What's Up? - 3 October 2016

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A report on vendor selection for software related to the Council priority to improve public engagement (16-042)
   Encouraging Public Engagement is one of our nine active priorities. As part of this effort we have been looking into some software that will facilitate online engagement with residents in a moderated environment. The findings and recommendations of the staff will be presented.
2. A discussion on parking
1. A discussion on the Joaquin Parking Study (16-068)
2. A discussion about potential amendments to parking standards in Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) & University zones  (16-109)
3. An update regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
4. A discussion on vendor selection and implementation of Body-Worn-Cameras for Police Officers (16-103)
   The Police Department is considering the implementation of body-worn cameras for its officers. Both the policy and the appropriation for the camera system is proposed. The policy tries to strike a balance between privacy and transparency. The cost will be somewhere around a half million dollars over a 5-year period.
5. A report and continued conversation regarding the balance of private solar energy generation, consumption, and net metering alternatives (16-093)
   We've been talking about this for a while now. I'll go back to what I've written in the past, "In order to encourage conservation, and to reduce the burden on our lower energy users (who are assumed to also be lower income), we have previously set base fees low and charged higher usage rates. The base fees aren’t enough to cover the fixed costs of servicing homes, but the gap is made up by the higher usage rates. This system has worked well, but can be exploited by solar roof top and other “distributive” generators, who get the full benefit of being on the “grid” (like having their lights come on whether the sun is shining or not) but may not be paying toward the grid at all. During this discussion we will be looking into changes to our electrical fee structure in order to better meet our goals (conservation, reliability, low cost, fair costs, etc.)" This isn't about punishing certain customers. This isn't about a revenue shortfall. This is about making sure our electric rate structure makes sense even while the power landscape morphs.
6. A discussion on potential legislation related to Trampoline Gyms (16-105)
   This item has also been discussed for a while now. I believe that we are getting close.
7. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

          Public Comment

1. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of James Miguel as the Chief of the Fire Department for the City of Provo. (16-107)
   I don't believe I've met Mr. Miguel and haven't received any information about him so I look forward to learning about his qualifications.
2. An ordinance enacting Provo City Code Chapter 6.11 (Trampoline Gyms) to regulate the licensing of Trampoline Gyms in Provo. (16-105)
   Same as Item 6 in the Work Session.
3. An ordinance amending Energy Rates on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-093) 
   Same as Item 5 in the Work Session.
4. A resolution appropriating $260,000 in the General CIP Fund for purposes related to the Fleet Facility Project and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. (16-110)
   There is no information on this item in the packet.
5. A resolution approving a Power Plant Property Lease Agreement between Provo City and Utah Municipal Power Agency. (16-024)
   There was an old, inefficient, polluting power plant on this property before the campus was redone. It will be replaced with a much cleaner, quieter power plant. The plant is not run regularly, it is used for contingencies.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.44 acres of real property, generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road, from Agricultural Zone (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.10), Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
   This is a plot with a long and ugly history.

What's Up? - 17 September 2016

This installment addresses both the meetings on the 6th as well as the upcoming meetings on the 20th.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 6th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding progress on Council Priorities (16-015)
   
