Council Meetings - 4 February 2020

Tuesday marks the real start to the Council budget season. We begin with the Parks and Rec Department. I'm excited to discuss the Very-Low-Density Residential zone, which was proposed by a resident in the first Council meeting of the year. The item generating the most interest, though, is a General Plan land use designation change that is being proposed.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 pm, Tuesday, February 4, 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. A presentation regarding fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget from Parks and Recreation. (20-032)
   Provo Parks and Recreation Department administration will present a pre-budget summary to review department budget management, trends, and developments in the operations with the Municipal Council. Each specific operation unit of Parks and Recreation will be covered. Parks and Recreation’s accomplishments in supporting the General Plan will also be reviewed. In the past, I have found these budget presentations to be very helpful in understanding the scope and status of our departments and the services they provide. Presentation only. We have a remarkable Parks and Rec Department where many of the facilities and activities pay for their own operation. We are not aware of another rec center in the country that isn't subsidized in operations. Our rec center actually transfers money into our General Fund! We were warned that the Department may not be able to continue this half-million transfer in the future. I'm okay with that. Taxpayers are already subsidizing the rec center through the bond that was used to build it. I want to make sure that we are making the operation as sustainable as possible and setting aside proper funds to pay for future maintenance, rather than maximizing the transfer to the General Fund.
2. A training on the use of development agreements. (20-030)
   The Council Attorney will lead a training session going over the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (MLUDMA), Utah Code 10- 9a-102(1) and how it applies to development agreements and the use of those agreements in Provo City. This issue has been churning since before I joined the Council. It is part of the legal dance. Presentation only. It would be nice if we never felt that development agreements were needed and our land use (zoning) regulations were sufficient.
3. A discussion regarding the creation of a Very Low Density Residential Zone (VLDR). (20-029)
   There has been some discussion about creating a new zone like the current Low Density Residential Zone (LDR). This new zone would be Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). It would have the same uses but would limit the number of units by half, with a maximum of 7.5 dwellings per acre. I like the flexibility of the LDR zone, but there are places in the City where 15 units to the acre may be too dense for the area. The idea behind the VLDR zone is to provide the flexibility of LDR with the density of R1.6. Presentation only. This will be a helpful tool. And perhaps we'll be able to avoid some development agreements in the future with this tool.
4. A discussion regarding Councilors' committee assignments. (20-021)
   The Council's fiscal oversight necessitates the creation of an Audit Committee. The Council will discuss how it will operate and what it its responsibilities will be. The Council also intends to discuss the future direction and membership of the Housing Committee. The Audit Committee will be an important addition. Housing is such a critical issue right now in the City, the Valley, and the State. I don't know the best form for the Housing Committee, but I feel we need to be putting forth our best effort to get ahead of the challenges. A motion to nominate David Shipley as chair and Travis Hoban as vice-chair of the Audit Committee; to charge them with examining the scope of what committee would do and who would be involved; and to approve the mission statement: "The mission of the Audit Committee is to review and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council concerning the City’s financial reporting processes, standards, financial statements, and internal controls, as audited by the City’s independent auditors; and other audit related assignments as requested by the City Council,” was approved 7:0. The word “objectively” was struck from the Budget Committee mission statement by unanimous consent. They'll make a great team.
5. A discussion regarding Tier 3 gasoline and a proposed resolution calling for state action to educate consumers about where Tier 3 gasoline is sold. (20-031)
   The Mayor’s Substantiality and Natural Resources Committee presented their annual report to the Council in the Work Meeting on January 21, 2020 and asked for the Council to support a resolution regarding the Utah State government taking action to educate the public about which gas stations sell Tier 3 gasoline. Some actions have been taken to raise the public awareness of Tier 3 gas. I am unsure if this proposed step is still needed. A motion to authorize Council Leadership to send a letter to state legislators about the Council’s consideration of this resolution in two weeks and encourage legislators to advance and pass legislation for Tier 3 gasoline; and to bring this resolution to the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020, was approved 7:0. There was some difference in understanding between advisors regarding the prevalence of non-Tier 3 gasoline. I'm not clear on how much of an impact the proposed resolution could have. Regardless, the Council strongly supports efforts to improve the air quality in our valley.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to floor area ratio, setback, and buffer yard requirements in the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190425)
   The applicant has requested an amendment to Provo City Code 14.44.050 (Tract and Lot Area, Yard, Coverage, and Height Requirements). These requirements apply to the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. This zone is only located in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood at the Riverwoods Business Park. The proposed request would remove the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement for a structure, which is currently 30%. The proposed amendment would add a provision to allow the Development Services Director the ability to modify setbacks and perimeter buffer yards in the zone if certain conditions are met. Staff have reported that this request does not raise any concerns for them. Other requirements for building height, setbacks, and open space would still limit the building's footprint and preserve open space on the lot. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my preview for this item in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 4, 2020. See my report for this item in the evening meeting.
7. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 151 acres, generally located between 300 E. and 1000 E. and between 4800 N. and 6000 N., from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190352)
   Staff would like to note that this proposal is to amend the General Plan. It would not approve an annexation, rezone, or development plan. Bob Jones has requested that the Land Use Element and Map of the General Plan be amended to facilitate his planned Terra development. This amendment would change the land use designations for 11 properties totaling 151 acres (in Provo City and in unincorporated Utah County areas) from Agricultural to Residential. The area is included in the proposal is in a Developmental Sensitive overlay area, which would still remain in place if the General Plan designation were changed to Residential. This proposal was continued in the Planning Commission on December 4, 2019 to allow the applicant and staff more time to prepare and review, especially regarding the requirement that the Agricultural designation should "protect agricultural uses from encroachment ... until such time as residential, commercial, or industrial uses in such areas become necessary and desirable." On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6:2). Two formal neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the Terra development in addition to several informal meetings between the developer and smaller groups. In the first Planning Commission hearing on December 4, 2019, several members of the Planning Commission expressed that they would like additional meetings between the developer and community members to resolve remaining concerns. No formal meetings have been held since then, to staff's knowledge. Debate so far as largely centered around the aesthetic and environmental impact. Land use designations depend on the desired outcomes for the area, which often shift and can be difficult to pin down. Best practice recommends that General Plan land use 2 designations be updated every 5 years. Unaddressed designations more than 10 years old are considered to be "out of date." The current General Plan was adopted in 2010 and has been revised as the Council has approved proposed amendments. See my preview for this item in the evening meeting. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on February 4, 2020. See my report for this item in the evening 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, February 4, 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 regarding Citizen Connect. (20-033)
   Hopefully, all of you have received the packet from the City in the mail listing some of the various ways to connect with the City. The Mayor posted about this effort in her blog. Presentation only.



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. An ordinance amending Provo City Code relating to floor area ratio, setback, and buffer yard requirements in the Research and Business Park (R&BP) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190425)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. This item reminds me of the change we made to the lot coverage restriction on PO zones two weeks ago. I want to understand why a regulation was put in place before I can be comfortable voting to remove it. Continued to the Council Meeting on February 18, 2020. We identified some shortcomings in the proposed ordinance so Staff will make some changes and will bring it back.
3. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 151 acres, generally located between 300 E. and 1000 E. and between 4800 N. and 6000 N., from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R). North Timpview Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190352)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here are my thoughts on this one:
   • The Staff report notes that plans that are older than 10 years are considered out-of-date. I believe that an out-of-date planning document should be updated, not ignored. After reading the parts of the General Plan that are specific to this area, I agree that they are out-of-date. I believe that a proper update will include some significant changes. Several other areas of the City have faced changing ideas about how the land could be used. We have taken the time and effort to engage the public and other stakeholders in a professionally lead effort to consider possible outcomes, develop a community vision, and craft a planning document that helps all involved know what to expect and to guide future decisions. I believe this is what is needed now for this area.
   • The current land use designation of land in the proposal is Agricultural. This is the adopted plan and policy of the City for this area.
   • Should the adopted plan and policy be changed? Maybe, but not without a proper visioning and planning process, as I described above.
   • Should the land subject to the proposal be land-use designated as Agricultural or Residential? It depends on how that planning process goes.
   • The argument has been made that we should make this land-use-designation change so that more extensive studies can be conducted related to the concept plan, rezoning, and annexation. If we approve this General Plan amendment, large amounts of Staff and developer time and resources will be expended. I believe the proper course of action is to update the General Plan for this area which will determine the proper land use designation going forward, which then justifies whether those more extensive studies should occur.
   The implied motion to approve the ordinance failed 0:7. I didn't think that such a large change to our adopted policy should be made without a more thorough public process. I felt like this view was shared by the rest of the Council as well.
4. A public hearing regarding extending parking restrictions in the Foothills Permit Parking area. Foothills Neighborhood. (20-023)
   Currently, the Foothills Permit Parking Area includes a portion of Seven Peaks Boulevard, and there is a desire to extend those restrictions further down to include more of Seven Peaks Boulevard. The Council will hold a public hearing to determine if there is sufficient public interest to move forward with the proposed extension. I'm not too concerned about a slight expansion of this Permit Parking Area if the affected residents want it. I do believe that permit parking programs should pay for themselves. A motion to send this request to the City Parking Coordinator for further review was approved 7:0. This proposal will now be studied by our Parking Coordinator.
5. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Provo City General Plan to rezone properties in the R2.5, R3, and R4. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20190427)
   This item was not ready to be heard.
6. ***CONTINUED*** Community & Neighborhood Services Department requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to remove the R2.5, R3, R4, R5 and Campus High Density Residential zones from the city code. These zones include sections 14.12, 14.12A, 14.13, 14.14 and 14.14D. Citywide Application. PLOTA20190428
   This item was not ready to be heard.
7. ***CONTINUED*** The Sign Ordinance Committee requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 14.38.120-140 to clarify sign size requirements. Citywide application  PLOTA20190409
   This item was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment