Council Meetings - 18 August 2020

I'm sure the COVID-19 precautions (a.k.a mask) discussion will get the most attention tomorrow. I personally feel that the RCV item will have a greater long-term impact.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Business




Administration

1. A joint discussion with the Planning Commission regarding the process of updating the General Plan. (20-068)
   At the March 5, 2020 Council retreat, Council Members discussed updating the City’s General Plan and talked about setting aside money in the FY 2021 budget to pay for the update to the General Plan. At the March 31, 2020 Work Meeting, the Community and Neighborhood Services Department made a presentation about updating the General Plan. Their presentation included what would go into the updated General Plan. As part of the FY 2021 budget, the Council set aside money to update the General Plan. The Council has discussed getting input for the Planning Commission on what they would like to be included in the General Plan update. The Community and Neighborhood Services Department is currently working on developing an RFP for a General Plan update. According to Utah Code Section 10‐9a‐401, "each municipality shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for present and future needs of the municipality; and growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. The general plan may provide for: health, general welfare, safety, energy conservation, transportation, prosperity, civic activities, aesthetics, and recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities; the reduction of the waste of physical, financial, or human resources that result from either excessive congestion or excessive scattering of population; the efficient and economical use, conservation, and production of the supply of food and water; and drainage, sanitary, and other facilities and resources; the use of energy conservation and solar and renewable energy resources; the protection of urban development; the protection or promotion of moderate income housing; the protection and promotion of air quality; historic preservation; identifying future uses of land that are likely to require an expansion or significant modification of services or facilities provided by each affected entity; and an official map...the municipality may determine the comprehensiveness, extent, and format of the general plan."
   
   Our planning department has suggested that we streamline our General Plan and augment it with neighborhood and area-specific master plans. The General Plan would lay out the principles and policies that apply city-wide and coordinate how the various neighborhoods and areas of the city interface. The neighborhood and area-specific master plans give more details about how the principles and policies will be implemented in these areas. I support this approach. Presentation only. I feel like there was more of a consensus about the scope and objectives for the General Plan.
2. A presentation regarding an update from Valley Visioning. (20-111)
   Leota Coyne with Envision Utah will give the Council an update on the Valley Visioning project Envision Utah, in partnership with the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce, has done a good job facilitating the conversation in our community about how we want to grow and what kind of community we want to be in 40 years. I look forward to this update. Presentation only. It was a useful review of past work and an update of the most recent developments.
3. 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. The program is expected to run through 2026. Six cities initially opted in, but four dropped out. Payson and Vineyard held very successful RCV elections in 2019. The Provo City Council in 2018 determined that there was not enough time to sufficiently educate voters about the new election method but committed to exploring it for the 2021 elections. I am a big proponent of RCV and feel that it can help fix some of what's wrong with our political situation nationwide. I hope that Provo will adopt this form for the 2021 elections. Presentation only. Two municipalities used RCV last year, and it was a definite success for them. I am very optimistic that Provo will get on board for the coming election.
4. A discussion regarding face masks in public with regards to COVID-19. (20-114)
   Some Councilors have asked for a further discussion about what actions the City and/or Council can take to promote the wearing of face masks to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially as BYU and UVU students begin to return to Provo. Community transmission in our county is still high, and our public schools are starting this week. Soon we will have an influx of BYU and UVU students. What can we do to make it more likely that our schools will be able to stay open, and our businesses can get back closer to normal? A motion to schedule a special Council Meeting for Thursday, August 20, 2020, at which the Council would further discuss and possibly vote on final action in the form of a resolution or ordinance regarding masks, and to authorize staff to post on Open City Hall a topic requesting community feedback on the issue, was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. We moved this item to the start of the meeting, and it took up more than half of the meeting. Masks and/or socially distancing are effective in slowing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our public schools are opening, as are two major universities bringing in 50,000 students. If we want to keep our schools open, if we're going to keep our businesses open, if we want to have the best shot at the most normal day-to-day living, we all need to be behaving in a socially responsible manner, which means wearing masks in public when not socially distanced.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct an inconsistency and clarify accessory living spaces as a permitted accessory use in the PRO-R-9 Limited Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200162)
   Section 14.50(09).020(5)(d) of the Provo City Code, related to the PRO-R-9 Zone, lists “accessory living spaces” as a permitted accessory use; however, Section 14.50(9).140(5)(a) states “no accessory apartment or second kitchens shall be permitted in any dwelling unit.” City staff became aware of the inconsistency in the text and submitted an amendment application to correct it. Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a relatively minor change that fixes a discrepancy. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 4 on the evening agenda.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum lot depth in the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200208)
   The applicant owns the property located 189 S 500 W. This property has an area of 0.25 acres and the applicant would like to obtain the necessary zoning to establish two (2) approximately 5000 SF lots (the minimum lot area in the VLDR and LDR zones for a detached one-family dwelling in 5000 SF). The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the two (2) lots, but the shape of the subject property will not allow him to establish two (2) lots that meet the minimum 90-foot lot depth of the VLDR Zone. The lot depth requirement is the same for the VLDR and LDR zones. For comparison, the R1.10 Zone (10,000 SF lot area minimum) has a minimum lot depth requirement of 90 feet, whereas the R1.6 and R1.7 zones (6000 SF and 7000 SF lot area minimum respectively) have a minimum lot depth requirement of 75 feet. Planning Commission recommended approval. I think it is reasonable that this parcel be split and a new unit developed. I'm not a fan of how the property line has to be bent all around to squeeze enough space to meet the 5000 sqft requirement. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 5 on the evening agenda.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 14 acres of real property, generally located at 1164 South 1600 West, from Agricultural (A1.5) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180029)
   The applicant, after working tirelessly to refine their development proposal, is proposing a zone map amendment to rezone approximately 14 acres of land from the A1.5 Zone to the R1.7 Zone. The subject land is located in the Southwest area of the City at approximately 1150 S 1600 W. The applicant has submitted an accompanying concept plan for a 40-lot subdivision. The R1.7 Zone allows for a minimum lot area of 7,000 SF; however, the majority of the proposed lots (29 of 40) have an area of more than 9000 SF. The subject property is surrounded by land in the A1 Zone; however, a subdivision in the R1.8 Zone, which lies approximately 550 feet north of the subject land, has been approved and is currently being developed. The proposed development area is located in a High-Water Table Area and all requirements of Section 15.05.170 of the Provo City Code must be met. Further, the southwest corner of the subject property lies in the 100-year floodplain (a 1% annual chance of flooding). All applicable floodplain requirements must be met. As for access to the subject land, both 1150 S and 1600 W appear to terminate at the northeast corner of the rezone area. One member of the public has voiced concerns about the City approving more development that would utilize 1600 West. This individual notes that 1600 West is very narrow; however, 1600 West is not the only road that would access the development area and staff believes many individuals would also use 1150 South to travel to and from the development. Utility infrastructure would need to be expanded to support additional residences on the subject property. Providing sewer to this area seems to be of particular concern; the Public Works Department notes that “it appears that sewer generally can be installed in this area to meet Provo City Standards.” Public Works has cautioned the developer that more thorough details (regarding utilities) would need to be provided to demonstrate that all City standards can be met. Planning Commission recommended approval. The street layout respects the principles of interconnectivity. It is mostly aligned with the envisioned overall density of the area. My biggest concern is that this looks an awful lot like "leap-frog" development. Well, actually, my biggest complaint is that there is only one housing type, but until Provo provides for more flexible zoning that accommodates or requires a diversity of housing types, I don't feel like we can hold developers to that ideal. his item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 18, 2020; the presentation was continued to that meeting. See my report for item 6 on the evening agenda.



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, August 18, 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 approving the form of the lease/purchase agreement with ZMFU II, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof for golf course maintenance equipment. (20-109)
   A Request for Proposals was issued for lease financing of golf course maintenance equipment. The low bidder was Zions Bank at 1.78%. This lease would fund the replacement of existing golf course maintenance equipment that is at the end of its useful life. This was already budgeted for. After reading through 50 pages of information, I still don't have any idea what the maintenance equipment is or why this request wasn't made as part of the annual budget process. I'm confident that we will get these answers in the meeting tomorrow, but it would be nice to get this kind of information beforehand. Approved 5:0, with David Shipley abstaining and David Sewell excused. The maintenance equipment is lawnmowers and such. The item was part of the annual budget (at least the first year's payment) because it was the plan all along.
2. A resolution appropriating $521,093.13 in the Golf Fund for the lease of Golf Course Maintenance Equipment to be leased. (20-109)
   The Parks and Recreation Department requests an appropriation of $521,093.13 in the Golf Fund for the purchase of Golf Course Maintenance Equipment to be leased. The equipment leased will replace current equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. This is the appropriation for the equipment mentioned above. This is related to the previous item. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. This is related to the previous item.
3. A resolution appropriating $69,200 in the Ice Sheet Fund for the replacement of the main fire panel at Peaks Ice Arena applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. (20-112)
   The current fire alarm system at the Peaks Ice Arena is outdated and is no longer supported by the vendor. Replacement parts are unavailable, so it is recommended that we replace the system immediately. We received three quotes, and we are recommending we go with the lowest quote in the amount of $69,200, which includes:
   1. Project Management
   2. Labor
   3. Demo of existing system
   4. Installation of new system
   5. Programming of System
   6. Testing and Commissioning/Final Inspection with AHJ & Permit Closeout
   I support the proper upkeep of our facilities. This seems like a reasonable project, given the current age of the ice arena. I do have questions about how this fits into the overall budget and the building's operations and maintenance. We've been working towards building up funds to cover systems repair and replacement in our facilities, so I'm curious why that doesn't seem to apply in this case. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. The source of the money is indeed coming from the fund balance of the Ice Sheet. It is remarkable that these maintenance and upgrade projects can be funded by the operation of our Parks and Rec Department.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct an inconsistency and clarify accessory living spaces as a permitted accessory use in the PRO-R-9 Limited Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200162)
   This was item 5 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 5 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. Just fixing small mistakes in the code.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum lot depth in the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Zones. Citywide Application. (PLOTA20200208)
   This was item 6 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 6 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. The lot depth requirement was greater in these zones than the R1.6 zone, which doesn't make sense. I asked Community and Neighborhood Services staff to look at any adjustments that they think would help make sure that the area that goes towards square footage requirements is actually meaningful.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 14 acres of real property, generally located at 1164 South 1600 West, from Agricultural (A1.5) to Residential (R1.7). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180029)
   This was item 7 in the work meeting. See my preview of item 7 in the previous meeting. Approved 6:0 with David Sewell excused. I voted for it, but very reluctantly. It looks like leapfrog development to me.
7. ***WITHDRAWN*** An amendment request to Sections 14.50(2).030, 14.50(20).050 and 14.35.050 to allow for an additional dwelling unit, located at 670 N 800 E in the PRO-A2 zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. PLOTA20200197
   This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
8. ***CONTINUED*** A Zone Change request Residential Conservation (RC) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) to subdivide the lot to create one 5,000 sf, single-family lot, located at 189 S 500 W. Franklin Neighborhood. PLRZ20200124
   This item was not ready to be heard.
9. ***CONTINUED*** Request for a General Plan amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road in the General Commercial (CG) zone. Carterville Neighborhood. PLGPA20200062
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Request for a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for the Super 8 Motel, located at 1555 N Canyon Road. Carterville Neighborhood. PLRZ20200085
    This item was not ready to be heard.




Adjournment