   A discussion on planning for the West Side, and the possible creation of a Council Committee
   Council Member David Sewell moved that a Committee on West Side Planning be formed consisting of four members; David Harding, David Knecht, Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton and that David Harding chair the committee. Seconded by Kay Van Buren. Approved 7:0.
   There has not been a lot of progress on this priority so far this year. Three weeks ago the Council felt like we needed to deny a development that, for the most part, complied with the plans that were put in place a while ago. This committee will met with many stakeholders and will recommend a policy direction for future development on our westside.
   An update on zoning enforcement
   The Administration will bring a list of changes in enforcement in a couple of months. Brian Jones will also bring suggestions back from a zoning conference he is attending.
   During our follow up we learned that Community Development was under the impression that the funding for two new zoning officers would not be in place until the start of the new calendar year. The intent of the Council was for the officers to be hired at the start of the fiscal year. Community Development has committed to move on this as quickly as prudent.
2. A presentation from the Utah Division of Water Quality on the State of Utah's Integrated Report and Utah Lake Nutrient Study (16-091)
   Report Only.
   A lot of time was taken for the report, but they did not get to the point where they would talk about whether the changes will have a meaningful impact on the health of the lake. Perhaps another meeting will need to be held.
3. A presentation on the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo (16-044)
   David Decker will bring this forward to the September 20th or October 1st Council Meeting.
4. A discussion on private solar energy generation and the effects on revenue for maintaining and upgrading capital facilities of the overall electric utility system (16-093)
   Council Member George Stewart moved to hear this item on the September 20th Work and Council Meetings. Seconded by Council Member. Council Member David Sewell made a motion to amend Mr. Stewarts motion to hear this item on the September 20th Work Meeting and the October 4th Council Meeting. Seconded by Council Member David Harding. Approved 4:2. Council Members George Stewart and Gary Winterton opposed. Council Member Kay Van Buren excused. Council Member David Sewell made a motion to approve the amended motion. Seconded by Council member David Harding. Approved 6:0. Council Member Kay Van Buren excused.
   My recollection was that the final motion that we approved foresaw hearing this item in both meetings on September 20th. Here is what I wrote last time, "In order to encourage conservation, and to reduce the burden on our lower energy users (who are assumed to also be lower income), we have previously set base fees low and charged higher usage rates. The base fees aren’t enough to cover the fixed costs of servicing homes, but the gap is made up by the higher usage rates. This system has worked well, but can be exploited by solar roof top and other “distributive” generators, who get the full benefit of being on the “grid” (like having their lights come on whether the sun is shining or not) but may not be paying toward the grid at all. During this discussion we will be looking into changes to our electrical fee structure in order to better meet our goals (conservation, reliability, low cost, fair costs, etc.)"
   As we discussed the options, I have become very interested in having a minimum fee that is sufficient for each user to pay their share toward the fixed costs of the grid. This change would only affect users with extremely low energy use, like vacant buildings or solar users who generate almost all of their energy needs (but still use the grid).
5. A discussion on an amendment to the Provo City/Utah County Interlocal Agreement for Provo Westside Connector Project (16-104)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
   From before, "The costs of building the Westside collector (from the interstate to the airport) have been higher than estimated, in both construction and land aquisition. This agreement is with the County for them to pay the increased costs. ($1.45M)"
6. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.34.140 Flag Lots, revising the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
   Community Development is ready to move forward with a portion of the changes that they recommend making. We discussed whether we should wait until the whole package is ready to vote on.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify yard definitions and the requirements for minimum lot widths and require yards for corner lots. (16-0008OA)
   This item is continued.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 6th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. Annual Justice Court Report
2. Introduction of the new Water Resource Director, Gary Calder
   
   Public Comment
3. A resolution approving the Amended Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding construction costs for the Westside Connector. (16-104)
   Approved 7:0
   See Work Meeting Item #5 above. 
4. A resolution approving the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Agreement with the Governor's Office of Energy Development. (16-092)
   Approved 4:3. Council Member Kay Van Buren, George Stewart and Kim Santiago opposed.
   From before: "This is a national program, implemented by the states, and administered by municipalities. It provides capital to companies to build or retrofit more sustainable buildings. These improvements should provide more savings each year than the payments on the loans.
   I think this is a great way to encourage more efficient buildings in our valley/city, buy helping companies with the upfront costs, to be repaid by the energy savings."
   Some Councilors expressed discomfort with the portion of the program which includes electrical generation (solar, wind, etc) while we are still deciding how to proceed with our electrical rate structure. So even though I wanted to pass the whole program, I supported the exclusion of this part of the program, for the time being in order to generate more consensus. In the end some of these Councilors voted against the motion anyway.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow for larger electronic signs between 3000 and 3300 North University Avenue for providers of Emergency Healthcare Services. Riverside Neighborhood. (16-0013OA)
   Denied 7:0
   The Council upheld the previously created vision for the corridor. See past posts if you are interested in more details about this item.
6. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for property located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0002GPA)
   Approved 6:0. Council David Knecht excused.
   From before, "The developer donated some land to Provo City to be developed into a city park. A portion of this land was not used for the park and was given back to the developer. The developer plans to use it for landscaped access to another part of the development. The general plan amendment and the zoning change will allow for this. I support this."
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.4 acres of real property, generally located at 4600 North Windsor Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R1.10). Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0004R)
   Approved 6:0. Council David Knecht excused.
   Related to the previous item. 
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to revise the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
   Continued until Community Development is ready to bring this item back to Council. Approved 7:0
   We decided to wait until the whole package is ready.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on Trampoline Gyms (16-105)
   A stakeholders group (including gym owners and physicians) has been meeting for some time regarding appropriate regulations for trampoline gyms. It appears that they have a draft ready to be reviewed. You can review it here.
2. A discussion regarding progress on Council Priorities (16-015)
   A discussing on Budgeting to Priorities
   No material for this item is in our packet. I believe it will be a status update on progress made on this priority.
   A discussion on a Budget Committee recommendation regarding property tax policy
   The Budget Committee has made three recommendations regarding property tax policy.
3. A discussion on private solar energy generation, consumption, and net metering alternatives (16-093)
   Mr. Sewell has indicated that this discussion will focus on the net metering from the perspective of residents and companies who are encouraging the broader use of solar energy production.
4. Nathan Chappell, agent for Aspen Development, requests approval of a Zoning Map Amendment of 2.44 acres generally located at 1290 North Geneva Road from A1.5 (Agricultural) Zone to R1.10 (One-Family Residential) Zone in order to subdivide the property into seven building lots. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (14-0013R)
   Wow, this requests comes with a lot of baggage. Community Development Staff recommends denial. The Planning Commission recommends approval.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 20th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A presentation by the Covey Center 
2. A presentation on the Employee of the Month, Kelly Kloser, Library 
3. Introduction of Kelsey Kerr, Policy Analyst, in the Council Office. 
4. A presentation of congratulations to Janene Weiss on the Certified Municipal Clerk program completion.
   
   Public Comment
5. A resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with several Utah County public entities authorizing Provo City to enter into a Major Crimes Task Force. (16-106)
   This agreement would allow Provo to participate in a Major Crimes Task Force with other entities in the County.

What's Up? - 3 Sep 2016

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 6th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding progress on Council Priorities (16-015)
   
   A discussion on planning for the West Side, and the possible creation of a Council Committee
   I hope that last meeting’s denial of a development has lit a fire under the City to get the South West Master Plan complete.
   An update on zoning enforcement
2. A presentatiSon from the Utah Division of Water Quality on the State of Utah's Integrated Report and Utah Lake Nutrient Study (16-091)
   The Utah Department of Environmental Quality is proposing limits on nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) allowed in waste water treatment plant discharge. The goal is to reduce the frequency of future algae booms in Utah Lake. These limits would be expensive and would increase sewer costs to residents. Some experts have questioned whether reducing the nutrients would have any practical impact on water quality or future algae blooms. They request that the DEQ hold off on the regulations and work with local authorities to find more effective ways to spend the money to improve water quality. In this Work Meeting, DEQ will be responding to the concerns. 
3. A presentation on the Metropolitan Water Board of Provo (16-044) 
4. A discussion on private solar energy generation and the effects on revenue for maintaining and upgrading capital facilities of the overall electric utility system (16-093)
   In order to encourage conservation, and to reduce the burden on our lower energy users (who are assumed to also be lower income), we have previously set base fees low and charged higher usage rates. The base fees aren’t enough to cover the fixed costs of servicing homes, but the gap is made up by the higher usage rates. This system has worked well, but can be exploited by solar roof top and other “distributive” generators, who get the full benefit of being on the “grid” (like having their lights come on whether the sun is shining or not) but may not be paying toward the grid at all. During this discussion we will be looking into changes to our electrical fee structure in order to better meet our goals (conservation, reliability, low cost, fair costs, etc.) 
5. A discussion on an amendment to the Provo City/Utah County Interlocal Agreement for Provo Westside Connector Project (16-104)
   The costs of building the Westside collector (from the interstate to the airport) have been higher than estimated, in both construction and land aquisition. This agreement is with the County for them to pay the increased costs. ($1.45M) 
6. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.34.140 Flag Lots, revising the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
   This amendment is designed to encourage "flag lots" as a means of creating quality “in-fill” development (where homes are added to an neighborhood in areas that are already developed, by developing on land that was previously unused or large lots that can be split). The amendment aims to keep/modify regulations which mitigate potential negative impacts of flag lot development on adjacent residents. 
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify yard definitions and the requirements for minimum lot widths and require yards for corner lots. (16-0008OA)
   This item to be continued to a later meeting. I'm not certain that this will actually be continued. In some ways this is similar to the amendment for the flag lots. It is an amendment that adjusts the way we define rear yards, side yards and potential front yards of corner lots, as well as our regulations of these lots. The idea is to have smarter regulations to allow for flexibility, but still ensure quality development of these unique lots.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 6th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Annual Justice Court Report
2. Introduction of the new Water Resource Director, Gary Calder
   
   Public Comment
   
3. A resolution approving the Amended Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding construction costs for the Westside Connector. (16-104)
   See Work Meeting Item #5 above. 
4. A resolution approving the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Agreement with the Governor's Office of Energy Development. (16-092)
   What I wrote after we heard it at a previous Work Meeting: "This is a national program, implemented by the states, and administered by municipalities. It provides capital to companies to build or retrofit more sustainable buildings. These improvements should provide more savings each year than the payments on the loans."
   I think this is a great way to encourage more efficient buildings in our valley/city, buy helping companies with the upfront costs, to be repaid by the energy savings. 
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow for larger electronic signs between 3000 and 3300 North University Avenue for providers of Emergency Healthcare Services. Riverside Neighborhood. (16-0013OA)
   What I wrote previously: "Blue Rock Medical Center is requesting an amendment that would allow them to install a large electronic sign at their business on North University Avenue. Two other businesses have similar signs, but they were put in before the Council specifically restricted such signs in 2013. For myself, I do not believe that such signs are desirable in most areas of the city, and I agree with the Council's action in 2013. I (fortunately) don't frequent University Parkway, west of Provo, very often, but when I do I'm struck by how intrusive these signs can be." There is no question about the value of this company to the community. But that doesn't mean we should throw out our community standards. 
6. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R) for property located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0002GPA)
   From before, "The developer donated some land to Provo City to be developed into a city park. A portion of this land was not used for the park and was given back to the developer. The developer plans to use it for landscaped access to another part of the development. The general plan amendment and the zoning change will allow for this. I support this."
7. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.4 acres of real property, generally located at 4600 North Windsor Drive, from Public Facilities (PF) to Residential (R1.10). Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0004R)
   Related to the previous item. 
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to revise the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
   See Work Meeting Item #6 above.

What was Up? - 2 Sep 2016

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:45 PM, Tuesday, August 16, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Introduction of Teri McCabe, recommended for the Library Board (16-101)
2. A discussion regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
   Council Member Dave Sewell made a motion to adopt Clifford Strachan’s idea to direct Council Staff to meet with the Administration and come back to the Council by October 4, 2016 Work Meeting, with a couple of options of ways the Staff thinks we can meet our mutual goals in an efficient way that works better for both branches of government. Seconded by Council Member Dave Knecht. Approved 7:0.
3. A discussion regarding the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Utah County and Provo City for Lakeview Parkway Project (16-096)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
   See item #8 in the Council Meeting below.
4. Alan Prince, representing Monterey-Ellis LLC, requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 15.25 acres, located at approximately 965 South 1600 West, from the A1.1 Agricultural Zone (one acre minimum) to the R1.8 Single-Family Residential Zone (8,000 square feet minimum). The rezoning would facilitate the development of a 50-lot single-family subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
   This item will be heard at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   See item #13 in the Council Meeting below.
5. Break
6. Ivory Homes requests an ordinance amendment to Section 14.49E.050.(6) to allow a maximum front yard setback of 30 feet instead of 22 feet as currently required, for the Broadview Shore Development located at approximately 1300-2000 North Geneva Road in the SDP-5 Zone. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.
   See item #15 in the Council Meeting below.
7. PEG Development requests a code amendment to Sections 14.21A.070 and 14.21A.080 reducing the minimum story height in the DT1 (General Downtown) Zone and changing the application of the transition standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
   This item will be heard at tonight’s Council Meeting.See item #14 in the Council Meeting below.
8. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests a General Plan Amendment for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities designation to the Residential designation. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0002GPA)
   This item will be heard at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   From before, "The developer donated some land to Provo City to be developed into a city park. A portion of this land was not used for the park and was given back to the developer. The developer plans to use it for landscaped access to another part of the development. The general plan amendment and the zoning change will allow for this." I support this.
9. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests Zone Change for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities Zone to the R1.10 Zone. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0004R)
   This item will be heard at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
   Related to item #8.
10. Dr. Wendell A. Gibby requests a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 14.38.025 and Section 14.38.085, to allow for larger electronic signs between 3000 & 3300 North University Avenue for emergency healthcare services. Riverside Neighborhood. (16-0013OA)
    This item will be heard at the September 6, 2016 Council Meeting.
    This is what I wrote in the run-up. I am still of the same opinion after the work meeting, "Blue Rock Medical Center is requesting an amendment that would allow them to install a large electronic sign at their business on North University Avenue. Two other businesses have similar signs, but they were put in before the Council specifically restricted such signs in 2013. For myself, I do not believe that such signs are desirable in most areas of the city, and I agree with the Council's action in 2013. I (fortunately) don't frequent University Parkway, west of Provo, very often, but when I do I'm struck by how intrusive these signs can be."
11. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential and Section 15.04 Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements, creating an allowance for Variable Lot Subdivisions and eliminating Open Space Subdivision allowances. City-Wide Impact. (16-0011OA)
    This item will be continued to the September 6, 2016 Work Meeting.
12. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing changes in the minimum size and required setbacks for flag lots in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0010OA)
    This item will be continued to the September 6, 2016 Work Meeting.
13. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.34.140 Flag Lots, revising the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
    This item will be continued to the September 6, 2016 Work Meeting.
14. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing reductions in required lot widths in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0009OA)
    This item will be continued to the September 6, 2016 Work Meeting.

COUNCIL MEETING

August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. The Good Citizen Award, presented by the Provo Police Department
2. Employee of the Month for July 2016, presented to Chris Cooper, Human Resources
3. A presentation by the Covey Center - ImprovBroadway
   
   Public Comment
4. Introduction of Jonathan Crosland, recommended appointee to the Board of Adjustments and Lauren Manzione, recommended appointee to the Housing Authority. (16-101)
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions (16-101)
   Approved 7:0.
6. A resolution authorizing a perpetual license agreement for right-of-way access related to Lakeview Parkway. (16-096)
   Approved 7:0.
   Formalizing negotiations with landowners.
7. An ordinance amending the Wastewater Fees on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-097)
   Approved 7:0.
   Here what I wrote in the run-up, "Currently the "base rate" portion of sewer bills are determined by the number of connections. This fiscal year each connection is assessed a monthly base rate of $8.76, whether that connection services a single unit (a single family home, for example), 100 units (an apartment complex), or a large commercial building. This proposal would move our billing structure from a solely per-connection fee to a mostly per-unit fee for residential customers, and a "residental-unit equivalent" fee for commercial. A small commercial connection that is equivalent to a single-unit residential connection, would be charged like a single residential unit. A large commercial connection that is equivalent to 80 residential units will be charged 80x a single residential unit.
   In recognition that there are some efficiencies in servicing multiple units through a single connection and bill, a small connection charge will remain, which makes up 10% of the base rate for a single unit residence. This gives a small discount to multi-unit residences. Also, in recognition of the financial impact on multiunit residential owners, the change will be phased in over two years, 10% the first year, and 50% the second year."
8. A resolution approving the Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding the use of "Part 19 Tax Revenues." (16-096)
   Approved 6:0. Council Member David Knecht excused.
   This allows the County to pay us back for building the Westside Connector.
9. A resolution approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-099)
   Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
   This is like the 6th time we've dealt with this. All we were doing is agreeing that the RDA will actually pass along the TIF money as was agree upon when we approved the financing.
10. A resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-094)
    Approved 7:0.
    This will allow the increased property taxes from this project to payback some of the expenses incurred to make the project possible.
11. A resolution approving Interlocal Agreements with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, respectively, authorizing the collection of tax increment to facilitate the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-095)
    Approved 7:0.
    Same item as no 10, but acting as the RDA board.
12. A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-098)
    Approved 6:1. Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    This is the same item as no 9, but we were approving it as the RDA board.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of real property generally located at 965 South 1600 West from Agricultural (A1.1) to Single-Family Residential (R1.8). Sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
    Motion denied 6:1. Council Member David Sewell opposed.
    Mr. Sewell mentioned that he sees this denial as signally that we've hit pause on westside development until we can get a plan in place. I agree. We need to move forward as quickly as prudent to get our Westside Master plan in place. Much has happened in the couple of weeks since this meeting occurred. And there is much more to come.
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum story height in the General Downtown Zone and change the application of the Transitional Development Standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
    Approved 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
    A small coffee shop wants to build a single story store in an area that requires multiple stories. It is across the street from our DT2 zoned area, ie the core of our downtown. The zone had been put into place after careful consideration of many people, stakeholders, and departments, with the goal of encouraging a robust downtown. The request is urgent, even though everyone has know for months that the store would need to relocate. So we modified the zone, changing the acceptable uses and property rights on many acres of land, tweaking the amendment as we went along, with little thought of potential unintended consequences, to accommodate a single shop who didn't plan ahead.
15. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the maximum front yard setback in the SDP-5 Zone. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
    Approved 6:1. Council Member David Harding opposed.
    Some described this as a fluke in the code, a remnant from previous proposals. This provision, which brought the front of the homes closer to the sidewalk and required the garages to be set back from the front of the house, was a conscientious provision, designed to improve the community feel and walkability of the development. Increasing the maximum setback was not fixing a typo, it was a change to the vision of this development.
16. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify yard definitions and the requirements for minimum lot widths and require yards for corner lots. (16-0008OA)
    Continued to September 6, 2016 Work Meeting.

Draft Update of Vision 2030

I'm at the Vision 2030 Update Open House. So far we can't find a link from the City website to the draft document. Therefore I'm placing it here: http://provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9400

Whether you are at the Open House or not, I encourage everyone to review this document and submit your feedback to acorry@provo.org.

What's Up? - 15 August 2016

What's Coming Up?

JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION

11:30 AM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the direction that Council is looking to take development in Provo.
   There are no supporting documents for any of the items in this meeting. I imagine that we will talk about recent developments and if they are helping us reach our vision for the future.
2. A discussion on the appointment procedures related to the Planning Commission.
   Recently there has been confusion over who is serving on the Planning Commission, in what role, and for how long. There are some proposals on how to make appointments clear, how to record the appointments better, and an alternate approach to alternates.
3. A discussion on land use issues that come before the Planning Commission that could be resolved through legislation.
   The Commission serves in both legislative and administrative spheres. Many items come before the Commission where the Commission is bound by law to approve, as long as the project complies with current ordinance. We will be discussing if it would be a better use of their time, staff time, and applicant time, to allow Community Development Staff to approve applications that comply with current ordinance.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

12:45 PM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Introduction of Teri McCabe, recommended for the Library Board (16-101) 
2. A discussion regarding process for the quarterly review of 25 fees (16-102)
   Beginning last year, the Council has requested that the Administration review 25 fees each quarter and report their findings to the Council with particular attention to whether the charged fees are covering the costs of the associate service.
3. A discussion regarding the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Utah County and Provo City for Lakeview Parkway Project (16-096)
   This would allow the previously approved County funds to be used by the City.
4. Alan Prince, representing Monterey-Ellis LLC, requests a zoning map amendment of approximately 15.25 acres, located at approximately 965 South 1600 West, from the A1.1 Agricultural Zone (one acre minimum) to the R1.8 Single-Family Residential Zone (8,000 square feet minimum). The rezoning would facilitate the development of a 50-lot single-family subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
   I'm am very interested in hearing this proposal. I think this represents the heart of item 1 on our Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Provo doesn't have a lot of land left to develop. Is this the best use of it? Should we move forward with this now or wait until the South West Master Plan is completed? 
5. Break
6. Ivory Homes requests an ordinance amendment to Section 14.49E.050.(6) to allow a maximum front yard setback of 30 feet instead of 22 feet as currently required, for the Broadview Shore Development located at approximately 1300-2000 North Geneva Road in the SDP-5 Zone. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
   Why did this zone, which I believe was created for this development, originally have the maximum set back at 22 feet? Why ask for it to be extended? Is this a change in the vision for the type of residential that will go in?
7. PEG Development requests a code amendment to Sections 14.21A.070 and 14.21A.080 reducing the minimum story height in the DT1 (General Downtown) Zone and changing the application of the transition standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
   Juice 'n Java wants to build a new store in which to relocate. Their selected site is within the DT1 (Downtown 1) zone, which requires new buildings to be at least 2 stories tall. They don't want to build a two story building and so are proposing an amendment that will allow them to build a one story building. The vision for this area is for taller, denser buildings, fitting for a downtown area. The argument for this amendment is that this would be an interim step that would allow lower density development until the market will support the higher density development. The concern is what is meant to be interim may last a very long time. One development may not be too bad, but what will the next development ask for? And the one after that. If this area develops with single story buildings, how long will it take for the market to justify tearing down these new single story buildings to replace them will taller buildings?
8. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests a General Plan Amendment for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities designation to the Residential designation. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0002GPA)
   The developer donated some land to Provo City to be developed into a city park. A portion of this land was not used for the park and was given back to the developer. The developer plans to use it for landscaped access to another part of the development. The general plan amendment and the zoning change will allow for this.
9. P.L. Woolstenhulme FLP requests Zone Change for two lot remnants from the Public Facilities Zone to the R1.10 Zone. The property is located at approximately 4600 North Windsor Drive. Sherwood Hills Neighborhood. (16-0004R)
   Related to item #8.
10. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential and Section 15.04 Conventional and Open Space Subdivision Requirements, creating an allowance for Variable Lot Subdivisions and eliminating Open Space Subdivision allowances. City-Wide Impact. (16-0011OA)
    I'm hoping to understand this better after the presentation. It appears to allow variable lot sizes in larger development, within reason, as long as the total number of lots isn't increased. In general I'm very much in favor of promoting diversity within developments.
11. Dr. Wendell A. Gibby requests a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 14.38.025 and Section 14.38.085, to allow for larger electronic signs between 3000 & 3300 North University Avenue for emergency healthcare services. Riverside Neighborhood. (16-0013OA)
    Blue Rock Medical Center is requesting an amendment that would allow them to install a large electronic sign at their business on North University Avenue. Two other businesses have similar signs, but they were put in before the Council specifically restricted such signs in 2013. For myself, I do not believe that such signs are desirable in most areas of the city, and I agree with the Council's action in 2013. I (fortunately) don't frequent University Parkway, west of Provo, very often, but when I do I'm struck by how intrusive these signs can be.
12. Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing changes in the minimum size and required setbacks for flag lots in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0010OA)
    See item 13.
13.  Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.34.140 Flag Lots, revising the policy, process, and other aspects related to the development of flag lots. City-Wide Impact. (16-0015OA)
    These amendments would take away the "discouraged" designation from flag lot developments and clean up and clarify what is required.
14.  Provo City Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to Section 14.10 One-Family Residential, proposing reductions in required lot widths in one-family residential zones. City-Wide Impact. (16-0009OA)
    This proposal reduces the minimum lot widths for various single family detached residential zones, and provides more flexibility.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. The Good Citizen Award, presented by the Provo Police Department
2. Employee of the Month for July 2016, presented to Chris Cooper, Human Resources
3. A presentation by the Covey Center - ImprovBroadway
   Public Comment
4. Introduction of Jonathan Crosland, recommended appointee to the Board of Adjustments. (16-101)
5. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions (16-101)
   If you are interested in who are advising the Administration and Council on just about every issue facing the city, I recommend reading the appointments and reappointments to our boards and commissions. Much of the greatness of our community comes from those who are willing to volunteer their time, talents, and resources into our city.
6.  A resolution authorizing a perpetual license agreement for right-of-way access related to Lakeview Parkway. 16-096)
   If I follow the documents correctly, this license agreement guarantees access to one of the adjacent land owners from the parkway.
7. An ordinance amending the Wastewater Fees on the Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule. (16-097)
   Currently the "base rate" portion of sewer bills are determined by the number of connections. This fiscal year each connection is assessed a monthly base rate of $8.76, whether that connection services a single unit (a single family home, for example), 100 units (an apartment complex), or a large commercial building. This proposal would move our billing structure from a solely per-connection fee to a mostly per-unit fee for residential customers, and a "residental-unit equivalent" fee for commercial. A small commercial connection that is equivalent to a single-unit residential connection, would be charged like a single residential unit. A large commercial connection that is equivalent to 80 residential units will be charged 80x a single residential unit.
   In recognition that there are some efficiencies in servicing multiple units through a single connection and bill, a small connection charge will remain, which makes up 10% of the base rate for a single unit residence. This gives a small discount to multi-unit residences. Also, in recognition of the financial impact on multiunit residential owners, the change will be phased in over two years, 10% the first year, and 50% the second year.
8. A resolution approving the Interlocal Agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding the use of "Part 19 Tax Revenues." (16-096)
   This is item 3 from our work meeting earlier in the day.
9. A resolution approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-099)
   After hearing this item August 2nd at our work meeting, I wrote, "This simply directs our RDA to use the generated tax increment financing to pay the impact fees. This was already the plan, but this agreement formalizes it."
10. A resolution approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-094)
    This agreement will allow the use of tax increment financing in the area where Duncan Aviation will build their new facilities.
11. A resolution approving Interlocal Agreements with Provo City, Provo School District, Utah County, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, respectively, authorizing the collection of tax increment to facilitate the Aviation Services Community Development Project Area. (16-095)
    There are four agreements with the various government entities that collect property tax at the new Duncan Aviation location. Each will allow a portion of the increase in generated property taxes to be used in the development.
12.  A resolution of the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City approving an Impact Fee Funding Agreement with Provo City authorizing the use of tax increment in the South Downtown Community Development Project Area. (16-098)
    This is the approval of the agreement in item 9, by the Governing Board of the RDA, which happens to be made up of the same people who serve on the City Council. Basically we are making an agreement with ourselves.
13. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of real property generally located at 965 South 1600 West from Agricultural (A1.1) to Single-Family Residential (R1.8). sunset Neighborhood. (15-0014R)
    See item 4 in the work meeting above.
14. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to reduce the minimum story height in the General Downtown Zone and change the application of the Transitional Development Standards. Timp Neighborhood. (16-0017OA)
    See item 7 in the work meeting above.
15. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the maximum front yard setback in the SDP-5 Zone. North Lakeview Neighborhood. (16-0014OA)
    See item 6 in the work meeting above.
16. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to modify yard definitions and the requirements for minimum lot widths and require yards for corner lots. (16-0008OA)
    We heard this proposal in our August 2nd work meeting. This is what I wrote afterward, "This amendment is broader than I originally thought, but it appears to improve our code in a number of sections. It defines these terms in a more straight-forward manner. It doesn't reduce restrictions, but it does allow for more flexibility, particularly for corner lots."

Property Taxes and Effective Communication

I appreciate clear, concise writing. Likely because it is so hard for me to achieve. I was impressed by a paragraph in Braley Dodson's Daily Herald article this week reporting on the School District's vote to increase property taxes. I use far more words than Braley when I explain to residents why the City Council has to "raise" taxes, just to keep tax rates level. Here is Braley's description, followed by an interactive graphic that I created. Which one do you think is more effective?

"While assessed values of homes have increased locally, the amount of money the school district receives from property taxes has remained the same, meaning the tax rate has decreased. In that time, there has been inflation without any matching increases from taxpayers."