Council Meetings - 16 February 2021

The most interesting items are probably the rezone request of land near Treeside Charter School at the far south-eastern corner of the City, and the question of what to do with money freed up by using CARES money to pay our first responders.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 pm, Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Business

1. A presentation regarding the progress of the General Plan Update. (20-068)
   Community and Neighborhood Services staff and the consultant, Design Workshop, will give an update on the progress of the update to the General Plan. The General Plan can be a great tool to guide decisions and communicate clearly with Provo's residents and developers what we want our community to be. It needs to be kept up-to-date, and it needs to reflect the will of the people. It also should be followed by elected officials and city employees as we execute our duties. Presentation only. If you are interested in Provo's future, you should be interested in the update of the General Plan. If you are interested in the update of the General Plan, I recommend browsing through the presentation slides, or watch this segment of the meeting.
2. A presentation regarding Library Services' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. This is the first of numerous presentations and discussions with the Council to help inform the budgeting process. Presentation only. I had a few questions after reading the financial statements but was able to get them answered. I think we have a great library and that it is continuing in the right direction.
3. A presentation regarding the Legal Department's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. A presentation and discussion of the operations of the Legal Department in preparation for the budget development. Presentation only. It was impressive to see the department's size stay the same over decades while the population of the city has continued to grow.
4. A presentation regarding the Council Office's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. (20-015)
   In preparation for the drafting and approval of the FY 2021-2022 budget, each department has been asked to present to the Council. The information presented will inform future budget discussions. The budget, and budget presentations, include the Council's own Office. Presentation only. We have a pretty small budget, and very little of it goes to anything besides personnel.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   Changing digital signs have been shown to lead to distracted driving, which can increase the risk of accidents. Some residents and local businesses have also expressed a desire for fewer and slower digital signs in order to preserve Provo's aesthetic. The Council’s Sign Committee wants to balance safety and aesthetics with the need to help its local businesses stay competitive. It has drafted proposed amendments to Provo City Code to protect Provo residents, preserve our city’s history and atmosphere, and support businesses. The hold time for digital signs on state roads, which generally have higher speeds, is 8 seconds. The most common hold time in neighboring cities is 8 seconds. The highway minimum hold time is designed so that motorists rarely see more than one message change per sign. To achieve a similar goal in the city, where motorists, cyclists and pedestrians encounter digital signs at lower speeds and in greater numbers, the committee felt that short hold times need to be substantially longer than 8 seconds.
   Provo distinguishes between short hold and long hold areas and prohibits digital signs in primarily residential zones. In short hold time areas, which are predominantly commercial, the primary objective for increasing the minimum hold time is traffic safety. In long hold time areas, there is an additional emphasis on aesthetics to minimize the number of message changes encountered not only by motorists but also by cyclists and pedestrians. The Sign Committee proposes the following amendments, which can be seen in the attached ordinance as Exhibits A and B. Exhibit C includes a list of studies consulted in the Committee's research.
   1. minimum hold times of 1 minute in short hold time areas, 1hour in long hold time areas, 15 seconds for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants, and 8 seconds for signs adjacent to and facing Interstate 15
   2. replacing uses of "high churn" and "low churn" with "short hold time" and "long hold time" 2
   3. revisions to the list of short and long hold time areas and where electronic signs are not permitted
   4. clarification that electronic version of types of signs permitted in the Riverbottoms Design Corridor are also allowed
   5. replacing the graphs that show the maximum sign size permitted by lot frontage with tables that are easier to read
   6. These proposals would apply only to digital signs that are on a business’s property (not signs on public school properties or billboards) and whose message can be changed by electronic means on a fixed display screen composed of a series of LEDs, fiber optics, plasma displays, light bulbs, or other illumination devices.
   The Sign Committee has done some great work on this proposed update. I'm still not convinced about the logic behind allowing 15 second hold times for signs in SC3 zones that represent 20 or more tenants. The rationale given has been to allow these signs to churn more quickly to identify the stores at that location. Still, with a minimum of 20 tenants, it would take at least 5 minutes to show each tenant for 15 seconds. Also, I'm still concerned that there may be some unintended consequences as more and more secondary signs are converted to digital displays. A motion to refer these changes to the Planning Commission was approved 7:0. The item was originally scheduled for the Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2021, but was continued in advance of the meeting. It'll be good to get this vetted by the Planning Commission. I still have lingering concerns. They may be unfounded concerns, but I need to understand why.
6. A presentation from the Zoning Committee regarding the work they have done over the past year. (21-030)
   The Zoning Committee has been working over the last year on solutions to improve the functionality of Code Enforcement. As part of this work, the Zoning Committee wants to increase the longevity of the personnel in Code Enforcement. Another area of study was best practices and what can be done to improve Code Enforcement generally. The Zoning Committee recommends the following improvements:
   1. fully fund the allowed 6 full-time employees (FTEs) for Code Enforcement
   2. create a Field Supervisor potion (included in the 6 FTEs)
   3. uniforms for Code Enforcement Officers
   4. department branding for at least two vehicles
   5. improved staff training
   Why is our average tenure so low for code enforcement officers? How does we compare with other cities'? Presentation only. I support these ideas but suggested that we need to make sure we are addressing the root of the problem.
7. A presentation regarding Council Handbook training. (21-032)
   Council’s attorney, Brian Jones, will discuss the Council Handbook with emphasis on Chapters I-III, and VIII-IX, focusing on Council powers and rules of ethics and procedure. Periodic reviews and trainings are important to keep the Council running smoothly. Presentation only. I agree that coordination and cooperation between branches are necessary to serve the interests of the people of Provo. And so is being respectful of the vital roles each branch plays.
8. A presentation regarding the Sales Tax Increment post performance payment with Woodside Capital Partners. (21-033)
   In June 2018, Provo City entered into a Sales Tax Increment agreement with Woodside Capital Partners to offset and incentivize the remodel, construction and opening of a new Ross retail store in the East Bay Shopping Center. The store was intended to serve as a magnet to attract other retailers and fill an otherwise low occupancy retail center. This will be heard at the March 2 Council meeting. We've done a lot of property tax increment deals, but very few sales tax increment deals. I am very interested to see how this deal has turned out so far. Presentation only. A sales tax incentive was offered, it attracted a taker, and the complex's economic output has increased. The increase has generated an additional $38k in Provo's portion of sales tax. This $38k is the incentive for this year. Provo will continue only to collect 2018 levels of sales tax for this complex for nine more years.
9. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This is a preview of this item, scheduled to be heard in the Council Meeting this evening. The decision will be to accept or deny the petition to consider annexation, not a decision on whether or not to grant the annexation itself. This appears to be part of the Annexation Plan and seems to be a good location for this use. I currently don't see any reason not to support the petition. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 5 in the evening meeting.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
    Zachary Steele requests approval of a zone change from the A1.1 zone to the RA(A) zone along with a concept plan for one new building lot for property belonging to the Steele family. The accessory apartment overlay (A) zone would allow the property owner to establish an accessory living unit as long as the property is owner-occupied and meets the standards of Chapter 14.30, Provo City Code. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and has one existing residential unit at 1400 W 890 S. The proposed lot is a half-acre lot just west of that existing home and would abut the recently approved Kelshaw Subdivision on the west property line and front on 890 South. A similar one-lot subdivision and associated rezone was recently approved just south of this proposal, on 990 South, for the Steele family. This new concept plan would provide an additional building lot within the Steele family farm. It should be noted that the A overlay currently requires at least 4 acres and at least 16 dwelling units. This proposal does not meet the minimum number of dwelling units. It is possible that state or local amendments might change that soon. As it stands, the Council can continue the item to a future meeting or rezone the parcel to RA without the overlay zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I agree with staff and the Planning Commission. I feel that this proposal is also aligned with the West Provo Development Policies, which calls for supporting farmers to farm for as long as they desire to farm. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 6 in the evening meeting.
11. 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 is the second hearing for this item. It was continued from the Council Meeting on December 15, 2020. 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:
    • commercial development under-performance in the South State area
    • 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. Most of the commercially zoned property on South State between 900 South and 1860 South 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 zoned such since about 2001 and has yet to be developed. 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. There seem to be so many underlying disputes regarding this property that it is hard to know what to believe. Many of the people speaking against the rezone request refer to issues that I have no information on, and I'm not sure are directly related to the request. As a councilor, I try hard to understand the broader impact of a decision. Still, it is hard to account for the needs of a charter school that has little local oversight. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for Council Meeting on February 16, 2021. See my report for item 8 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. A closed meeting was held.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 16, 2021

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.

Dial 346 248 7799. Enter Meeting ID 883 7568 5942 and press #. When asked for a participant ID, press #. To join via computer, use same meeting ID and enter passcode: 196829.

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

Items on the consent agenda are generally routine in nature, have been fully vetted in other meetings, or do not need additional discussion. They are approved together as one item.
1. Approval of minutes
   
2. A resolution in support of designating Bridal Veil Falls as a state monument or national park. (21-031)
   I like the idea of the Falls being a state monument. All items on the Consent Agenda were approved 7:0. As expected, there was no discussion in the meeting.
   
   

   Action Agenda

3. A resolution transferring $7,879,285 from the General Fund to various Funds and appropriating $5,910,000 of the transferred funds and an additional $10,000 for the purposes described herein. (21-029)
   In August 2020, the City received CARES Act CRF funds from Utah County to be used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those funds were used primarily to cover expenditures from the Public Safety COVID-19 response, which freed up General Fund balance that could then be used for other purposes. The Administration proposes to use the funds for various capital projects that would benefit the residents of Provo for years to come. These transfers and appropriations will facilitate the funding of those projects. Using the CARES money this way is a prudent and long-lasting way to get value out of the money. I do have some concerns about the cost and reprioritization of the Canyon Road Park development. I also think we should have a good discussion about the remaining $2M and how it will be used. A motion to amend the resolution to (1) change the amount appropriated to the Economic Development CIP Fund from $1,000,000 to $100,000, (2) add “develop or contract for the data tools to” to before “attract a west side grocery retailer” on line 50, and (3) remove the $1,000,000 appropriated to the Parks CIP Fund, was approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. The final version of the resolution with these changes was then approved 4:3, with George Handley, Shannon Ellsworth, and David Shipley opposed. We had some good discussion, just not about what should be done with the remaining $2M. There was some disagreement about how the $6M that the Administration be appropriated should be reviewed. What passed were the items that there was consensus on (~$4M). All items that any councilor wanted to consider further were left out for further discussion.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the hold times for electronic signs and sign size limits. Citywide application. (19-102)
   This was item 5 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 5 in the Work Meeting. ***CONTINUED*** As stated in the Results of item 5 in the Work Meeting, this item was referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
5. A resolution accepting or denying an annexation petition for further consideration for approximately 6.4 acres of property at the intersections of Colorado Avenue, Bullock Lane, and 1860 South. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20210019)
   This was item 9 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 9 in the Work Meeting. A resolution to accept the petition was approved 7:0. This annexation has been anticipated for a long time, and it makes sense.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 13.07 acres of real property, generally located at approximately 1400 West 890 South from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential Agricultural (RA(A). Sunset Neighborhood. (PLRZ20200413)
   This was item 10 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 10 in the Work Meeting. Approved (without the A overlay as discussed in the Work Meeting) 7:0. There were some questions with the "A" (ADU) overlay. As the State Legislature is actively considering changes to ADUs (accessory dwelling units), the applicant chose to move ahead without the A-overlay as part of the request.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to remove the Design Review Committee requirement for the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20210014)
   Subsection 14.33A.040(3) of the Code establishes design review requirements for certain uses conducted within the Critical Hillside (CH) Overlay Zone. This subsection reads as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision in Title 14 or 15, Provo City Code, all proposals for residential and nonresidential developments in the CH Zone, as well as all proposals for main buildings, except for one-family detached dwellings, shall obtain a recommendation from the Design Review Committee.” This subsection requires, among other things, design review for all residential developments. Design review for a development of single-family homes would not be very useful considering there would be no landscaping or architecture to review. Additionally, design review of residential developments, which do not require project plan approval, may lie outside the scope of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) powers and duties established in Chapter 14.04A. Section 14.04.020 of the Code identifies the duties of the DRC, as follows: “The Design Review Committee shall review and make design recommendations regarding the external design of buildings and site plans for all proposed new buildings, structures, and uses which are subject to project plan approval and design review.” The elimination of the subject requirement would allow the Powers and Duties section of Chapter 14.04A to control in the question of when a proposal in the CH Zone must go to the DRC for their recommendation. Other sections of the Code, such as Subsection 15.03.310(5), help to give further direction regarding when a proposal must have design review. Planning Commission recommended approval. I don't fully understand this proposal. I believe the Critical Hillside Overlay Zone is very recent. I understand that some tweaks may need to be made, but I'm not understanding why we would want to remove this review. The documentation talks about single-family homes, but doesn't specify if we are talking about detached or attached. Approved 7:0. I had my questions answered and my concerns addressed. The Council committee that developed the CH-overlay zone was supportive of this proposal.
8. 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 11 in the Work Meeting. See my preview for item 11 in the Work Meeting. A motion to continue the item for two weeks and request that the developer propose safety remedies for the access issues, was approved 6:1, with George Handley opposed. I was ready to move ahead and approve this rezone, but the more patient councilors prevailed. In the meantime, it appears that some good progress has been made in addressing the congestion concerns, so I'm glad that it was continued.
9. ***CONTINUED*** The Community & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 14.20B of the Provo City Code to update development standards of the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone. Citywide impact. PLOTA20210026
   This item was not ready to be heard.
10. ***CONTINUED*** Comm. & Neighborhood Services Dept. requests a Zone Change from the A1.20 Agricultural zone to the Freeway Commercial Two (FC-2) Zone for approx. 75 acres, located at approx. 500 W Lakeview Parkway. Lakewood Neighborhood. PLRZ20210025
    This item was not ready to be heard
11. ***CANCELLED*** Forrest Phillips requests a Zone Change from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential for property located at 845 W and 849 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. PLRZ20200407
    This item was cancelled by the applicant.




Adjournment