Council Meetings - 21 January 2020

I imagine most of the focus tomorrow will be on the brewpub proposal. That issue has generated most of my email.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. Brigham Young University Parking Analysis. (20-022)
   Recent and planned additions to the physical plant on the BYU campus has led the University to review their parking demand and supply on campus. Ray Bernier, director of planning at BYU, has requested an opportunity to present to the Council in a work session the results of their recent review, including the impact of transit and active transportation on traffic and parking on campus. This will be very helpful information for our Joaquin Parking Permit Committee. Presentation only. I was really impressed by BYU's desire to be more engaged in addressing problems facing the community. We can all do better at partnering in solutions. BYU is such an important stake holder, and we need their efforts to properly address many of the problems we are trying to tackle.
2. Presentation from the Mayor's Sustainability & Natural Resources Committee. (20-020)
   The Mayor's Sustainability and Natural Resources Committee will present their 2019 Sustainability Report to the Council. They have been working on community outreach, energy efficiency, recycling, agricultural land preservation, and transportation issues. I look forward to this report each year. Presentation only. The Mayor posted a great summary of the report to her blog.
3. Discussion of Councilors' committee assignments. (20-021)
   Besides serving on the Provo City Council, there are various ad hoc committees that Councilors can serve on. Vacancies due to retirements of past Councilors need to be filled. I believe the focus will be on making assignments to boards, commissions, and non-Council committees. There will likely be some discussion of Council committees, but these are dynamic throughout the year, whereas the assignments, mostly to be a liaison, will last a year or more. A motion to approve lines 6-23 of the document and to make the related assignments was approved 6:0, with Travis Hoban excused. A motion to approve the Foothills, Sign Ordinance, and Zoning Compliance Committee assignments was approved 6:0, with Travis Hoban excused. With some final tweaking, we finalized our assignments for 2020. All three of my assignments are new to me: Chair of the Neighborhood Advisory Board, and liaison for Downtown Provo, Inc and the Metropolitan Water District Board.
4. Discussion regarding meeting structure and decorum. (20-024)
   There has been an expressed interest in streamlining both the work meeting and the regular Council meeting. Suggestions include moving presentations of items referred from the Planning Commission to the regular meeting (skipping the work meeting preview), more utilization of the consent agenda, and clearer guidelines for presenters regarding the available time. I see this as being part orientation for the new councilors and part discussion on how to best structure our meetings to meet the needs of the Council. Presentation only. I really liked Councilor Fillmore's idea that analyses include a description of the contrary position, not just the description of the recommended action.
5. A presentation regarding Water Plans. (20-019)
   Dave Decker, Director of Public Works, will present to the Council plans for water infrastructure and management. Proper water management will be a key piece in preparing for anticipated population growth. This is the second installment of Public Works background information, this time focusing on drinking water. Presentation only. This is a summary of the discussion of water over the past several years. The most interesting idea that is being considered is aquafer storage and recovery.
6. Presentation on preliminary budget discussions. (20-026)
   John Borget, Director of Administrative Services, will speak about the process regarding the upcoming department budget presentations to the Council for fiscal year 2020-2021 Mr. Borget will introduce the budget process. It is pretty involved. Presentation only. Budget season is very busy, this was an overview of what's coming.
7. Update on the Innovation Fund Program. (20-027)
   The Innovation Program has been incorporated in the FY20 budget as part of the Employee Recognition fund. The Administration will share an update on the program for the current project year. I love this program, and look forward to the status update. Presentation only. Many proposals have been submitted. The Administration will come back



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

8. Presentation about policy items referred from the Planning Commission. (20-025)
   There have been some discussions as to why items referred from the Planning Commission are heard at both the Work Meeting and the Council Meeting. Brian Jones, Council Attorney, will explain the history of the items appearing on both agendas, and possible solutions the council can pursue to make meetings more efficient. I don't think this is an item referred from the Planning Commission, but a discussion about our practice of handling items referred from the Planning Commission. I think it is closely related to item 4 above. Presentation only. A couple years ago the Council made changes to streamline the process for reviewing land-use proposals. We have been able to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes proposals to get to a decision. But we didn't want to streamline the process so much that the public does not have an adequate opportunity to become aware of the proposals and submit their feedback to the Council.
9. Public Works Dept. requests a General Plan Amendment to correct language in Area 5 of the Annexation Policy Map. North Timpview Neighborhood. PLGPA20190410
   The Annexation Policy Plan is included in the General Plan and provides guidance on future growth of Provo City into unincorporated areas. The Public Works Department has found an inconsistency in the water pressure elevation for Area 5 of the Plan and proposes a change to be more accurate. The non-substantive change simply changes the existing elevation designated as 5,200 feet to 4,876 feet, as noted in the attachments to this report. Planning Commission recommended approval.. See my preview about this item in the evening meeting below. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 21, 2020. See my report about this item in the evening meeting below.
10. Community & Neighborhood Dept. requests Ordinance Text Amendments to amend permitted uses in the Neighborhood (SC1), the Community (SC2), and the Regional (SC3) Shopping Center Zones. 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. The four-digit number comes from the Provo City Standard Land Use Code (SLU). The first digit of the number represents a broad classification of land uses, with the second digit representing a grouping of similar uses under the broader classification. The third and fourth digits are the particular uses within the larger grouping. Staff saw the need to analyze the permitted and conditional uses within the Shopping Center (SC) zones and think critically about which SLU code would require conditions to be placed upon it and which would not. If no conditions were to be placed upon the land use then therefore it should be moved to the permitted uses. Conditions are typically added to mitigate impacts the land use would have on the surrounding properties. Some of the SLU codes were categorized with a broader SLU code based on the similar types of uses land uses with in the zone. By transitioning the number of conditional uses to permitted uses in the SC zone increases the opportunity for someone to do business in Provo. It also increases staff and Planning Commissioner’s bandwidth to work on other planning items. In the near future, staff would like to decrease the amount of conditional uses and shift increase permitted uses of additional zones. Planning Commission recommended approval.. See my preview about this item in the evening meeting below. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 21, 2020. See my report about this item in the evening meeting below.
11. Courtyard at Jamestown, LLC, requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to the Professional Office Zone (Section 14.16.120). Citywide application. PLOTA20190432
    The applicant is proposing this amendment to §14.16.120(1) of the PCC to add flexibility to the permissible lot coverage requirement of the PO (professional office) Zone. They ran into an issue applying the subject ordinance when they discovered that a small portion of the property they included in their assisted living facility expansion project has title issues (resolution of this title issue may take an action of a court to quiet the title, which could be a lengthy process). Simply put, the applicants want to remove the property in question (the Lover’s Lane portion) from their project, but if they do, the remaining land will not meet the permissible lot coverage requirement of the PO Zone. The applicant believes that without the property in question included in their project they will have a lot coverage percentage of approximately thirty-four percent (34%), four percent (4%) above the allowed thirty percent (30%) allowance. The applicant proposes an amendment that would allow the Development Services Director the ability to vary the permissible lot coverage requirement of land in the PO Zone, by up to five percent (5%), if such land is adjacent to a public amenity, such as a public park or trail. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my preview about this item in the evening meeting below. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 21, 2020. See my report about this item in the evening meeting below.
12. Quinn Peterson, Downtown Neighborhood Chair, requests an ordinance amendment to allow approval of restaurants with ancillary microbrewing as a permitted use in the SC3, DT1, and DT2 zones. Citywide application. PLOTA20190378
    The applicant has had inquiries as the Downtown Neighborhood Chair, about establishing restaurants with microbreweries as part of their business model. The applicant worked with staff to create an amendment to accomplish this goal. The specific language being proposed adds as a permitted use, microbreweries in the above zones only when attached to and ancillary to a restaurant. Restaurants in these areas are currently permitted to sell and serve alcohol based on their business license. This amendment would allow current and future restaurants to brew and sell on site as part of their business. In this case, ancillary to a restaurant means that 60% of the sales would need to be from food. This is the definition of a Class B liquor license. Planning Commission recommended approval. Council staff prepared a report. See my preview about this item in the evening meeting below. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on January 21, 2020. See my report about this item in the evening meeting below.



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, January 21, 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 on the 2020 Census (20-028)
   The decennial census is important for many reasons, including providing local governments data on which to base decisions. Presentation only. Provo City encourages everyone to participate in the upcoming census.



Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.




Action Agenda

2. Public Works Dept. requests a General Plan Amendment to correct language in Area 5 of the Annexation Policy Map. North Timpview Neighborhood. PLGPA20190410
   This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. If this is simply about correcting a number, then it is an easy vote. I am curious, though, about the timing of the proposal. Does this have anything to do with the Terra proposal? Approved 7:0. Public Works made it clear that this change is to better communicate the infrastructure realities in the area and better describe the elevation under which no extraordinary infrastructure projects would be necessary.
3. Community & Neighborhood Dept. requests Ordinance Text Amendments to amend permitted uses in the Neighborhood (SC1), the Community (SC2), and the Regional (SC3) Shopping Center Zones. Citywide application. PLOTA20190429
   This was item 10 on the work meeting agenda. This item highlights the redundancy in the document packets we are giving to prepare for the meetings. This item alone weighs in at 152 pages across the two meetings. Across the two meeting packets, the recommended changes appear 10 times. And after 152 pages of very redundant information, I still don't feel I have the information that I need to make an informed decision on this proposal. Consider all the time and discussion we are having about allowing restaurants, who already sell alcohol, to also brew onsite. Yet, with little fanfare, this proposal would move "Liquor, packages" (whatever that is) from a conditional use to a permitted use at our large shopping areas. Continued to the Council Meeting on February 4, 2020. I learned that the standard land-use codes are now published on the provo.org website. I don't know when that was done but I think that is a great step towards greater transparency. Now that this item is continued, I'm meeting with the Director of Community and Neighborhood Services to review the proposal.
4. Courtyard at Jamestown, LLC, requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to the Professional Office Zone (Section 14.16.120). Citywide application. PLOTA20190432
   This was item 11 on the work meeting agenda. I appreciate the quality of the staff report on this item. Some of the justifications for the lot coverage limit (pulled from the current code) seem backward to me, namely "to provide...air quality, ... and to lessen congestion on the streets." There have been three versions of the proposal. One allows greater coverage at the discretion of the Department Director, if it is adjacent to public amenities. One allows greater coverage to any lot adjacent to a park or public trail. And the last one allows greater coverage to all lots in the PO zone.
   
   I'm torn on this one. It seems silly to change the limits on all PO properties in the City to accommodate one proposal, unless that change is an improvement to the regulations outside of the needs of this one applicant. Approved 7:0. I'm often surprised and I have mixed feelings about how often we make changes to our zoning regulations at the request of developers. On one hand, I'm glad the City is responsive to the needs of the community, whether that be developers or residents. On the other hand, what is the point of having regulations if we change them so readily? The applicant needs to persuade us that the change is in the best interest of the community, and we can always say no, but it often seems that we make changes to accommodate the requests. I'm not describing this very well so let me use this item as an example. The applicant wants to update or expand a building in a Professional Offices (PO) zone. All if fine, until they find a title issue with part of the parcel. These title issues can take years to resolve, so in order to move forward with their project, they want to not have this portion of the parcel considered in the project. The problem with that, though, is if the contested portion is removed, they don't meet the land coverage restriction that says that buildings in the PO zone can't cover more than 30% of the property. Now we could have a robust debate about whether limits to lot coverage are wise land use policy, but that didn't seem to be the focus of the discussion. Staff recommended changing the requirement to 35% to accommodate this project (which would have 34% lot coverage if the contested portion isn't considered), in the name of economic development. So we voted to change a land-use restriction that applies to PO zoned properties across the City because of a title discrepancy on one property. Is the 30% lot coverage restriction an important part of the PO zone in order to achieve the type of development intended in the PO zone? If not, then why is it there? Is 35% the right number? What was the logic for 35% and not 40%? So, yeah, I'm pretty unsettled about all of this.
5. Quinn Peterson, Downtown Neighborhood Chair, requests an ordinance amendment to allow approval of restaurants with ancillary microbrewing as a permitted use in the SC3, DT1, and DT2 zones. Citywide application. PLOTA20190378
   This was item 12 on the work meeting agenda. Provo already allows restaurants in these zones to apply to the State for a license to sell beer. State requirements include: making at least 70% of their sales from food, using an “approved electronic age verification device to verify proof of age of persons who appear to be 35 years of age or younger,” not permitting patrons to leave with open containers of alcohol, not selling alcohol to a patron who is not also purchasing “food that is prepared, sold and served at the restaurant”. This proposal is to allow these restaurants to also brew beer onsite solely for use at the restaurant.
   
   The cost of alcohol consumption to society, families, and individuals is staggering. More than 1 in 20 deaths is attributable to alcohol consumption. That raises to 1 in 10 for deaths of people 20-64 years, and more than 1 in 7 for 20-39. The economic costs of excessive drinking in the US are estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.
   
   Many of the CDC and WHO statistics reference "harmful use of alcohol" which includes "heavy drinking" and "binge drinking". Brewpubs in Utah, with relatively expensive brews, sold under the State restrictions for restaurants, are probably some of the least risky places for alcohol consumption. For some of the effects, though, like the increased risk of certain types of cancer, "there is no known safe level of alcohol consumption". A motion to continue this item to the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020 was approved 7:0. This is obviously an emotional issue for the community. We heard a lot of comments from residents and business interests. We had further questions and continued the item for four weeks to get answers and more fully engage the community in the conversation. Please share your opinion with us using Open City Hall.
6. ***CONTINUED*** The Community and Neighborhoods Department requests on Ordinance Text Amendment to remove the R2.5, R3, R4, R5 and Campus High Density Residential zones from the city code. PLOTA21090428
   This item was not ready to be heard.
7. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Neighborhoods Dept. requests zone changes to all properties zoned R2.5, R3, R4 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential or High Density Residential so the former zones may be removed the city code. PLRZ20190427
   This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment