code amendments. (20-101)
   The Sign Committee will make two proposals in addition to their recent proposal about digital sign hold times:
   • Prohibit digital signs in the Historic Downtown, all PRO Zones, the Special Development Plan (SDP) Overlay Zone and possibly in other primarily residential zones (in addition to the A, RA, RC, R1, R2 zones where they are already prohibited and the VLDR, LDR, MDR, HDR that the committee has already proposed).
   • Replace the graph showing permitted maximum sign sizes with a table that would be easier to interpret.
   I appreciate the Sign Committee's work on this thorny issue. I still have not become comfortable with some of the proposed changes and the rationale behind them. Presentation only. I support the specific aspects that we discussed in this meeting.
6. A discussion regarding ranked-choice voting. (20-113)
   In 2018, the Utah State Legislature approved the creation of a ranked choice voting (RCV) pilot program. RCV is an election method where voters rank their preferred candidates. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes in the top ranking, the votes from the candidate in last place move to those voters’ second choices. The process continues until a candidate has received a majority. In the Work Meeting on August 18, 2020 Stan Lockhart from Utah Ranked Choice Voting made a presentation to the Council about RCV. This is a follow up to that meeting to discuss the merits of RCV. "I strongly support moving to Ranked Choice Voting. Our current voting system has some significant flaws and I believe it bears some of the blame for the current state of politics in our country. The version authorized by the State, also known as instant run-off voting, has some downsides, but all of these downsides are shared by our current system. IRV has some advantages over the current system like eliminating the ""spoiler effect"" and promoting civility in campaigning. Also, though I support properly funding our elections, IRV can cut the costs of our elections in half by eliminating the need for a primary." Presentation only. I was surprised to see the opposition to RCV. We'll have to see if we can address the concerns raised and possibly work with the legislature if we need more flexibility.
7. A resolution appropriating a combined $134,000 in the General Fund for a wildland mitigation program, a behavioral-health services provider, and a continuity of operations plan. (20-252)
   The Provo City Fire Department requests that an appropriation to the General Fund be approved for a combined $134,000. The appropriation includes $45,000 for a wildland mitigation program, $79,000 for public safety behavioral-health services, and $10,000 for a continuity of operations plan. The appropriations would be funded using fiscal year 2021 wildland fire response revenues. "When our firefighters travel to help other communities facing wildfires, our department gets reimbursed beyond the extra costs we incur. This is what is meant by ""wildland fire response revenues."" I'd be fine with them requesting the money be used for steak dinners for all the firefighters and their families. Instead, the department asks to use only part of the money and for things that will make the whole community safer." Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. See my report in the evening Council Meeting.
8. A discussion regarding the reconsideration of land use patterns near State Street in southeast Provo. (20-255)
   A consideration of the future land use map update to accommodate Council objectives will be presented. I haven't seen the proposal. I can support small tweaks and corrections to the current policy, or applications of new tools to better achieve the direction adopted 3 years ago after even more years of effort and substantial stakeholder input. If we are talking about changing the vision of the plan, then I would expect that we undertake a similar level of public outreach as we did when the plan was adopted. A motion to request that staff address the stated concerns in the Southeast Area Plan and bring a proposal through to the Planning Commission, and subsequently the Council, was approved 7:0. With all the other areas in Provo still waiting to get some master plan attention from our professional planners, it seems unfortunate that we are revisiting a plan that is only a few years old. But there is a lot of development going on in this area right now and we want to get it right.
9. A discussion regarding a Lease Agreement and a Joint Development Agreement with PEG Development. (20-248, 20-249)
   The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has been working to develop additional office space and parking in the downtown area. PEG has been through the development approval process and has had the development approved. Their construction financier requires that at least 60% of the proposed office space be committed by leases prior to releasing the funds for construction. PEG has asked the RDA to lease the space with the understanding they will continue to look for alternative office users prior to the RDA taking possession of the premises. The RDA has been working to increase the sustainability and attractiveness of downtown Provo by encouraging additional commercial development and by acquiring and holding property. The RDA worked with PEG to effectuate the development of the State Court facility and PEG Is now ready to add to the continued enrichment of downtown Provo by constructing a new office complex and ancillary structure parking that will be available for public use. The attached Joint Development Agreement will facilitate that construction. We previously agreed to the deal in principle. Now we are being presented with the actual legal documents. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. See my report in the evening Council Meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

"
10. 
    An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
    " "This item was considered, and ultimately continued, at the November 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission asked staff to provide information relative to the following: (1) Commercial development underperformance in the South State area and (2) demographic and housing stock data. The Planning Commission expressed the sentiment that commercial development is not thriving in the South State Street area of the City and requested additional information. Speaking of the current commercially zoned property on South State between 900 South and 1860 South, most of it is for heavy commercial (CM Zone) uses. There is approximately 10 acres of land zoned SC2 (Community Shopping Center) and approximately 3.5 acres zoned SC1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center). The property in the SC2 Zone has been in said zone since about 2001 and has yet to develop. The property zoned SC1 has been zoned such since 1998 and a portion of it was developed in 2013 for a gas station. Planning Commission recommended approval." I have a few questions about the discussion on the commercial viability of the land zoned for shopping centers. None of that land appears to be part of this proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. See my report in the evening Council Meeting.
"
11. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 5.33 acres of property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) and Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
    " "The subject property lies on South State, just north of the intersection of State Street and Lakeview Parkway (1860 South). It is bordered on the north and east by vacant land that is the subject of a sizable medium density residential project (204 units). A railway lies to the west of the property. The Provo City Transportation Master Plan 2020, Major and Local Street Plan calls for a future collector to run parallel with, and east of, the railway. The land west of the subject property lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an industrial zoning designation. Some of the land to the south also lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an agricultural/residential designation. A portion of the land to the south lies within the city boundaries and has an A1.5 zoning designation. The subject land is in a high-water table area and the National Wetlands Inventory Mapper shows potential wetlands on the property. Portions of the subject property (new construction, etc., which are located within one hundred [100] feet of South State Street) lies in the South State Street Design Corridor. This Design Corridor has a set of design standards to, among other things, “promote attractive development” and “attract customers to businesses.” Planning Commission recommended denial." Perhaps this is where the analysis of the viability of shopping centers comes in. I don't feel like I need to decide if a community shopping center would be viable. The developer has all the incentive to figure that out before building something. I just need to determine if that use would be detrimental to the surrounding properties and the planned uses for this area. The plan is for this area to be MDR. The previous item proposes MDR uses all around this subject property. So would it be better not to allow this property to be rezoned SC2 and wait for a proposal for it to become MDR? Or does SC2 at the property compliment the surrounding MDR uses? ***CONTINUED***



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) by the Provo City Finance Division and HBME. (20-251)
   This will be our first full look at the outcomes of the fiscal year 2019/2020. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, preliminary reports suggest that we weathered the year reasonably well. Presentation only. With quick responses and long-term fiscal restraint, we weathered the first several months of the pandemic quite well, financially.
   
   

   Public Comment

   "Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.
   
   " Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.
   
   

   Action Agenda

2. A resolution appropriating a combined $134,000 in the General Fund for a wildland mitigation program, a behavioral-health services provider, and a continuity of operations plan. (20-252)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. We have a well-run Fire Department staffed with community heros. These funds come from revenue generated by our teams helping with wildfires in other states. These programs will help us take care of the mental health needs of our first-responders and will improve the safety in our City.
3. A resolution transferring $235,000 from the General Fund to the Golf Fund. (20-245)
   The Golf Fund suffered operating losses during and as a result of a combination of events that had a negative impact on operations, namely, the golf course hole realignment construction project and the COVID-19 pandemic. State Code requires the fund to have an unrestricted fund balance of at least 5% of revenues. A transfer of $235,000 from the General Fund is required to bring the Golf Fund unrestricted fund balance into compliance. "We discussed this in the work meeting two weeks ago. The State requires this transfer. As I said in my report of the item from two weeks ago, ""Parks and Recs has been the department most financially impacted by the pandemic. The Golf Course had the double whammy of being under construction. But all signs point to a better and more economically self-reliant golf course in the near future.""" Approved 7:0. This transfers the funds to meet the State requirement, but does not authorize any additional expenditures.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow more options for conducting Neighborhood Chair elections. (20-253)
   This was item 4 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. This will provide the needed flexibility during the pandemic and will also be helpful going forward.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 8.5 acres, generally located at 1724 South State Street, from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190356)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the work meeting. This item was continued for a second hearing to the Council Meeting on January 5, 2021. There is a lot to like about this proposal, but there are a few outstanding questions brought up by the public that I want to get answered before we vote.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 5.33 acres of property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) and Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
   This was item 11 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the work meeting. ***CONTINUED***




Redevelopment Agency of Provo

7. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign a lease agreement with PEG Development for office space in Downtown Provo. (20-248)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. We already had approved of this agreement in principle. Now we have approved of the actual legal language.
8. A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to sign a joint development agreement with PEG Development for the development of office space in Downtown Provo. (20-249)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. We already had approved of this agreement in principle. Now we have approved of the actual legal language.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 1 December 2020

There are a lot of items on both of the agendas for tomorrow, but none of them seem to be too controversial.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 pm, Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Business

1. A discussion regarding the preservation of Bridal Veil Falls for natural and recreational purposes. (20-246)
   Utah County Commission is considering a conservation easement for Bridal Veil Falls and will discuss the easement, along with other proposals for the county-owned property, during a public hearing on Dec. 9. I've only caught bits and pieces of the discussion going on in public right now. Apparently, the County Commission will be deciding on this in an upcoming meeting. I believe this item is to give us a chance to get up to speed on the issue and see if we want to issue a resolution in support of one position or another. A motion to place the resolution for adoption on the Council meeting that evening was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused. See my report for item 2 in the evening meeting.
2. A discussion regarding Impact Fees and how they apply to non-profit home builders of low income housing. (20-241)
   Currently, Provo charges developers impact fees for new development within the City. These fees help pay for the cost of extending service to the new development. In addition, fees also pay for new amenities for Provo such as parks and trails. Impact fees are applied to all development. There has been a request by a local non-profit group that is building low income housing for Provo to waive or reduce some of the impact fees they are being asked to pay. The administration lacks the authority to waive or reduce these fees and has asked the Council to look at current policy to determine if creating a waiver program for impact fees for low income housing is appropriate. If I understand the State law correctly, we can't just waive the fees, but have to identify the funds that will be used to cover the shortfall created by waiving the fees. We need to be thoughtful anytime we are subsidizing development to ensure the benefits stay with the public, and aren't absorbed for profit. A motion to delegate the discussion of impact fees for low-income and affordable housing to the Housing Committee for further review and recommendations was approved 6:0, with Bill Fillmore excused. I would like all of our actions subsidizing housing for below-median income people to be part of a concerted and coordinated effort. We should look at this holistically and make sure we are maximizing the impact for the tax dollars we invest and that we do it in coordination with the State and surrounding communities.
3. A presentation from Utah Strong Recovery Project regarding the resource they have available mental health. (20-242)
   Utah Strong Recovery Project is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and operated by the Utah State Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health. Its purpose is to assist people in finding ways to cope with the stressors of COVID-19 in the present and to help prevent persistent mental health problems. It's been a tough year for everybody, but more so for some than others. We often focus on the physical health impact of the virus, but there are real mental health impacts as well. I'm excited to learn more about this project and see how we can make our community aware of this resource. Presentation only. Help is available.
4. A presentation from Brigham Young University students regarding ways to make Provo more livable to students at the university. (20-243)
   Provo City Planning Supervisor Robert Mills, has been working with the BYU Provo City Lab class this past semester. As part of the class the students, with the help of Mr. Mills, will be making a presentation to the Council with some observations and possible solutions which they have researched to improve the livability of Provo to the large student population. I am also looking forward to this presentation to see what they have to report. I'm curious if they'll say anything about parking difficulties south of campus. Presentation only. I appreciated the proposals to better integrate students into the broader community through service. All stakeholders have a responsibility to do their part to improve relationships and make the community a better place.
5. A presentation regarding a proposal to rezone property located at 50 East 3900 North from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (20-244)
   Daniel LaFontaine is requesting a zone change from the R1.10 (OneFamily Residential) zone to the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone for his property at 50 East 3900 North. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. This was heard at the Council meeting on November 10, 2020. Council voted 1-6 on the motion to approve, so the item failed. This presentation is an opportunity to hear from the applicant since he had technical difficulties when trying to get into the online meeting in November. There have been some hiccups with the move to online meetings. The Council has tried to be as accommodating as possible, and this item ensures the applicant has an opportunity to address the Council. A motion to authorize the Council Chair to place a consideration of a rezone to VLDR on the agenda within the next two months if the applicant wished to amend the proposal was approved 7:0. I personally thought that VLDR is the right zone for this area, whether the current owner wants to proceed with a compliant development or not.



Administration

6. A discussion regarding a resolution transferring $235,000 from the General Fund to the Golf Fund to compensate for Golf Fund operating losses. (20-245)
   The Golf Fund suffered operating losses during and as a result of a combination of events that had a negative impact on operations, namely, the golf course hole realignment construction project and the COVID-19 pandemic. State Code requires the fund to have an unrestricted fund balance of at least 5% of revenues. A transfer of $235,000 from the General Fund is required to bring the Golf Fund unrestricted fund balance into compliance. I'm not too concerned about this. Our Parks and Rec Department has a long track record of managing the facilities responsibly. Between the pandemic and the construction taking place on the course, this was expected. I do have one question about the source of the funding. Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. Parks and Recs has been the department most financially impacted by the pandemic. The Golf Course had the double whammy of being under construction. But all signs point to a better and more economically self-reliant golf course in the near future.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses in the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1), Community Shopping Center (SC2), And Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zones and related provision. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190429)
   The Community and Neighborhood Services Department has proposed to amend Title 14 of the Provo City Code to consolidate the permitted uses and shift multiple conditional uses to permitted uses in the SC1 – Neighborhood Shopping Center (14.18), SC2 – Community Shopping Center (14.19), and SC3 – Regional Shopping Center (14.20) zones. Within the permitted and conditional uses in each zone there is a four- digit number attached to the land use type. Planning Commission recommended approval. There are two main aspects to this proposal. First, conditional land uses are being treated more coherently, with actual conditions listed. Second, the list of permitted and conditional uses has been reviewed and some tweaks are proposed to better align the selected uses with the purpose of these zones. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 3 in the evening meeting.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to enact the Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200140)
   The Community and Neighborhood Services Department is requesting to amend the Provo City Code to add the Open Space, Preservation & Recreation (OSPR) zone as Chapter 14.33. Staff worked closely with the Parks and Recreation Department in drafting this zone. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone, however, there is a Rezone application on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department to use this zone in rezoning various properties. The proposed zone would have a minimal impact on a neighborhood due to the nature of the zone. The purpose of the zone is to protect the current and future open space within Provo City. Open space includes parks, golf courses, recreational fields, sensitive lands and others. Currently Provo City parks are zoned Public Facilities (14.17). This zone includes parks as a permitted use, but it also includes many other uses that are unrelated to open space. Theoretically, the City could place a sewage pumping station, which is permitted in the Public Facilities zone, where a current City park is located such as Rotary Park and it would be allowed. The likelihood of this happening is extremely low. Creating the OSPR zone allows the future rezoning of parks, golf courses, recreational fields, sensitive lands, and others to be rezoned to a zone that protects them from future development and promotes these areas as a feature of the community. Planning Commission recommended approval. Currently, we use the same zone designation (Public Facilities Zone) for uses as diverse as schools, parks, and utilities. This proposal would create a separate zone for parks, trailheads, and the like. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 4 in the evening meeting.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx 1,291 acres of property located within the boundaries of Provo City, from various zone classifications to Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR). Citywide Application. (PLRZ20200265)
   The Community and Neighborhood Services Department is requesting to rezone various parcels to the proposed Open Space, Preservation & Recreation (OSPR) zone (14.33). Staff has worked closely with the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Ombudsman in compiling the list of parcels to be rezoned. There is no proposed development requesting to utilize this zone; however, there is an Ordinance Text Amendment application on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department to adopt the OSPR zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. There are 104 properties proposed to be rezoned in the new OSPR zone. All of them would be compliant with the requirements of the new zone. One hundred three of them are owned by Provo City, and the US Government owns the other one. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo General Plan Sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 related to the Key Land Use Policies (North Area Guiding Principles) And Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200357)
    Community and Neighborhood Services Department is requesting to amend the key land use policies in the General Plan related to the Northeast Area Guiding Principles, Policies, and Goals; as well as, the Annexation Policy Plan to include guidance on how to apply the proposed Open Space, Preservation, and Recreation (OSPR) zone being considered. Staff has been working closely with the Parks and Recreation Department to draft the proposed OSPR zone. At the same time, Staff has also been working closely with the Council’s Hillside Committee to address concerns related to future use of areas in Provo’s east hillside areas. In those discussions, the concept of the proposed OSPR zone was introduced has been considered as a key tool in managing property that may come into Provo City in the future because of annexation. Working with the council committee was very helpful to determine that areas slated for possible future annexation that are in the northeast should only be brought into the city as OSPR designated property. The committee determined that properties that are privately held should be included in Area Five and properties that are publicly held should be included in Area Six of the Annexation Policy Plan. Doing so clearly communicates to landowners and future decision makers the intent of the City to retain those areas for open space preservation and recreational opportunities. Traditional residential development is discouraged in those areas. Planning Commission recommended approval. There are a few questions that I want to discuss before deciding on this issue. We must always think through the potential unintended consequences. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove references to “Community Development Director.” Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200310)
    In a restructuring of Provo City departments, the Community Development Department was eliminated and the duties incorporated into two newly created departments. This amendment changes all references to “Community Development” to reference the Community and Neighborhood Services or Development Services department instead, according to their separate duties. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is simply a code clean-up proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 7 in the evening meeting.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify spacing requirements for accessory structures in the Residential Conservation Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200291)
    The requirement for spacing between the main dwelling and an accessory structure in the Residential Conservation (RC) zone is not clear and appears to imply that the structures would need to be twenty feet apart. Most of the properties in the RC zone are on smaller lots and would not be able to have an accessory structure if they had to be twenty feet back from the main dwelling. Staff analyzed this and determined that this twenty foot requirement couldn’t have been the intent and that this proposed change was needed to clarify what the requirement should be for spacing between the main dwelling and an accessory structure. In determining what the spacing requirement should be staff looked at the R1 zone requirements. The R1 zones have a six foot setback requirement between the main dwelling and the accessory building. Planning Commission recommended approval. I think this is also a simple matter of code clean-up, but it does raise a question for me. Are accessory apartments allowed to be built in areas of a yard where the main structure can not go? And if so, do we want this to be the case? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 8 in the evening meeting.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 590 West 300 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200287)
    The applicant owns a lot with a single-family home and an attached shop located at 590 W 300 S. This property is located in the RC Zone. The applicant has submitted a subdivision plat to split the existing lot into two lots subject to this rezone to VLDR being approved. The existing shop addition on the existing home is located over what would be the new lot line. The applicant will remove the shop to allow for the existing home to meet the setback requirements of the new zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support this request but am saddened that the "shop" will be removed. There is a similar building in Joaquin Neighborhood that is now being used by the Provo Bicycle Collective. At least some of these buildings were originally built a small, corner grocery stores. I would love to see them used as small grocery stores again in the future. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 9 in the evening meeting.
14. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.6 acres of real property, generally located at 34 S 2530 W, from Agricultural (A1) to Residential (R1.8). Provo Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200156)
    The applicant would like to rezone this property from agricultural to residential to allow for a fifteen-lot single-family subdivision. A concept plan application was submitted with the rezone application. The General Plan and the Southwest Area Future Land Use Map would not need to be amended as they show that the desired land use for the property is residential and not agricultural. The surrounding land uses in the area immediately around the subject property are zoned for R1.8, which is what the applicant is requesting for his property and A1.1, which is what the property is currently zoned. Planning Commission recommended approval. This looks to fit the plan for the area. I wish we had the mixed housing zones ready. My only question is what steps will be taken to ensure interconnectivity in the block. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 10 in the evening meeting.
15. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.91 acres of real property, generally located at 1555 North Canyon Road, from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085)
    Paul Washburn, an agent for the property owner, is requesting a zone change from the CG zone to the CMU zone for the conversion of a motel to residential units at 1555 N Canyon Road. This request has an associated project plan proposal and a General Plan map amendment from commercial to residential. The proposal shows converting the motel rooms to residential units, with 96 studio units and one two-bedroom unit. This conversion would increase the parking demand for the site from the existing 104 parking stalls to 147 parking stalls. In addition to a change in parking, the landscaping would need to be updated and added-to to meet current codes of the proposed CMU zone. In addition to the parking and landscaping demands the project would have, there are design standards in the CMU zone that the current building does not meet, and the proposal does not show addressing. The “findings of fact” section notes all of the code deficiencies described in these paragraphs. Planning Commission recommended denial. This is a bit odd as the Planning Commission first recommended denial of the rezone, but approved the project plan that is contingent upon the rezone. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 11 in the evening meeting.
16. An ordinance amending General Plan Map Designation of property located at 1555 N Canyon Road from Commercial to Residential. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062)
    Paul Washburn, an agent for the property owner, is requesting a General Plan map amendment from commercial to residential for the conversion of a motel to residential units at 1555 N Canyon Road. This request has an associated project plan proposal and a zone map amendment from CG to CMU. The proposal shows converting the motel rooms to residential units, with 96 studio units and one two-bedroom unit. This conversion would increase the parking demand for the site from the existing 104 parking stalls to 147 parking stalls. In addition to a change in parking, the landscaping would need to be updated and added-to to meet current codes of the proposed CMU zone. In addition to the parking and landscaping demands the project would have, there are design standards in the CMU zone that the current building does not meet, and the proposal does not show addressing. The “findings of fact” section notes all of the code deficiencies described in these paragraphs. Lastly, the provided TDM plan refers to 93 residential units and 104 parking stalls when it evaluates the validity of the transportation strategies. This does not match the proposed plans of 97 residential units and 96 parking stalls. These differences in numbers call into question how viable the project can be at the reduced parking count. Planning Commission recommended denial. This item is related to the last one. The General Plan map calls for this property to be Commercial, but the proposal would require it to be redesignated for residental. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on December 1, 2020. See my report for item 12 in the evening meeting.
17. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11 acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center Street, from Community Shopping Center (SC2) to Neigh. Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
    The Provo City Development Services department is requesting a zone change from the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC2) zone to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1) for four parcels of land around 1920 West Center Street. The subject property was zoned SC2 approximately 20 years ago for a grocery store. Citizens filed a lawsuit to challenge the zone change and the grocery store was never built. Within the subject property the Dell Cox Family Partnership own 5.5 acres. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers holds a lease on the Cox property and they own the remaining property. A west-side grocery store is a priority to the city administration and to the citizens of west Provo. The current SC2 zone has had a stifling effect on obtaining a west-side store. Potential grocers are hesitant to move forward with a store if a competing store could be built on the subject property. The city staff has spent years encouraging the property owner to move forward with a grocery store. Since it is apparent a grocery store is not going to happen on the subject property, it is in the city’s interest to rezone the subject property so a grocery store may be located elsewhere on the west side. Planning Commission recommended approval. We've been waiting for 20 years and this has been a continual discussion for the years I've been on or closely paying attention to the Council. In some ways, this is a fairly drastic step; in others, not so much. But one thing this is not is rushed. We would love for the landowners to build a grocery store here. If they have no intention to do so, then it is appropriate to rezone the land to accommodate something that will be built. This item was continued prior to the meeting.



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, December 1, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Consent Agenda

Consent agenda items are approved together instead of as individual items. It is reserved for the more routine things on the agenda that don’t need discussion. Items can be removed from the consent agenda if discussion is needed.
1. A resolution adopting the 2021 Council regular meeting schedule. (20-145)
   Annual adoption of the next year’s meeting schedule. Next year's meeting schedule fell into place nicely. Usually there are more conflicts and it is harder to uniformly space out the meetings. All items on the consent agenda were approved 7:0. Usually, it makes more sense to have more than one item on the Consent Agenda.
   
   

   Action Agenda

2. A resolution supporting the preservation of Bridal Veil Fall for natural scenic and recreational purposes. (20-246)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. By passing the resolution the Provo City Council is showing their support to maintain Bridal Veil Falls in its natural state for the enjoyment of Provo City and Utah County residents and the countless visitors who come to see Bridal Veil Falls. See my preview for item 1 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. I personally would have liked to have been less specific about the action we wanted to see. I think it would have been better to focus more on the principles and leave the details of implementation up to the Commission.
3. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses in the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1), Community Shopping Center (SC2), And Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zones and related provision. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190429)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. It has taken months and a lot of work, but I'm glad we finally got this one over the finish line.
4. An ordinance Amending Provo City Code to enact The Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200140)
   This was item 8 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 8 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. Our parks and open space were lumped into the same zone as our schools, universities, and public utilities (like substations). With this new zone, and its application to almost 1,300 acres of land in the next item, our parks and open space has its own zone.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approx. 1,291 acres of real property located within the boundaries of Provo City, from various zone classifications to Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR). Citywide Impact. (PLRZ20200265)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. See my report for the previous item.
6. An ordinance amending Provo General Plan Sections 1.2.9 And 1.2.10 Related to the Key Land Use Policies (North Area Guiding Principles) And Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation. Citywide Application. (PLGPA20200357)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. Previously, our policy was to automatically zone all newly annexed land to A1.20, meaning agricultural use with no more than one residential structure per 20 acres. This was done because this was our least dense zone, and plans to use the land more intensely would need to be approved by the Council. The new OSPR zone is less dense and is the new default.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove references to “Community Development Director.” Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200310)
   This was item 11 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. Simple code cleanup.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify spacing requirements for accessory structures in Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200291)
   This was item 12 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 12 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. Also a simple code clarification.
9. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 590 West 300 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200287)
   This was item 13 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 13 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. This will be good in-fill, but it is too bad that an existing building that could have functioned as a neighborhood market will be removed.
10. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 4.6 acres of real property, generally located at 34 S 2530 W, from Agricultural (A1) to Residential (R1.8). Provo Bay Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200156)
    This was item 14 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 14 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. The interconnectivity concerns I had were addressed.
11. An ordinance amending the General Plan Map Designation of real property located at 1555 N Canyon Road from Commercial to Residential. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20200062)
    This was item 16 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 16 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. I appreciate the changes that were made to the proposal to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and to bring it into compliance with the requested zone. This will be a significant upgrade to this property.
12. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.91 acres of real property, generally located at 1555 North Canyon Road, from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200085)
    This was item 15 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 15 in the work meeting. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approx. 11 acres of real property, located at 1920 W Center Street, from Community Shopping Center (SC2) to Neigh. Shopping Center (SC1) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Fort Utah Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200282)
    This was item 17 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 17 in the work meeting. This was continued shortly before the meetings.
14. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhood Services Dpt requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to correct and update non-substantive references in Titles 6, 14, and 15 of the Provo City Code for improved clarity. Citywide application PLOTA20200309
    This item was not ready to be heard.
15. ***CONTINUED*** Rezoning of approx. 8.5 acres from CM, RA, R1.6, R1.10, and A1.5 to the MDR Zone, to facilitate the construction of 204 dwelling units, located at approx. 1724 S. State Street. Spring Creek Neighborhood PLRZ20190356
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 November 2020

The Planning Commission has been "continuing" several items over the past few meetings. Which made for lighter council meetings. Until this time, when the log jam appears to have been broken. The support documents for the Work Meeting hit 746 pages, and the packet for the Council Meeting weighs in at 853. They were pretty brutal to slog through. I was hoping to respond to more email, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get to that before the meetings begin tomorrow. But I do read every one.

Most of the hot topics in this set of meetings are fairly localized, development or parking permit proposals that only ignite the passion of people who live nearby. The discussion on electronic signs is the only one that strikes me as having broader interest.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, November 20, 2020

Business

1. 
   A resolution appointing an audit firm. (20-239)
   In 2016, the Municipal Council appointed Hansen Bradshaw Malmrose and Erickson (now known as HBME) following a RFP process that received eight proposals. HBME has, pre-emptory to an expected RFP process in the new year, proffered a three-year extension at a $5,000 discount from FY2020's $47,000 audit fee. The proposed fees are $42,000 for the financial audit, statement preparation, and single audit for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2021, June 30, 2022, and June 30, 2023, the same rate paid for FY2016. Staff believe this to be a good offer, worthy of consideration. Normally, we would put the audit to RFP every three to five years, we have asked on behalf of the Council for exemption from the City's purchasing policies (see Compatibility section below) to be allowed to proceed. If it chooses to do so, the Council will need to formalize the appointment by resolution Generally, it is good practice to go out for bids. Our current auditing team offered a contract extension at a good discount. With the in-person complications due to the pandemic, there are good reasons to consider this extension before going out for additional bids. The decision is being made in public for transparency. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
2. An update on Utah Valley Hospital. (20-237)
   Kyle Hansen, Utah Valley Hospital Administrator, and Janet Frank, Media Manager, are making a presentation to the Council about the activities at the hospital during the last year. There is not any additional information on this one. It looks to be a simple update as the hospital nears the completion of its expansion and rebuild. I've appreciated the collaborative and communicative approach that Intermountain Healthcare has taken. Presentation only.
3. A presentation on Carterville Parking Permit Program (19-108)
   Carterville resident Mary Gale has requested that a new Residential Parking Permit Program be created in the Carterville Neighborhood on 300 West from Cougar Boulevard to 1625 North, 380 West from 1300 North to 1500 North, 1300 North from 300 West to 380 West, 1500 North from 380 West to 300 West, and 1625 North from 300 West to Freedom Boulevard. On October 9, 2019, Provo City Council directed the Community and Neighborhood Services Department to study this proposal and recommend action.
   Staff recommendation to not approve parking permit expansion proposal; continue to monitor area for other potential parking regulations. I have so many thoughts on this item I don't know where to begin. One of the ideas suggested is changing our code to allow off-premise shared parking for residential properties. There is merit to the argument, but it doesn't apply in this case. There is nothing in our code that prevents shared parking; it just can't be used to meet the parking minimums that apply when projects are built. I agree with the recommendation that a traditional permit program is not a good fit for the parking congestion seen in this area, but there are other options. Presentation only. The Council may schedule a public hearing at a future date.
4. A presentation on Slate Canyon Drive parking permit proposal. (18-084)
   Residents of the Provost and Provost South neighborhoods have expressed concerns over on-street parking in their neighborhoods, especially along Slate Canyon Drive. Because of these concerns, residents desire to implement a parking permit program to control on-street parking. Over 200 residents provided input regarding a permit program they hope will reduce need for zoning enforcement, reduce parking demand, and bring peace in the area. The following details provide information on the residents’ proposal.
   Because of the prohibitive annual costs of the on-street parking permit program proposed by the residents, staff suggests a phased approach of on-street parking management strategies along Slate Canyon Drive. I'd be surprised if on-street parking is more congested during the day than in the evening. Staff's counter-proposal calls for 2-hour parking limits to be enforced during the daytime. I can see how this would prevent cars from being left for multiple days, but I'm not sure it would address the heart of the matter. Presentation only. The Council may schedule a public hearing at a future date.
5. A presentation on University Gardens parking permit proposal. (20-240)
   Foothill resident Brennan Barfuss has requested that the University Garden Parking Permit Area be expanded to include 820 North from 1025 East to 900 East to prevent those who live outside the neighborhood from parking on the street. On February 4, 2020, Provo City Council directed the Community and Neighborhood Services Department to study this proposal and recommend action. This report contains our findings and recommendations. Staff recommendation is to not implement parking permit expansion proposal; continue to enforce 72-hour limit instead I have mixed feelings about this request. It seems crazy to offer four parking permits per housing unit. Also, reviewing all of these requests brings up my long-standing concern about taking publicly owned space (street shoulders), paying to pave them with public money, using public money to maintain and repair the space, and then restrict public access from the space, and reserve it to just a few members of the public who pay a fee that doesn't even cover the cost to enforce their exclusive use of the public space. Presentation only. The Council may schedule a public hearing at a future date.
6. A discussion regarding the renewal of the Urban Deer Program. (20-224)
   On July 07, 2019 Provo city entered into an agreement with Humphries Archery, LLC to provide for urban deer removal in accordance with the Urban Deer Plan approved by the Council. The contract was for one year and allowed for the city to renew the contract. The year has expired, and the Council need to make a decision if they wish to continue with the urban deer removal program and renew the contract with Humphries Archery. I would love to see quantifiable evidence that this program is making a positive difference. I do recognize how difficult it is to collect such evidence. In the meantime, I'm comfortable moving forward with it again this year. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
7. A discussion regarding proposed amendments from the Sign Committee to Provo City Code regarding electronic sign hold times. (20-101)
   This item is a continuation of the discussion from July 7, 2020 and October 20, 2020. The Sign Committee has spent the last year reviewing Provo City's policy regarding electronic signs. At the suggestion of the committee, the Council approved an ordinance prohibiting electronic signs in residential and agricultural zones in October 2019. The committee is now bringing a second proposal to the Council for consideration.
   The committee proposes that Provo be divided into three areas:
   1. 1. areas where digital signs are prohibited
   2. 2. areas where long hold times no shorter than one hour are permitted
   3. 3. areas where short hold times no shorter than one minute are permitted (unless the sign is in an SC3 zone and represents 20 or more tenants, in which case the shortest permitted hold time would be 15 seconds)
   Digital Sign Hold Time Principles v6 gives more details and outlines where each would be applied. After reviewing the available academic literature and visiting with local business owners, the committee believes that this is the best compromise between Provo's commitment to public safety and the need to create an environment where local businesses can thrive. A more thorough explanation of the rationale behind this proposal, including a short list of studies consulted, is available in the Digital Sign Ordinance Preamble. In Provo City Code, the current long hold time is that a sign may change up to three times per day. The short hold time is eight seconds, which is the most common hold time in neighboring cities. I am concerned about potential unintended consequences, but I am also worried about the consequences of not moving forward with this issue. We can make adjustments as the process advances. Presentation only.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. 
   An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18 acres of real property, generally located at 1920 South 500 West, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190182)
   D.R. Horton is requesting a zone change from Agricultural (A1.20) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for a townhome development of 206 units near 1920 South and 500 West. They have been working through different versions of the concept plan since 2019 and have been waiting for sewer capacity issues to be resolved. The current concept plan is phased to meet Section 15.03.105, Temporary Limitations on Certain Sewer Connections, in the Provo City Code. The plan proposes the first phase of 40 units, as well as the public street connecting 730 West to 500 West. In total there will be 206 townhomes, of three different designs, brought in over six phases of 40 or fewer units at a time. Proposed open spaces on the site include a volleyball area, tot lot, pickleball, with additional park space on the northeast and along Lakeview Parkway. This zone change includes a Development Agreement that would need to be approved by the City Council and Mayor. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm not a fan of the layout of the development, or that 202 units are proposed using just three different townhome plans. Because the density is over 11 units to the acre, which is below the 15 units to the acre set by LDR but is above the target average for the area, I'm wondering how it is being offset. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the permissible lot coverage in the Del Coronado PRO Zone. Maeser Neighborhood. (PLOTA20200318)
   The Del Coronado PRO zone was established in 2008. This zone was applied to an acre of land which now consists of three parcels. The largest parcel was developed with an apartment and the other two parcels were designed for single-family homes. One of these two lots is slightly smaller than the other one. The applicant owns both lots and would like to build two new equally sized homes on these lots. He has run into an issue with the requirement in the zone that regulates how much of the lot can be covered by the structure. The code currently limits the lot coverage to no more than thirty percent of the lot to be covered by a structure. The applicant is requesting that this minimum lot coverage requirement be slightly increased from 30% to 35% to allow for these homes to be built. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm inclined to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation on this one. I'm a bit confused because it appears there is already a structure there. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 1.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1320 South 1080 East, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200319)
    The property proposed for a zone change from the R1.10 (One-Family Residential) zone to the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone consists of a total 1.70 acres, including all of parcel 22:051:0071 and part of parcel 22:051:0024. The concept for these parcels includes ten twin homes on the north, eight detached homes on the west, and a parking lot and pickleball court on the south. The site would be accessed off of 1080 East and 1320 South, with only three lots having direct access from these streets. The remainder of the units would be accessed by interior roads in the project. All eighteen homes will have garages and there will be an additional eight visitor stalls on the south accessed from 1320 South. The parking provided would be 46 stalls, which is just over 2.5 stalls per unit. The project would have a density of 10.5 units per acre. The General Plan for this area is designated as Mixed Use. This designation on South State Street has been to provide a mix of uses on the west side of State Street from 900 South to 1860 South. The Southeast Neighborhood Plan envisioned MDR (Medium Density Residential) zoning for this portion of South State. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a proposal for the development of land that Provo City has sold (or is in the process of selling). I think it is a good development. No negative comments have been received. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
11. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.07 acres of real property, generally located at 50 East 3900 North, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190265)
    Daniel LaFontaine is requesting a zone change from the R1.10 (OneFamily Residential) zone to the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone for his property at 50 East 3900 North. The proposal conceives of demolishing the existing home to build ten townhomes on the site. This is a reduction from his earlier plans, and this latest plan has changed the orientation and architecture of the buildings to address previous concerns. The current zoning would allow the applicant a total of four units, while approval of an LDR zone would allow up to twelve units. The single-family home that is currently on the property is accessed from 3900 North, a residential street that leads to the Raynola and Canyon Cove subdivisions. Both existing subdivisions are single-family detached developments in the R1.10 zone. Several neighbors from these developments have written in opposition to the proposed zone change. The Planning Commission has continued this item at three previous hearings with the direction to redesign the concept plan associated with the zone change. Staff has worked with the applicant to help him address the major concerns stated by the neighborhood and Planning Commission members. The applicant has not brought forward a workable concept plan that can be moved forward for the purpose of a zone change request. However, if the zone change is approved, the applicant would need to work with Planning staff on a Project Plan application that meets all the detailed code requirements of the LDR zone. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I've received many emails from neighbors opposing this request. I need to learn more about this project, but the Staff makes a compelling argument, and it has a near-unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
12. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.25 acres of real property, generally located at 189 South 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
    The applicant would like to divide the 0.25-acre one-family dwelling site and establish an additional dwelling site. The subject property lies in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, which does not allow for the creation of new lots, so the applicant is proposing a rezone of the subject property to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone (which does not have a prohibition on the creation of new lots and allows one-family dwelling sites with a minimum lot area of 4000 square feet). Originally, a request for a zone map amendment to the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zone was brought to the Planning Commission (August 12, 2020 and September 23, 2020) and the Commission recommended approval. The City Council’s adoption of that proposed zone change was stymied by their decision to allow 4000 square foot lots in the LDR Zone, but not the VLDR Zone. Because of this decision, the applicant is now requesting an LDR zoning designation to take advantage of the 4000 square foot minimum lot area allowance. That meant the amended quest had to go to the Planning Commission again before returning to the City Council. The subject property is surrounded by the RC Zone. A 0.34-acre parcel—lying approximately 125 feet to the northeast of, and on the same block as, the subject property—was recently rezoned to the LDR Zone. The applicant’s parcel is over 10,000 square feet. Staff notes that the LDR Zone allows not only one-family detached housing, but also twin homes (8000 square foot minimum) and one-family attached housing or townhomes (10,000 square foot minimum). It appears the applicant will be proffering a development agreement to the City to limit the use of the subject property to one-family detached housing. Planning Commission recommended approval. I appreciate the patience of the applicant. Staff recommended asking for a VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) zone, presuming that the Council would reduce the minimum lot size for this zone. In the end, we decided not to lower the lot size requirement for VLDR and this forced the developer to change his application. Based on the last application, I don't have any qualms about approving the request, if we have assurance that he will proceed with what he has presented. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to Section 15.03 to update Engineering Design Standards for 2021. Citywide application. (PLOTA20201348)
    Provo City Public Works regularly submits updates to the engineering design standards for clarity or to bring them in line with other regulations. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is the annual update. A lot of work has gone into the standards for retention and detention features for our stormwater system. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses in the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1), Community Shopping Center (SC2), And Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zones and related provision. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190429)
    The Community and Neighborhood Services Department has proposed to amend Title 14 of the Provo City Code to consolidate the permitted uses and shift multiple conditional uses to permitted uses in the SC1 – Neighborhood Shopping Center (14.18), SC2 – Community Shopping Center (14.19), and SC3 – Regional Shopping Center (14.20) zones. Within the permitted and conditional uses in each zone there is a four- digit number attached to the land use type. Planning Commission recommended approval. There are 12 supporting documents, with dozens of pages in each. I got lost trying to figure out how they all fit together. It appears that some of the documents are left over from the last time this item was presented to (but not approved by) the Council. I am not sure, but I believe it addresses my concerns from last time. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 10, 2020.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A recognition and commendation for Provo Citizen that through his actions helped police solve multiple crimes. (20-238)
   Sounds great. I'm looking forward to hearing the details. Our community is safer when we all care enough to do our part. This item was continued.
   
   

   Public Comment

   Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.
   
   Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:
   
   Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.
   
   Please limit your comments to two minutes.
   
   State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.
   
   

   Action Agenda

2. A resolution Appointing an Audit Firm. (20-239)
   This was item 1 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 1 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. Now is a good time to extend this contract and then go through a full RFP next time.
3. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for the Urban Deer Control Program and appropriating $7,625 from the General Fund in support of the contract. (20-224)
   This was item 6 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 6 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. I wish the data were clearer about the positive impact of this program, but there are just too many compounding factors. The public was invited to weigh in, and many from the affected areas did just that. Some did not know that this program had been underway for a few years. Some incorrectly thought that it had been discontinued this past year and said that they had experienced far more deer this past year. Others said that they hadn't seen nearly as many deer this past year. In the end, we are under contract to continue the program this year, so there wasn't much of a question before the Council.
4. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18 acres of real property, generally located at 1920 South 500 West, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190182)
   This was item 8 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 8 in the earlier meeting. "A motion to replace the ordinance in the implied motion with a version including a development A motion to replace the ordinance in the implied motion with a version including a development agreement was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. " I'm not thrilled with over two hundred new homes, all townhouses, using only three different designs. Councilor Ellsworth and I agreed to work with Community and Neighborhood Services to propose changes that will allow for and perhaps require better designed developments.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the permissible lot coverage in the Del Coronado PRO Zone. Maeser Neighborhood. (PLOTA20200318)
   This was item 9 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. A shabby storage building is being torn down and this allows a nice new home.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 1.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1320 South 1080 East, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200319)
   This was item 10 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. I'm excited about the design of this development. I wish more of the proposals that are brought to us would look like this.
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 1.07 acres of real property, generally located at 50 East 3900 North, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Riverbottoms Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190265)
   This was item 11 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the earlier meeting. The implied motion to adopt the ordinance failed 1:6 with Councilor Shannon Ellsworth in favor, and Councilors David Sewell, David Harding, George Handley, Bill Fillmore, Travis Hoban, and David Shipley opposed. I was torn on this one. I think that LDR is appropriate for this location, but the nearby neighbors are near unanimously against it. I think that VLDR is an acceptable compromise.
8. An ordinance amending the Zone Map classification of approximately 0.25 acres of real property, generally located at 189 South 500 West, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
   This was item 12 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 12 in the earlier meeting. A motion to replace the ordinance in the implied motion with a version including a development agreement was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. The applicant is proposing to build single family detached but the LDR zone allows for other forms. The development agreement ensures that something else isn't built without returning first to the Council.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to update Engineering Design Standards for 2021. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20201348)
   This was item 13 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 13 in the earlier meeting. Approved 7:0. We update these design standards each year to keep current with the international standards. About half of the changes had to do with handling storm runoff and we had previously approved these changes.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding permitted uses in the Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC1), Community Shopping Center (SC2), And Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zones and related provision. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190429)
    This was item 14 on the work agenda. See my preview for item 14 in the earlier meeting. This item was continued.
11. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhood Services Dept. requests Zone Changes for various city parks from Public Facilities (PF) to the Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone. Citywide Impact (PLRZ20200304)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
12. ***CONTINUED*** Adding Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone as City Code Chapter 14.33; amend City Code 15.20.080(2)(c), supplemental landscape reqs; 14.38.075, signs permitted within OSPR zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200140)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
13. ***CONTINUED*** A General Plan Amendment to Sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 of the Provo City General Plan, relating to key land use policies and the annexation policy plan. Citywide application. (PLGPA20200357)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
14. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 5.33 ac of property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) & Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Nbhd. (PLRZ20190426)
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment

Council Meetings - 20 October 2020

The most controversial item on the agendas is our discussion about what to do with our "mask mandate" that is set to expire on the 15th of November. The discussion I'm most looking forward to is about the future of Historic Center Street. Two other items that I think are worth noting: the discussion on digital signs and their hold times, and proposed changes to regulations regarding Special Events and Expressive Activities (e.g. protests).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Business

1. A presentation regarding the 2020 4th Quarter Financial Report. (20-137)
   Staff will provide to the Municipal Council a high level overview of the revenues and expenses for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. The fourth Quarter of the fiscal year was Apr-Jun. Take a look at the report. Despite the pandemic, our revenues ended up at 99% of what was budgeted. Sales tax revenue was slightly above what was budgeted; lodging tax was 15% below. Charges for services (things like Rec Center admissions) were off 15% as well.
   
   On the expenditure side, we made some drastic, unsustainable cuts to department budgets because of the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. This resulted in spending that was almost $5M below what was budgeted in the General Fund. The enterprise funds follow the same trend; revenue is about the same, expenditures are way down (for things like delayed maintenance or projects), leading to higher balances (or lower deficits) than expected. Presentation only. It was a helpful discussion to get down into the details a bit, but the discussion only reinforced the report's impression.
2. An update from Fire Chief Miguel regarding protective equipment purchased with CARES Act funding, plans for Fire Station 21, and needs for the Airport. (20-136)
   Fire Chief Jim Miguel will update the Council regarding the following topics: protective equipment purchases with CARES Act funding, Fire Station 21 plans, Airport needs. There wasn't a lot of information attached, but I look forward to hearing this update from the Chief. Presentation only. Most of the update focused on the Range Fire and the efforts by our Fire Department to assist and protect Provo City. Some of the future needs were discussed.
3. A discussion regarding proposed amendments from the Sign Committee to Provo City Code regarding electronic sign hold times and permitted locations. (20-101)
   This item is a continuation of the discussion from July 7, 2020. The Sign Committee has spent the last year reviewing Provo City's policy regarding electronic signs. At the suggestion of the committee, the Council approved an ordinance prohibiting electronic signs in residential and agricultural zones in October 2019. The committee is now bringing a second proposal to the Council for consideration.
   The committee proposes that Provo be divided into three areas:
   1. areas where digital signs are prohibited
   2. areas where long hold times no shorter than one hour are permitted
   3. areas where short hold times no shorter than one minute are permitted (unless the sign is in an SC3 zone and represents 20 or more tenants, in which case the shortest permitted hold time would be 15 seconds)
   Digital Sign Hold Time Principles v6 gives more details and outlines where each would be applied. After reviewing the available academic literature and visiting with local business owners, the committee believes that this is the best compromise between Provo's commitment to public safety and the need to create an environment where local businesses can thrive. A more thorough explanation of the rationale behind this proposal, including a short list of studies consulted, is available in the Digital Sign Ordinance Preamble. In Provo City Code, the current long hold time is that a sign may change up to three times per day. The short hold time is eight seconds, which is the most common hold time in neighboring cities. This has been an ongoing discussion topic for the Council for a couple of years and an on-and-off discussion for several more. I think the safety considerations of the regulations are essential, but I don't think we should discount the aesthetic considerations either. Presentation only. This item will return to the Sign Committee for further refinement. I believe this was a productive discussion, both in terms of helping the rest of the Council (those of us not on the Committee) understand what is being proposed, as well as giving feedback and sharing our concerns with the Committee. This item will come back to our next meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approx 5.33 acres of real property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) & Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
   The subject property lies on South State, just north of the intersection of State Street and Lakeview Parkway (1860 South). It is bordered on the north and east by vacant land that is the subject of a sizeable medium density residential project (204 units). A railway lies to the west of the property. The Provo City Transportation Master Plan 2020, Major and Local Street Plan calls for a future collector to run parallel with, and east of, the railway. The land west of the subject property lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an industrial zoning designation. Some of the land to the south also lies in unincorporated Utah County and has an agricultural/residential designation. A portion of the land to the south lies within the city boundaries and has an A1.5 zoning designation. The subject land is in a high-water table area and the National Wetlands Inventory Mapper shows potential wetlands on the property. Portions of the subject property (new construction, etc., which are located within one hundred [100] feet of South State Street) lies in the South State Street Design Corridor. This Design Corridor has a set of design standards to, among other things, “promote attractive development” and “attract customers to businesses.” Planning Commission recommended denial. This item was continued at the request of the applicant.



Business

5. A discussion regarding a Council policy intent statement for Center Street. (20-138)
   Councilors Dave Harding and Shannon Ellsworth met with several members of City staff to discuss policies for Center Street and wanted to discuss a policy intent statement from the Council to guide future Administrative decisions. Historic Center Street is an almost magical place, but it isn't living up to its potential. The year-plus construction on State Street has funneled even more traffic through Downtown Center, making it less inviting and further from living up to its designation as a pedestrian mall. What would it take for Center Street, from 500 W to 200 E, to be a comfortable place for people to spend time? According to the Administration, it would be helpful to have a statement from the Council expressing our support for a more pedestrian-focused street.
   
   Here is a statement by Downtown Provo Inc. A motion to adopt the Center Street policy intent statement as presented was approved 7:0. Over the years, there have been conflicting visions and priorities for Center Street. Hopefully, Public Works, the rest of the Administration, the businesses, and the public-at-large has a clear understanding of the policy direction the Council intends to pursue concerning Center Street.
6. A presentation regarding the Central Corridor Transit Study's findings. (20-133)
   The Central Corridor Transit Study (CCTS) Team has asked to present their progress and findings to the Council. The CCTS was a collaborative with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), and seven cities in Utah County (Lehi, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, Vineyard and Provo) to evaluate options for faster and more frequent high-capacity transit service between Lehi and Provo. I've heard about an idea being toyed with which would extend light rail from Lehi down to Provo. I wonder if this corridor study is related to that. Even if this is, I imagine it'll be 15-20 years before such a project would reach completion. Presentation only. This is an exciting project and helps move our community towards a more sustainable transportation system.
7. A discussion regarding the renewal of certain requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic responses, including face coverings and public gatherings. (20-118)
   This item is scheduled for the Council Meeting this evening, where the Council may vote on whether to renew Provo City Code Chapter 9.25. Chapter 9.25 was originally set to expire on November 15, 2020. The Council agreed to discuss renewing it in their meetings on October 20, 2020. First, the City enacted some regulations regarding social distancing and mask-wearing. Then, the County issued some regulations. And just recently, the State issued its own rules. What should the City do now? We have a sunset clause built into our ordinance to expire on the 15th of November unless we extend it on the 20th of October. A motion to make an ordinance repealing the mask ordinance the implied motion for the Council Meeting that evening was approved 6:1, with Shannon Ellsworth opposed. We discussed several options, including extending the regulations, doing nothing and allowing them to expire next month, or rescinding the rules. After discussing each option's positives and negatives, the majority of the Council wanted to make a repeal the default option for the evening's meeting.
   

   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. No meeting was requested.




Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

Instructions for making public comments at this electronic meeting can be found on the officially published agenda: agendas.provo.org.

Fifteen minutes have been set aside for any person to express ideas, concerns, comments, or issues that are not on the agenda:

Please state your name and city of residence into the microphone.

Please limit your comments to two minutes.

State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda.



Action Agenda

1. A resolution appropriating $56,147 in the General Fund to correct elements of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget related to the Cemetery. (20-228)
   In the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget, there were errors made in Cemetery Personnel accounts that need to be corrected in order for Cemetery to have the budgeted funds necessary to operate at current staffing levels through the end of the fiscal year. We discussed this as item 8 in the 6 Oct 2020 Work Meeting. In a large budget, corrections are bound to happen. Approved 7:0 A simple correction of a simple mistake.
2. A resolution authorizing the consolidation of two Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loans to create a new consolidated Bank Loan from the Utah Department of Transportation to the Airport Fund. (20-234)
   On October 29, 2019, the Council authorized a $5,000,000 Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan to the Airport Fund to be repaid at 2.1% interest over five years to partially fund the cost of infrastructure construction for the new airport terminal. The Provo Public Works Department has secured a second Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan for $5,149,553. This resolution would consolidate the two loans for the airport terminal. The new consolidated loan of $10,149,553 will be paid back at a 0.79% interest rate over five years starting in Fiscal Year 2023 and ending in Fiscal Year 2027. This was discussed as item 1 in the 6 Oct 2020 Work Meeting. There is a gap in the timing of some of the County funding for the new Airport Terminal. This loan, and the loan in the following item, will bridge the gap. Approved 7:0 The Administration will continue to look for other ways to span the funding gap, but they can move forward with the Airport construction, knowing that if all else fails, we can use a portion of the Energy Fund reserve, which will be paid back when the county contributions come in.
3. A resolution authorizing an interfund loan of up to $9,100,000 from the Energy Fund to the Airport Fund. (20-135)
   The Public Works Department requests authorization of an interfund loan of up to $9,100,000 from the Energy Fund to the Airport Fund to help finance the completion of the new airport terminal. Interest on the interfund loan will be calculated monthly at a variable interest rate equal to the monthly State Pool interest rate. Principal on the interfund loan will be paid back in the following years and amounts: $807,792 in Fiscal Year 2022, $1,798,962 in Fiscal Year 2023, $3,470,858 in Fiscal Year 2024, and $3,022,388 in Fiscal Year 2025. See the previous preview. Approved 7:0 See the previous report.
4. A resolution to place approximately 1.69 acres of vacant land at 1100 West Center Street on the surplus property list. (20-134)
   Starting in 2000, Provo City and the Provo City Redevelopment Agency have acquired several parcels of property at approximately 1100 West Center Street. The intent of these property acquisitions has been to control property for a project that would enhance the entrance onto the Center Street corridor. Over the years, we have received many offers to purchase the property for uses that have ranged from storage units to higher density housing. Recently, we have received viable inquiries about the property and have determined that it is the right time to add the property to the surplus property list. Having the property surplused will ease the process in negotiating the sale of the property. It should be noted that there is a Community Garden located on the parcel. Community Action, our partner for the management of the Community Garden, recognizes that the Community Garden is a temporary use and that the garden will need to be removed and possibly relocated at the time of the sale. This is not a commitment to sell the property to any particular buyer, but it does appear to be time to more seriously entertain the offers. Approved 7:0 This allows the Administration to enter into more serious discussions with potential buyers of the property.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding swimming pool fencing and covering. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200286)
   Provo City Development Services is requesting approval for an ordinance amendment to Section 14.34.210, Provo City Code. This amendment comes by request of the Building Division as a way to update the zoning codes on swimming pools to better match the International codes that the building inspectors review from. The current city code states one option for securing pools on private property, a six (6) foot high fence surrounding the pool. However, the International Building Code now allows for a variety of measures including a safety cover. In an attempt to have the City Code parallel today’s building codes, staff has prepared the text amendment for adoption. Planning Commission gave a positive recommendation. This is the second hearing. Development Services is acting the Council to update the code to refer to the International Building Code for pool fence requirement. I think that is a great idea. Approved 7:0 With this change, we are relying on the International Building Code.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 5.33 acres of real property, generally located at 1724 S State St, from Agricultural (A1.5) & Residential (R1.6) to Community Shopping Center (SC2). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190426)
   This was item 4 in the work meeting. This was continued at the request of the applicant.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.20 Special Events and Expressive Activities (20-223)
   The Council’s subcommittee focused on public gatherings has prepared proposed changes to Chapter 6.20 of the Provo City Code to address guaranteeing the rights of expressive speech while balancing the need for public safety. Included in this proposal is the definition of a spontaneous event, a ban on protesting in front of private residences, and a definition of what types of expressive speech events need a permit before they can take place. This was discussed in the 6Oct20 Work Meeting. I am supportive of this effort and hope that a couple of concerns I raised last time were addressed. Approved 7:0 I appreciate the work of the Committee and am happy to vote for it after the concerns that were brought up were addressed.
8. An ordinance regarding the renewal of certain requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic responses, including face coverings and public gatherings. (20-118)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview for item 7 in the work meeting. A motion to approve amendments to the draft ordinance was approved 7:0, after which the ordinance was approved 7:0. We rescinded the Provo Mask Mandate to reduce any confusion by having both a Municipal and a State mask mandate, feeling that the State Mandate was sufficient. See the press release.
9. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the permissible lot coverage in the Del Coronado PRO Zone. Maeser Neighborhood. (PLOTA20200318)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1320 South 1080 East, from Residential (R1.10) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200319)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
11. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 18 acres of real property, generally located at 1920 South 500 West, from Agricultural (A1.20) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Lakewood Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190182)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
12. ***CONTINUED*** Adding Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone as City Code Chapter 14.33. Amend City Codes: 15.20.080(2)(c), supplemental landscape requirements; 14.38.075, signs permitted within OSPR zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200140)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
13. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhood Services Dept. requests Zone Changes for various city parks from Public Facilities (PF) to the Open Space, Preservation and Recreation (OSPR) zone. Citywide Impact PLRZ20200304
    This item was not ready to be heard.
14. ***CONTINUED*** An Ordinance Text Amendment request to Sections 1.2.9 and 1.2.10 of the Provo City General Plan, relating to key land use policies and the annexation policy plan. Citywide application. (PLOTA20200341)
    This item was not ready to be heard.
15. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.25 ac of property, generally located at 189 S 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). Franklin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200124)
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment