What's Up? - 18 September 2017

Karen Tapahe, the Council's Community Relations Coordinator (and social media guru) has started posting a Citizen's Agenda to help translate the jargon and legalese into something that is more helpful for the average citizen to follow. I'd like to think that my "What's Up" meeting previews helped inspire the Citizen's Agenda. To be more efficient and not duplicate her work, I'm attempting to add my commentary to her descriptions. Perhaps in the future, my comments, along with any other Councilor's, will be published inline with the Citizen's Agenda. I formatted this "What's Up?" in a way that might work if other Councilors want to add in their own thoughts. Just hover your mouse over the button with my name on it to see my thoughts on that agenda item.

As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Joint Meeting with Planning Commission

Agenda

11:00 AM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

1. A discussion on recent changes to the public noticing process for Planning Commission and Council hearings
• Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes.
There are no documents associated with this item in the current packet, but this is related to the changes that the Council approved back on August 8th. In short, it improves the development approval process so that by default, neighbors get more and better notice before land use items are heard by the Council, the public gets more opportunity to address the Council on these items, the Council gets a better opportunity to consider that input, and the applicants/developers get a shorter wait before finding out if the proposal will be approved. Does that sound too good to be true? Take a look at the details.
2. Additional questions and discussion

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

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 discussion on the UDOT & H.W. Lochner 500 West Project (100 N to 800 N/Center to 1230 N) (17-117)
• UDOT is evaluating improvements to 500 West between Center Street and Bulldog Boulevard in Provo. These improvements will include changing the pavement type from asphalt to concrete, planted medians, the addition of bike lanes and a multi-use path along the corridor.
Significant improvements are planned for 500 W, just east of Center Street. This is an extension of the great redesign and reconstruction of State Street in Southeast Provo, and across 300 S. My biggest concern at this point is the removal of the tunnel beneath 500 W that the school children use, so they don't have to cross a very busy section of State Street. Apparently, the combination of foot traffic and vehicular traffic doesn't warrant an enhancement like a tunnel or a sky bridge, but since that infrastructure is already there, I believe it warrants special consideration if the State really feels like they need to remove it. If they don't want to build a bridge, perhaps they should consider leaving the tunnel.
2. A discussion on parking (17-096)
• This is a followup to the August 8 work meeting where the new Provo City parking manager presented information and answered questions.
Today's Policy Lunch was held in Joaquin Park. It was a good reminder and illustration of just how bad parking is in this area and the almost-non-existent enforcement of parking regulations. There was one particularly unsafely parked car at the nearest intersection. I was parked right on the corner and was blocking the crosswalk/sidewalk. I feel that the City needs to step-up our parking enforcement, but I also feel that every driver should be given a warning if they have no previous warnings or tickets within the past year. Educate first, then penalize those who willfully break the law and make our neighborhoods less safe for others. This is but one of many issues that our Provo Parking Administration needs to address.
3. A discussion on the appropriation for the Freedom Lot on Block 90 (RC Willey conversion) (17-106)
• This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center.
The biggest question in my mind is, "Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?" I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used through out the City.
4. A presentation on complete streets and the 500 N transportation pilot project (17-118)
• The North Park Neighborhood Chair and Timp Neighborhood Chair, along with a member of the Provo Bike Committee will be briefing the Council on the recent pilot residents executed on 500 N. In addition, they will be talking about walkable and bikeable neighborhoods and complete streets.
The redesign that went along with the repaving of a section of 500 W was a great project. The Provo Bike Committee was awarded a grant from the Utah Department of Health to pilot some ideas to make 500 W friendlier to active modes of transportation (think bikes, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.). It turned into a great community event. There were some aspects of the project that were quite painful, but through diligent efforts on all sides, we came to a good resolution. I am concerned that without appropriate care and effort, small holes in our growing transportation network will significantly decrease the effectiveness of the network.
5. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage (17-110)
• This discussion about how signage is regulated in Provo City Code is intended to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing code changes in a future meeting. This was discussed at the previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed.
This one is all about electronic signs. The premise is that appropriately-controlled, static (low-churn) electronic signs are as obtrusive as an old-fashioned back-lit sign so they could be permitted anywhere that back-lit signs are currently permitted without negatively affecting the community. Low-churn signs could be changed up to three times a day. They can not have any animation or motion-video. The brightness is regulated and is restricted more at night. After looking at the proposed changes, by biggest concern is if the 8-second minimum hold time for high-churn electronic signs are enough. I know that is an industry standard, but perhaps what is good enough for our freeways isn't good enough for inside our city. High-churn signs are only permitted along certain stretches of commercial roads in our city. I was surprised to see that Center Street, between the freeway and State Street, is one of these designated corridors. Right now I can't think of any of these signs on that stretch right now. I'm not certain that a high-churn sign would be a good fit for that section of the street.
6. A presentation on Provo City's Media Services and Channel 17 (17-108)
• During budget discussions this summer, Council members had some questions regarding the media services budget. This presentation will give an explanation of what is covered in this budget as well as projects being done by Channel 17.
When we had iProvo when we first moved here, we had access to Channel 17. Since then, we get our TV "over-the-air" and I've only seen Internet video's produced by Channel 17. Are they still "broadcasting" on cable?
7. A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule (17-102)
• An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was discussed at the previous work meeting and additional information was requested.
At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project.
8. A discussion on conducting fee reviews (17-116)
• For the past two years, the Council has been reviewing City fees in order to understand what services the City may be subsidizing. This discussion will be centered on discussing how to best proceed with fee reviews in the future.
I feel like the reviews have been helpful, but only a few actual changes have come out of the effort. It will be interesting to see if the staff conducting the reviews feel that the outcome has been worth the effort.
9. A discussion on the zoning disclosure requirement (17-119)
• Provo City Code Chapter 6.25 requires that a seller or lessor of residential property must disclose the property’s zoning requirements to potential buyers or lessees. The Council’s Zoning Committee has discussed this requirement and would like to share a few ideas pertaining to zoning disclosure with the Council.
Back when we bought our house in Provo, I only had the fuzziest of notions about zoning. I remember receiving a zoning disclosure which led to a good discussion about zoning and land use and what uses are permitted on the property that I was buying. Even though I wasn't planning on using my property in any unallowed ways, I still felt it was a very valuable conversation. I imagine if I had been planning on using it in an unpermitted way, I would have found it even more valuable to know of the permitted uses before I bought the property.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. Provo City Public Works Department requests an amendment to the Aspen Loop road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. 17-0002SV  
• The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road.
The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed.
11. Gordon Jacobson requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to R1.9 for 1.056 acres of property, located at 2585 North Timpview Drive. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. 17-0014R
• The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone.
I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots.
12. Matt Evans requests a Zone Change from Agricultural A1.1 to Residential R1.10 for approximately 1.30 acres located at 1520 West 1150 South to facilitate a three-lot subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. 17-0015R
• This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties.
No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though.
13. Provo City Public Works Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to add Section 15.03.020(3) to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-Wide Impact. 17-0017OA
• This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards.
This seems fairly straightforward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced.
14. Provo City Community Development Department requests Amendments to Section 14.14E.050 to increase the required setbacks for front yards and side street yards from a maximum of 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet for commercial frontages and a minimum of 10 feet for residential frontages. Joaquin Neighborhood. 17-0006OA
• The Campus Mixed Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes.
In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings.

Closed Meeting

15. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
• Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

• Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for September 2017
2. Justice Court Annual Report
There are no support documents for this item. I assume that Judge Romney will present a summary of the work of the City's Justice Court.

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

3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (17-089)
• The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
• Natalie Gibbs, Parks & Recreation Board
• Stuart Wheeler, Arts Council
• Scott Glenn, Arts Council
I've said it before, but it bears repeating, Provo benefits greatly from the willingness of her residents to be involved and to donate their time, efforts, and talents to the community. Look no further than our boards and commissions for many examples of extremely accomplished individuals donating their expertise for the betterment of the community.
4. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
• Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. This proposed addition to the City Code is a step in achieving that goal. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold. First, it educates landlords and tenants regarding the legal requirements regarding the occupancy restrictions of a particular residence. By requiring landlords to provide tenants with a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and the Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities document, both the landlords and the tenants can have a clear understanding of their legal obligations so that they do not unwittingly violate the City Code. Additionally, it provides a way to indirectly enforce occupancy restrictions against landlords who intentionally violate the City Code. Landlords who are willfully violating occupancy restrictions are forced to choose between informing prospective tenants that they are breaking the law or violating this section of the code, as well. This will be the first of two public hearings on the ordinance.
This is the first of at least two hearings. There is a partially related open house on the 20th. I think the proposal has generated a lot of good discussion. I have heard a few really good suggestions for improvements already. I'm guessing that the proposal will evolve a bit before it is passed.
5. A  resolution approving the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to the Utah Municipal Power Agency and approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement. (17-115)
• This is a request from Utah Municipal Power Association (UMPA) to transfer the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to UMPA as agreed upon in the January 1, 2016, sale agreement.
The Energy Department is proposing that the assets be transferred to in accordance with past agreements. It seems pretty straight forward to me, and in the City's interest.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to add Conditional Uses within Public Facilities zones. City-wide Impact. (17-0012OA)

• The applicant is requesting that standard land use (SLU) #4603 be added to the public facilities zone as a conditional use. It is uncommon to have privately owned land within the Public Facilities Zone. The applicant believes that the current zone ordinance is too restrictive while the proposed use would be appropriate within the zone and allow a viable economic return on the property.
What is the long-range plan for this property? Why is it zoned Public Facilities if it is privately owned?

7. **CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.642 acres of real property, generally located at 925 East 1140 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
• This item was continued before it was ever presented to the Planning Commission, so it will not come to the Council until a future date. This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.30 acres of real property, generally located at 1520 West 1150 South, from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (17-0015R)
• This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties.
This item was heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #12 ("No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though.")
9. An ordinance amending the Aspen Loop Road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. (17-0002SV)
• The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #10 ("The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed.")
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.056 acres of real property, generally located at 2585 North Timpview Drive, from R1.10 to R1.9. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (17-0014R)
• The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone, but could qualify for R1.9.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #11. ("I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots.")
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-wide Impact. (17-0017OA)
• This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #13. ("This seems fairly straight forward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced.")
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding setbacks for front yards and side street yards in the Campus Mixed-Use Zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. (17-0006OA)
• The Campus Mixed-Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #14. ("In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings.")

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

13. A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters. (17-114)
• Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund.
This item was continued from the last meeting. Here is what I wrote before the last meeting, "Many of these commitments were made by a previous Council. I feel a fairly strong obligation to live up to our commitments. I'd only vote against this if I strongly felt like it was not in the communities best interest, or if I felt there was a better way to fulfill our commitments. Fortunately, I do believe that the expansion of Duncan into the City will be a very good thing for the City overall and that the commitments made were reasonable and the programs used were exactly what the programs were for."
14. A resolution appropriating $478,000 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
• This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #3. ("The biggest question in my mind is, 'Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?' I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used through out the City.")

Stormwater Special Service District

13. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule. (17-102)
• An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was originally set to be heard at the August 29 Council meeting, but was continued due to requested changes raised in the August 29 work meeting.
Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item 7. ("At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project.")

What's Up? - 12 September 2017

Background information on the agenda items is given in the meeting's preview. This meeting report focuses on the thinking behind the votes.

As always, the documents are all available to the public. Click here for more information on how to access them.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, August 8th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a conservation easement for Rock Canyon
   Presentation only.
   There appears to be a general consensus that a conservation easement is appropriate, given the private donations which contributed to the purchase. There are just some details to work out on the right level of conservation.
2. A discussion on the Economic Development Department's efforts in workforce development, startups, and women, minority and underserved populations
   Presentation only.
   It was a good tour of the many entrepreneurial efforts in our city and how the City can help foster the right conditions and encourage the process.
3. An update on the General Plan review
   Presentation only.
   Work is carrying on behind the scenes of this project.
4. A discussion on fee updates for Stormwater, Wastewater, Utility Transportation Fund, and the Fire Department
   Presentation only.
   Overall, the fees are aligned with the costs to provide the services, but some adjustments are warranted.
5. A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule
   A motion to continue this discussion at the September 19, 2017 Work Meeting was approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
   Due to my objection to the step-wise fees, the Council chose to continue this item to the next meeting and Public Works will propose a different fee structure.
6. A presentation and discussion on Budgeting for Outcomes
   Presentation only.
   I think everyone is on board with improving our overall use of performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of our programs. I believe Provo360, a unified computer platform now coming online, will help with this immeasurably. How fully we implement some sort of performance-based budgeting strategy may depend on many things, including the eagerness of the incoming administration.
7. A discussion on the Zoning Committee's recommendation to amend Provo City Code 6.26.150
   Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for a first hearing at the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting and a second hearing and vote at the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There was a general consensus from all the stake holders participating in the Zoning Committee that this proposal would be helpful. The apartment owners association said that it is a best practice for landlords anyway. This should help protect tenants who have borne the brunt of zoning enforcement in over-occupancy cases. The association of Realtors clarified that they support replacing the zoning disclosure requirement with this requirement, but I see those as separate issues. I received a number of letters from young, single professionals with concerns about the proposal. In discussing their concerns, I felt that there were frustrations much deeper than just with this proposal. In response to this, Dave Sewell and I are holding a Town Hall Meeting for young single professionals this Wednesday, September 13th, at the Provo Rec Center from 7pm to 9pm. All are invited, but the evening will be focused on hearing from this demographic and trying to increase understanding.
8. A discussion on the Council's goals concerning minimum unit size requirements
   Discussion only.
   Community Development wanted to better understand our desired outcomes from the minimum unit size ordinance we passed a couple months ago. The Council had discussed the preponderance of single bedroom units going in Downtown. Community Development suggested that if that is the factor that we are concerned about, we might get better results from limited the proportion of single bedroom units, rather than unit size.
9. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage
   Discussion only. This item will be brought back for another discussion at the September 19, 2017 Work Meeting.
   The thought behind this is that an appropriately used electronic sign is no more obtrusive than a backlit sign. This proposal would allow static (no animations, changing no more often than 8 seconds 3 times a day [thanks for the catch, Dave Sewell]) electronic signs to be used anywhere that backlit signs are currently allowed. In general, I agree, though I'm not sure I'm comfortable with signs switching every 8 seconds.
10. A discussion involving the Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) and the Hunter Power Plant Assignment
    Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting.
    I consider this a simple correction of an oversight.
11. A discussion on funding and appropriations related to an airport improvement project including issuance of sales tax revenue bonds, execution of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and development agreement by the Redevelopment Agency, and a resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund for infrastructure improvements
    Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting.
    We went through the details of the funding and appropriations. This will be the fulfillment of many committments previously made.
12. LaVorn Sparks requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.17.020 to add to Conditional Uses SLU #4603 Long-term Vehicle Storage including autos, trucks, and boats (on unimproved lots when non-contiguous to residential zones) within Public Facilities Zones. Citywide impact.
    Presentation only. This item is scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting.
13. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 8th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal primary elections held in Provo, Utah on August 15, 2017.
   Approved 7:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
   The 7:0 count with one excused is because the Mayor also sits on the Board of Canvassers. The City-Wide I Council race was close enough to allow the third place finisher to call for a recount. The recount was completed a week later and the order did not change, but 150 previously untallied ballots were discovered. The County has asked for more time to get to the bottom of what happened. I'll post here when we get more news.

1. A presentation from the Provo Bicycle Committee of the Golden Spoke Award to the Police Department's Bike Patrol.
   Presentation only.
2. An introduction of the new Provo Bay Neighborhood Chair
   Presentation only.
   Public Comment
3. A resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $6 million aggregate principal amount of sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of financing certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
4. A resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund, Airport Improvement Project Division for funding infrastructure improvements to the airport applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
5. A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
   A motion to continue this item to the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
   Items 3-5 are all related to the infrastructure and incentive package worked out with Duncan Aviation as part of their expansion at the Provo Airport.
6. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment and a proposed Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion.
   Approved as amended 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
   Some land was purchased almost 40 years ago using money from a federal program. Five years ago it was disposed of, but not following the requirements of the federal program. This oversight wasn't noticed until recently. This assessment considers the proposed action to remedy the situation. A parklet is proposed at roughly 300 N and 2950 W, on the banks of the Provo River.
7. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah County relating to the 2017 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program.
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.The grant will be used to help replace aging tasers. Why do we need to enter into an interlocal agreement if the County is not getting any of the grant? It is required to show that the County won't be given any portion of the grant.
8. An ordinance granting Mobilitie a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.This is mainly a standard contract that we have entered into with a number of companies.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make city noticing requirements consistent with State law. Citywide impact.
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 58.6 acres of real property, generally located at 1500 South State Street, from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
    We first heard this proposal at a Council Meeting six weeks ago. This rezone is an important step in implementing the new Southeast Area Master Plan. It is a bold move, and one that had some property owners in the area concerned. During the 6-week period between meetings, property owners had the opportunity to research what the proposal would mean and the tone was very different in this meeting.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) zone. Citywide impact.
    Approved 6:0, with Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
    This change will accommodate the sign upgrades that Provo Towne Centre mall is planning.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to eliminate the façade step-back for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    Approved 4:2, with Council members David Harding and George Stewart opposed and Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
    The proposed mixed-use apartment building was touted as a 'bookend' on the historical stretch of Center Street. Since when are bookends twice as tall as the books they support? I was never convinced that the previous design standards which required floors above the third be set back far enough to maintain the historic feel of the Street.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) and Downtown Core (DT2) zones. Downtown Neighborhood.
    Approved as amended 5:1, with Council member George Stewart opposed and Council member Kay Van Buren excused.
    I would still prefer to give density bonuses for good designs, but these minimums are more conducive for the type of housing that will help our Downtown flourish.
14. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule.
    This item was continued to the September 19, 2017 Work and Council Meetings as approved during the Work Meeting.
    See item 5 in the earlier meeting.

What's Up? - 29 August 2017

The morning of the Council meetings is nearly the least helpful time to publish a preview. The only time less helpful would be after the meetings. This past week I've been out of town for business meetings, so I've been writing this in airports and aboard trains. I had hoped to publish it last night but it didn't happen. I guess I'm trying to excuse the rough quality of what follows.

In an interesting development, yesterday afternoon Karen Tapahe, the Council's Public Relations Coordinator, published a "Citizen's Budget" on the Council Blog. I'm very excited at the possibility that I'll be able to rely on her work to format the agenda and give the background (typically what's in black and brown below) and I can focus on my thoughts and questions on the items (typically in blue). We'll see how this works out in the future.

As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.

Black text comes from the agenda,
Blue text is my current comments,
Brown text comes from the support documents, and
Light blue text comes from past reports.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, Aug 29th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on a conservation easement for Rock Canyon
   At the work meeting on June 20th, 2017, Erik Davis from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance presented the idea of placing a conservation easement on Rock Canyon to preserve the property’s natural habitat in the future. Council members asked that representatives from the Rock Canyon Preservation Alliance return to a future work meeting with a draft of the conservation easement.I think the Conservation Easement is an interesting idea. There are some advantages of having a CE but also some disadvantages. The benefits are that we know that this area will be protected indefinitely, and would ensure fidelity to the (what I assume are the) expectations of the people who donated money towards the purchase of this property. The downside is that it limits the flexibility of future leaders of our community. A familiar phrase in the Council office is 'we can't bind future Councils'. We can plan, and we can signal our intent to future Councils, but in many cases, we can't legally bind them, and in most cases, it is poor governance to try. I feel that it is important to trust that future leaders will do the right thing and that they will be in a better position to weigh the situation then than we can predict what the situation will be. One other "nice" thing about the Easement is that it becomes a settled matter. Without it, there may be times when a future Council questions if it should be sold to the Forrest Service, but if we have the easement then it isn't even a question that would come up.
2. A discussion on the Economic Development Department's efforts in workforce development, startups, and women, minority and underserved populations
   This is the latest installment in the ongoing series from the Office of Economic Development
3. An update on the General Plan review
   The Council is working to update the City's General Plan. A lot of effort last year went into updating Vision 2030 to become Vision 2050. Now we are incorporating Vision 2050 into the General Plan. The Council Office is working to align all of these documents.
4. A discussion on fee updates for Stormwater, Wastewater, Utility Transportation Fund, and the Fire Department
   Council staff have been meeting with Administrative staff to compare City fees to the cost of providing City services. The fees and services most recently reviewed are tied to Stormwater, Wastewater, the Utility Transportation Fund, and the Fire Department. In addition, Council staff have compared Provo’s fees to other cities’ fees. 
   Stormwater and Wastewater, like other utilities, are on a five-year plan of rate increases which should put us on a sustainable path, where we are paying enough to keep up with the maintenance of the system. The UTF was done as a five-year program, and it is now time to start looking at whether it should be continued. The Fire Department is mostly funded out of our General Fund, not fees. There are some long term needs that aren't in the funding plan that we need to address. 
5. A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule
   An intended new fee for Stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule that the Council (acting as the Stormwater Service District) passed in June 2017. As a result, Public Works has asked that the Council add the new fee to the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule, as shown below.
   
   SWPPP Inspection Fees SWPPP

   <= 1 Acre	$100.00
   >1 Acre and <= 5 Acres	$200.00
   >5 Acres and <= 20 Acres	$400.00
   >20 Acres	$500.00

   Re-Inspection for Violations Fee $60.00 each
   This was intended to be in the main budget. It makes sense to the taxpayers of the City to have developers pay the cost of reviewing these plans. I'm not a big fan of the tiered fees, though. A 5.1 Acre inspection costs as much as a 19-acre inspection and twice as much as a 5-acre inspection. I understand why this is done, it makes for a small table and is easy to determine the cost of a review. But I think there are better approaches that are simple enough, for example, $20/acre + $80 base fee. Or $80 base fee, $20/acre up to 20 acres and $5 after that. 

   Acres	Proposal	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
   1	100	100	100
   2	200	120	120
   3	200	140	140
   5	200	180	180
   6	400	200	200
   10	400	280	280
   15	400	380	380
   20	400	480	480
   25	500	580	505
   35	500	780	555

6. A discussion on the Zoning Committee's recommendation to amend Provo City Code 6.26.150
   The Provo City Municipal Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. The proposed addition to the City Code would seek to implement this goal.
   So far this item has generated the most feedback from the community. There is some question about who would be held responsible (the landlord or the tenant). This is a preliminary discussion with no vote scheduled, so it'll be a good time to find out more about it. In my mind, this would do more to protect the tenant. Often when enforcement is required, the tenant faces the brunt of the consequences as they are often are forced to leave. In the end, I believe this proposal would make it harder for everyone involved to claim, "I didn't know!"
7. A presentation and discussion on Budgeting for Outcomes
   At the June 20th, 2017 Council Meeting, the Council passed a resolution appropriating $50,000 to hire a “budget performance consultant” beginning in January 2018. The intent was that the consultant would “work with the Administration and Council to identify performance metrics that demonstrate the implementation or achievement of priorities.” Provo is not the first city to explore this concept. Over the past two decades, many cities across the U.S. have been implementing models that use performance measurements to link overarching City priorities and desired outcomes to the budget process. One common model is called “Budgeting for Outcomes.” At the request of Council members, staff has been researching Budgeting for Outcomes to formulate a clearer understanding of how Budgeting for Outcomes has helped other cities and what the model looks like.
   The description focuses mostly on performance metrics. BFO or other Priority Based Budgeting systems rely on performance metrics but are broader in scope. The main idea is to set the budget so money is allotted based on the strategic goals, and then measure how well funded projects acheived the goals.
8. A discussion on the Council's goals concerning minimum unit size requirements
   Recently, the City Council amended the ITOD and the Downtown zones to have a minimum square footage of 500 and an average square footage of 800. During deliberations for this ordinance amendment the minimum square footage for apartment buildings along from Sandy to Provo were considered by the Council. The amendment that was adopted represented a rough average of other apartment buildings, some of which were also in TOD zones.
   We've been grappling with this issue for a while now. What are the long-term impacts of these decisions?
9. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage 
   Council Chair Dave Sewell has suggested that the Council update Title 14 in the City Code in reference to signs. Brian Jones will show the Council which sections of the Code would likely require changes that are in line with Mr. Sewell’s suggestions. If the Council would like to pursue the changes, Mr. Jones would eventually bring back a revised version of the Code for Council approval at a future meeting. 
10. A discussion involving the Utah Municipal Power Agency (UMPA) and the Hunter Power Plant Assignment
    UMPA has requested the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to UMPA as agreed upon in principle under the Power Sale Agreement dated January 1, 2016.
    The Department is proposing that the assets be transferred to fall in line with the agreements signed. Seems pretty straight forward to me, and in the City's interest. 
11. A discussion on funding and appropriations related to an airport improvement project including issuance of sales tax revenue bonds, execution of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and development agreement by the Redevelopment Agency, and a resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund for infrastructure improvements
    See discussion in item #5 in the later meeting 
12. LaVorn Sparks requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.17.020 to add to Conditional Uses SLU #4603 Long-term Vehicle Storage including autos, trucks, and boats (on unimproved lots when non-contiguous to residential zones) within Public Facilities Zones. Citywide impact.
    It is uncommon to have privately owned land within the Public Facilities Zone, and many of the uses called out as either permitted or conditional are more related to government or institutional ownership. As it is, there are only a limited number of privately owned properties and sites which might be included in a PF Zone and even fewer which might be developed for the use proposed in the amendment. Therefore, the consideration of appropriateness easily becomes site specific rather than a broader analysis for all of the properties within a PF zone. For years Mr. Sparks has looked for ways to obtain enough economic benefit from this property to at least pay the property taxes. Staff believes the additional land use allowance through the amendment, will not be burdensome on the City nor adjacent property owners and could be considered appropriate.
    My first question is, "Why keep it as Public Facilities at all?" I met with a representative of the applicant quite a while ago. I think it is better to use the lot unimproved so that there is a lower bar to develop it later into something better.
13. Closed Meeting 

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, Aug 29th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

0. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal primary elections held in Provo, Utah on August 15, 2017.
   I'll save my thoughts on how this year's primary voting went for another post.
1. A presentation from the Provo Bicycle Committee of the Golden Spoke Award to the Police Department's Bike Patrol
2. An introduction of the new Provo Bay Neighborhood Chair
   
   Public Comment
3. A resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $6 million aggregate principal amount of sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of financing certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
   See item 5.
4. A resolution appropriating $11,529,568 in the Airport Fund, Airport Improvement Project Division for funding infrastructure improvements to the airport applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
   See item 5.
5. A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters.
   Many of these commitments were made by a previous Council. I feel a fairly strong obligation to live up to our commitments. I'd only vote against this if I strongly felt like it was not in the communities best interest, or if I felt there was a better way to fulfill our commitments. Fortunately, I do believe that the expansion of Duncan into the City will be a very good thing for the City overall and that the commitments made were reasonable and the programs used were exactly what the programs were for.
6. A resolution approving an Environmental Assessment and a proposed Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion.
   Wow, those are some thick documents. Some land was purchased almost 40 years ago using money from a federal program. Five years ago it was disposed of, but not following the requirements of the federal program. This oversight wasn't noticed until recently. This assessment considers the proposed action to remedy the situation. A parklet is proposed at roughly 300 N and 2950 W, on the banks of the Provo River. I work for a company that designs and manufactures medical devices. Our President has stated that we aren't in the medical device business, but that we are in the document generation business. I thought that he was joking at first, but now, having European regulatory approval, and taking the first steps towards US approval, I realize that he was quite serious. Apparently, the government is also in the document generation business. You might be able to cover the whole plot of land that was traded if you were to lay out each sheet of paper in the document bundle.
7. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an application for a Byrne Justice Assistance Grant and to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement with Utah County relating to the 2017 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program.
   The grant will be used to help replace aging tasers. Why do we need to enter into an interlocal agreement if the County is not getting any of the grant? I guess I'll find out in the meeting.
8. An ordinance granting Mobilitie a nonexclusive franchise in order for it to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah.
   Provo City and Mobilitie have come to terms on a Franchise Agreement. Pursuant to Provo City Code, “[n]o franchise contract shall take effect until it has been approved by the Municipal Council.” 5.03.020 (5). The parties are seeking the Council’s approval for the agreement that they have reached.This is mainly a standard contract that we have entered into with a number of companies. This one is a little different, mostly in that it is a 10-year contract rather than a 5-year contract.
   This meeting's document packet is filled with a lot of legalese.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to make city noticing requirements consistent with State law. Citywide impact.
   This brings our code into alignment with the State. We will no longer require more noticing than the state, but our practice will continue, and with new Council practice, will be enhanced.
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 58.6 acres of real property, generally located at 1500 South State Street, from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    There were some land owners who opposed the rezone. One, in particular, was just about to sell the land to someone who wanted to put in more storage units. For the City's and Neighborhood's vision for this area to be realized, we need to be fully committed and not allow new industrial uses to go in. While the discussion played out in the meeting, potential partnerships and agreements between developers and land owners were being explored. I applaud these conversations but I didn't think the Council Meeting was the best place for them to take place. I am confident that land owners and developers will be able to work out the details to move forward to redefine this area of Provo. I think we should have just moved forward with the rezone and allow the parties to work the rest out. But I was willing to support the continuance, as long as we eventually end up moving toward the community's vision.
    It will be interesting to hear if everything worked out.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) zone. Citywide impact.
    The PTC had a larger sign on University Ave, but it was taken down when the new hotel was going in. Instead of replacing it in a similar location, the proposal is for two smaller signs, which are located in the middle of the access roads, next to the turn lanes, to be replaced with larger electronic signs. As is the rules in other parts of the City, no motion video would be allowed, only static screens with at least a 8-second hold.
    
    I understand the Mall's desire for such signs. I do worry though that continuing down this path will make our City less enjoyable to live in in the future. Am I the only one who doesn't like being on certain sections of University Parkway north of the City because of the visual assault of some of the signs there?
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to eliminate the façade step-back for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    I'm still not convinced that these setbacks are not an important part of our design standards.
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) and Downtown Core (DT2) zones. Downtown Neighborhood.
    I think this development would be good for downtown and good for releaving some of the rental pressure off of our surrounding single family detached neighborhoods.
14. Stormwater Service District An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule.
    See Item 5 in the earlier meeting

What's Up? - August 10th, 2017

Black text comes from the agenda
Bold text describes the action taken
Blue text is my analysis

Background information on the agenda items is given more in the meetings preview. This meeting report focuses on the thinking behind the votes.

As always, the documents are all available to the public. Click here for more information on how to access them.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, August 8th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an appropriation for an Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
   Some members of the public had expressed concern about the necessity of this analysis as well as the process by which the contractor was selected. I feel like the Council asked the right questions regarding these concerns and I was satisfied with both the necessity of the project as well as the selection process. Take a look and see if you agree.
2. A discussion on a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $30 million of general obligation refunding bonds; and related matters
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
   By refunding (think refinancing) the Rec Center bonds, we (the property taxpayers of Provo) will save $2.8M over 15 years. That translates to a $4/yr decrease on a median home.
3. A discussion on road funding
   Presentation only.
   I don't think we are fully funding our streets and sidewalks, but we are awfully close, and far better than just about every community around us. One tidbit that I found interesting, some roads are being maintained regularly to extend the time before they need to be completely repaved. Others have hit that point that they need to be repaved, so they won't be maintained, but the City is holding off as long as they can before repaving in order to save money. (Like I said, we aren't fully funding). This helps explain why some roads seem to be so neglected and others are well maintained. I also learned that the street engineers had a lot of turn over this past year and are still looking to hire one more person to get back to full strength. They have been stretched thin, which helps explain some of the difficulties I've heard from some of you about.
4. An update on Victim Services grants
   Presentation only.
   This presentation was both heartbreaking and encouraging. This division serves our community members who are going through the most difficult circumstances: unexpected deaths, suicides, domestic violence, sexual assault, abuse, etc. They directly serve more than 1% of our population, EACH YEAR. It's a sobering thought that there is so much suffering going on all around us. It is a good reminder to be kind to everyone you interact with. You never know what they may be dealing with.
5. A discussion with the Economic Development Department on retail incentives and retaining business
   Presentation only.
   Each time we discuss the topic of retail incentives, I can't help but think that our whole county would be better off if we entered into some sort of agreement or arrangement so that each city isn't competing against one another to see who will give the most away to a new business.
6. A discussion on parking
   Presentation only.
   The new Provo Parking Manager has been on the job for 2 months and is developing a plan to improve parking in Provo, starting with our Downtown. I appreciated Ms. Santiago's encouragement that we get going as soon as possible. We've been struggling with parking for too long. I am very optimistic that better days are on the horizon.
7. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.02.010 to make city noticing requirements consistent with state law. Citywide impact.
   Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting.
   This item is in conjunction with item 8 and they were discussed together. This is the only component of the DAPR Committee's recommendation that would actually affect City Code. The rest are just changes to the Council's internal rules and standard operating procedures.
8. A discussion on the Development Approval Process Review Committee's recommendation on noticing land use items
   A substitute motion to approve the proposal as originally written was Approved 4:3, with Council members David Knecht, George Stewart, and Kim Santiago opposing.
   If you are a regular reader, you know how excited I am about this. It gives residents a more robust opportunity to engage with the Council on land use proposals that affect them, at the same time as reducing the time period between a recommendation from the Planning Commission and a final decision by the Council. It's a true win-win.
9. Scott Bowles requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. Citywide impact.
   Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting.
   Last time we passed an ordinance allowing for a larger sign for Provo Towne Centre Mall on their freeway frontage. Now they are asking for much larger video signs on their University Ave frontage. I feel that multiple Councilmembers expressed unease at the proposal and asked for more information and wanted to understand the future impact of this decision.
10. McKay Christensen requests an Amendment to Section 14.21A.110 to eliminate the facade stepback for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting.
    Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission recommend this request. Community Development indicated that they think the requirement should be eliminated from all of Center Street. I pushed back a bit, telling them that I remember when the requirement was put into place and they did such a good job convincing me that it was important to maintain and improve the historic feel of Center Street that they would need to do a better job convincing me now that it isn't needed.
11. McKay Christensen requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.21A.090 to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting.
    Some Councilmembers were surprised because we just recently added this new requirement. When we implemented it we were under an important deadline, and at least some Councilmembers felt like we needed to get something in place and then we could come back later and make finer level tweaks to it. This would be one such tweak.
12. Closed Meeting
    A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 8th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for August 2017
   Presentation only.
2. A presentation by the Covey Center on the play "Murder by the Book."
   Presentation only.
3. Public comment on the Provo River Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion Draft Environmental Assessment
   Public comment only; this item is scheduled at the August 29, 2017 Council Meeting for a vote.
   The original land had been obtained with an eye toward routing the Provo River Trail along the river. But that plan was abandoned when too many other obstacles stood in the way. The Trail now runs along the University Ave Greenway. The replacement will be a wetlands interpretive park out towards the lake. I asked Parks and Rec to keep an eye out for opportunities to connect the park, on the south side of the river, to the popular Provo River Trail on the north side of the river.
4. A presentation on disaster preparedness and a resolution adopting the Mountainland Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan.
   Approved 7:0.
5. An ordinance amending City Code to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:1, opposed by Council member David Harding.
   I love the concept. I generally support innovative housing arrangements and really wanted to support this live/work proposal. I could have supported this if it was located near downtown. I could have supported this if the applicant was willing to accept restricting the residential occupant to the owners or renters of the business space below, or their employees. But I just couldn't support this project in this location without those restrictions. It didn't matter because the rest of the Council was willing to approve it.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding street-side yards on corner lots. Citywide impact.
   Approved 7:0.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. Citywide impact.
   Approved 7:0.
8. A resolution appropriating $111,650 in various funds for the funding of an Impact Fee Study for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
   Approved 7:0.
   This item was heard in the afternoon meeting as agenda item 1.
9. Consideration of a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $30 million of general obligation refunding bonds; and related matters.
   Approved 7:0.
   This item was heard in the afternoon meeting as agenda item 2.

What's Up? - 5 August 2017

Here is my preview of the meetings coming up on next Tuesday. I'm excited to talk about parking. I'm hopeful that we'll make significant improvements to the development approval process. I'm having heart-burn over most of the land-use proposals.

As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text is my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents, and
Light blue text comes from my previous comments.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 Noon, Tuesday, Aug 8th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on an appropriation for an Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis
   Impact fees are paid by developers to cover the development's impact on City infrastructure. Impact fees are regulated by State law and cities must go through a specific analysis when establishing or updating the fees. The administration is recommending to appropriate funds to develop an up-to-date and complete Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) for Energy, Water, Wastewater, Storm Drain, Roadways, Parks and Recreation and Public Safety. Through the standard proposal process, Zions Public Finance was selected to assist the City with the process. A total appropriation of $111,650 is proposed, of which $32,631 would come from the General Fund. The Energy Department's portion is all ready to go.
   I support the analysis of our current impact fees so we can ensure that the proper amount is being charged.
2. A discussion on refunding the Recreation Center General Obligation Bond
   After the bonding for the Rec Center was approved by voters, the City issued $39M in bonds. The present amount is now down to a little over  $34M. Up to $30M of this is being proposed to be refinanced. The estimated savings due to this refinance would be $2.8M over the 15-year life of the bond. At first glance, this looks like a 'no brainer'. I'm curious if there are extra up-front costs or if it all gets rolled into financed amount.
3. A discussion on road funding
   We will review past years' construction and maintenance levels and will discuss the proposed future projects.
4. An update on Victim Services grants
   The Provo Police Victim Services Division is mostly funded by local, State, and Federal grants. We are required to now provide the Council with two updates per year on the grants.
5. A discussion with the Economic Development Department on retail incentives and retaining business
   This is the latest installment of an ongoing series of presentations by the Office of Economic Development. The objective of this presentation is to: Inform Council Members regarding what Economic Development does in terms of providing incentives to retail and in retaining business.
6. A discussion on parking
   This is a discussion to introduce the interim direction and priorities of the Provo Parking Administration to the Municipal Council and seek their initial feedback.
   Provo City recently created the Parking Administrator position and hired Matt Taylor, former City Council Director, to overhaul the parking situation in the City. This will be the first presentation to the City Council as a whole. I am looking forward to the improvements that will be made as we devote significant focus and effort on our parking problems. Take a look at the draft Strategic Parking Managment Plan.
7. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.02.010 to make city noticing requirements consistent with state law. Citywide impact.
   The accompanying documents talk only about making the noticing requirements consistent with state law and eliminating confusion caused by different noticing requirements listed within the State Code and the Zoning Ordinance. They don't talk about what is actually being changed. This will be confirmed in the discussion, but, if I remember correctly, City noticing requirements went beyond State requirements, meaning the City required more noticing than the State. So with these changes, our practice could change to give shorter notice than before. I am glad that we will be discussing this item in conjunction with the next item.
8. A discussion on the Development Approval Process Review Committee's recommendation on noticing land use items
   We've been talking about these recommendations since March and have made a few tweaks. I'm hopeful that we will move forward with these recommendations. This is a rare opportunity where there are no downsides and only positives to a proposal. There will be longer noticing, and more robust opportunity for public input, and more opportunity for Council consideration, AND the approval process is simultaneously streamlined so developer gets a decision faster. Sound too good to be true? Check out the proposal. (Notice that the last paragraph on the second page is basically item 7 above.)
9. Scott Bowles requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.20.160 to increase the size of signs permitted in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. Citywide impact
   Provo Towne Centre Mall wants to put in larger signs on University Parkway. I see the obvious reasons why the Mall wants larger signs. I would like to discuss what the broader, longer-term impacts might be by allowing larger signs along this corridor. As I have written about other proposals, I want to understand why the City put the current regulations into place and if anything has changed to make the old regulations obsolete. Staff recommends it, the Planning Commission unanimously supports it. The only discussion point listed in their Report of Action is regarding sign brightness.
   
10. McKay Christensen requests an Amendment to Section 14.21A.110 to eliminate the facade stepback for buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    In this case, I remember when the facade stepback was implemented. I remember what a great job Community Development did in advocating for the stepback, explaining why it was such an important component in preserving the historic feel of Provo's Center Street.
    Now Staff no longer feels it is important. I am very interested to learn why their position has changed. The Planning Commission voted to support this proposal 4 to 1. I have yet to be convinced that this is a good thing.
11. McKay Christensen requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.21A.090 to reduce the average apartment square footage from 800 feet to 600 feet in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood.
    I support this change. I believe that many who are looking to live Downtown would like to live in smaller apartments. If the market pushes towards larger units, this regulation doesn't prevent developers from building larger units. This project addresses many aspects of our vision for Downtown renewal. It is all market rate units and has ground floor commercial. Staff supports it and the Planning Commission unanimously recommends it.
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, Aug 8th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for August 2017
2. A presentation by the Covey Center on the play "Murder by the Book."
   The show is playing for two more weekends, Thursday through Saturday.
   
   Public Comment
3. Public comment on the Provo River Land and Water Conservation Fund Property Conversion Draft Environmental Assessment
   The purpose of this proposal is to allow the public and City Council to provide comments about the Draft Environmental Assessment for the LWCF Property Conversion. Some land was purchased almost 40 years ago using money from a federal program. Five years ago it was disposed of, but not following the requirements of the federal program. This oversight wasn't noticed until recently. This assessment considers the proposed action to remedy the situation. A parklet is proposed at roughly 300 N and 2950 W, on the banks of the Provo River. Plans for this site include a looped trail, interpretive area for wetlands and sitting areas. 
4. A presentation on disaster preparedness and a resolution adopting the Mountainland Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan.
   This was item 7 in our Work Meeting three weeks ago:
   The Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is revised every five years. Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) has recently revised the HMP with input for the multi-county jurisdictions included in the plan. MAG received a Federal Grant to review and revise the plan. The plan was reviewed and accepted by FEMA and all jurisdictions included in the plan are advised to adopt their portion of the plan.
   It a 46-page document summarizing the potential disasters we face in Utah County. Much of it focuses on our history of disasters and it has a little discussion about how to mitigate the potential damage we face in future disasters.
5. An ordinance amending City Code to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
   This was item 10 in our Work Meeting three weeks ago. Here is what I said before the meeting: Community Development Staff, along with the Planning Commission, recommends approval of this proposal, but I'm struggling to understand its purpose, or even what is being requested. In one section it's talking about projects with ten or more units, in another, it states that only one unit is permitted per parcel. Is residential use really something we want to allow in a manufacturing park? I'm pretty open to living arrangements that others are interested in even if they don't interest me, but I'm having a hard time seeing the upside of having residential units in a manufacturing park. I've heard of people living in storage units, but I don't see that being in the communities interest either. I have a lot of questions on this one, including the 500' buffer which appears to make this effectively a spot-zone. I hope to understand this better after the presentation.
   Here is what I wrote afterward: This item is already scheduled for our first Council meeting in August. The vote was to change the proposal that we will be considering to have a soft 600 ft buffer as suggested by the Planning Commission, rather than the 500 ft soft buffer as originally proposed. (I call it soft because the Planning Commission will have the discretion to waive it.)
   I originally abstained from the vote, because I am uncomfortable with the whole proposal. But because there were only four Councilors there, it would not have passed without my vote and the only impact would be that we'd be starting with the 500 ft buffer at our Council Meeting.
   This site is located on a narrow strip of land, between the rail road tracks and Independence Ave. It is across the street from Independence High and Freedom Academy. It is isolated from any neighborhood (with a lower case "n"). There would be 30 small units for businesses, office and warehouse space, and roughly half of the units would have an attached residential unit on the top floor. So we are looking at roughly 15 residential units going into this area. The idea is for this to be a "live/work" arrangement. Allowing for a young entrepreneur to rent some space for their fledgling business and live on the premises.
   I am uncomfortable with the proposal because I fear it has the potential to become a sketchy area for people to live. There are no provisions in the proposal to require the residential renter to be the owner of the business renting the space below. It doesn't even have to be an employee. We already have code that allows "caretakers" to live on site at businesses, but they have to be bonified employees. We already hear stories of people living in storage units. It is easy to see why this is not a good thing for the community. I fear that as proposed, this project could become a half step up from that. This area is so isolated from any other residential area that I fear the renters would be cut off from the community.
   During the meeting, a staff member pushed back (which I appreciate; I think robust discussion is important) saying that if this project was built in the 'Startup District' (south of 300 S and north of the Front Runner station) that people would be lining up to live there. And I fully agree. This would be a great project for the Startup District. I am concerned, though, about it going in where it is currently being proposed.
   
   
   
   
   
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding street-side yards on corner lots. Citywide impact.
   Item 8 from the previous Work Meeting: This proposal would bring the side yard requirements for corner lots into harmony with the front lot requirements we recently adjusted. Originally there was an off-street parking component to the proposal, but that has been withdrawn for the time being. It is being proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. Citywide impact.
   Item 9 from the previous Work Meeting: This proposal is also in response to the recently updated front and rear setback requirements. Patios are allowed to project into the setback area, but, with this proposed change, they can't get within 8 feet of the rear property line. This was also proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
8. A resolution appropriating $111,650 in various funds for the funding of an Impact Fee Study for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
   This is item 1 from the Work Meeting earlier in the day.
9. A resolution authorizing a special bond election for the purpose of reworking the Recreation Center General Obligation Bond.
   This is item 2 from the Work Meeting earlier in the day.