What's Up? - July 24th, 2017

Black text comes from the agenda
Bold text describes the action taken
Blue text are my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents
Light blue text comes from my previous comments.

Background information on the agenda items are 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

11:00 AM, Tuesday, July 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of a prospective Arts Council appointment
   Presentation only.
   Heather Jensen will make a great addition to our Arts Council. She is a BYU Art History Professor and has served on a number of Arts related boards during her career.
2. A discussion on an interlocal agreement with Utah County regarding the 2017 Municipal Election
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
   Provo is contracting with Utah County to conduct the election this Fall. This agreement lays out all of the roles and responsibilities, and what we will pay them.
3. A presentation regarding the Economic Development Department's efforts to create jobs in Provo
   Presentation only.
   Part two in a series of presentations better familiarizing the Council with the roles and efforts of the Mayor's Office of Economic Development. The main thrust of this presentation is how the Office courts and responds to outside businesses looking to relocate or expand into new areas.
4. An update regarding recommended long-term sanitation rate changes
   Presentation only.
   This has been an ongoing policy discussion. We made an interim change as part of the new budget, but there was a desire to spend more time to consider longer term structural changes to our sanitation fees. A couple of the previously proposed options were dropped and a new one was added. The base fee would cover both the black and blue cans, and the green can could be added for a small monthly charge on the months when the cans are picked up. It's not my preferred option, but perhaps a middle ground option that most Councilors could support. I like that the complex discounts and "triple play" penalty are removed. It is a far simpler structure. (See item #5 in the 23 May What's Up? for a description of previously proposed options.)
5. A presentation by the Utah County Commission on the Utah County Resource Management Plan
   Presentation only.
   The County reached out to local governments with one last opportunity for feedback on the proposed Resource Management Plan. It looks at public land and facilities across the County and lays out the desired policies for all of them. It allows better coordination between public agencies for the management of the land and resources. It's a dense, 129-page documents. The table of contents lists these topics: Land Use; Economic Considerations; Agriculture; Air Quality; Canals + Ditches; Cultural, Historical, Paleontological, and Geological; Energy Resources; Fire Management; Fisheries; Floodplains + River Terraces; Forest Management; Irrigation; Land Access; Law Enforcement; Livestock + Grazing; Mineral Resources; Mining; Noxious Weeds; Predator Control; Recreation + Tourism; Riparian Areas; Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species; Water Quality + Hydrology; Water Rights; Wetlands; Wild + Scenic Rivers; Wilderness Areas; Wildlife
   If you have a particular passion about one of these areas then I recommend reading that section of the plan. I applaud the County's efforts to produce this plan. I wasn't able to read through all of it, but from what I did read, it is well done.
6. A discussion with the Redevelopment Department
   Presentation only.
   Similar to the past presentations by the Water Division and the current presentations by the Office of Economic Development, the Redevelopment Agency is presenting their role and effort to the Council.
7. A presentation of the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
   Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There were no surprises in the presentation. Just a quick review of the latest update to the plan. This plan is required for jurisdictions to qualify for certain disaster relief if disasters do occur.
8. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Subsection 14.10.080(3) regarding street-side yards on corner lots. City-Wide Impact.
   Presentation only.
   As advertised: This proposal would bring the side yard requirements for corner lots into harmony with the front lot requirements we recently adjusted...It is being proposed by Community Development and was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission.
9. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Chapter 14.06 and Subsection 14.10.090(4) regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. City-Wide Impact.
   Presentation only.As advertised: 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.
10. David Gardner requests an Ordinance Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) Zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
    A motion to adopt the staff recommendation for the draft of Provo City Code Section 14.26.020 (5)(f)(iii): “Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted within 600 feet of a residential zone boundary unless approved by the Planning Commission as part of a Project Plan Application” was Approved 4:0, with Council members Kim Santiago, Gary Winterton, and Kay Van Buren excused. This item will be scheduled for the August 8, 2017 Council Meeting.
    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.
    
    
    
    
    
11. Provo City Economic Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.105(1) to increase the amount of signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in the Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the July 18, 2017 Council Meeting.
    This item was heard at the end of the later meeting. Please see the description there.
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congratulations to Sharon Kuttler who serves as the Library Services Manager.
2. A presentation of the employee of the month for July 2017.
   Presentation only.
   Congratulations to Ralston Ramkissoon, Recreation Program Coordinator. It's pretty impressive that a part-time employee was nominated by his peers.
3. A presentation of the American Public Works Association-Utah Chapter Awards.
   Presentation only.The Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association selected the Provo Westside Connector project as the Public Works Project of the Year. And recently retired Division Director for Public Services, Greg Beckstrom was awarded the Utah APWA Member of the Year Award.
   Consent Agenda
4. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
5. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 and Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
   An implied motion to approve the consent agenda was Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused.
   I've said it before, but it bears repeating, Provo is a better place to live, work, and play because of the efforts of many volunteers, including those who serve on our various boards and commissions. 

   Marc Liebman	Parks and Recreation Board	June 30, 2020
   Jeffrey Kahn	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Heather Jensen	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Jane Wise	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2018
   Valerie Lee	Provo Housing Authority	June 30, 2021

   I believe there are other nominations in the works.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 9.925 acres of real property, generally located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West, from One-family Residential (R1.7) to One-family Residential Accessory Apartment Overlay (R1.7A). Sunset Neighborhood.
   Denied 5:2, with Council members David Harding and David Sewell in favor.I was deeply torn by this proposal. I feel that accessory apartments have a role to play in our community. They can be particularly helpful when homes are designed and built with them (as opposed to homes that are split and converted). They have also brought problems into areas of the City. (See my in-depth discussion for item 6 in the 10 July What's Up?) I believe that we can have the benefits of accessories with out the negatives, but it will take vigilance by the neighbors and zoning enforcement by the City. I voted for this because it received support from the neighbors, a recommendation from Staff, and a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. Several of the Commissioners live in areas of the City that have the 'A-Overlay' (like me) and haven't seen downsides (unlike me). It would have been more difficult if I had been a swing vote. I realized that this wasn't going to pass regardless of how I voted.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.095 to allow for larger signage in certain areas of the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:0, Council member Gary Winterton excused.
   This will only affect the Provo Towne Centre mall. Instead of two smaller signs, they want to combine the area and have one bigger sign. It is next to I-15 and shouldn't affect any residences.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 59.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1560 South 1100 West, from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential Performance Development Overlay (R1.8 PD) and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1). Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   Denied 7:0.
   For all the reasons listed in the last What's Up? (agenda item #8, Council Meeting), I voted to deny the request to rezone.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.5 acres of real property, generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 900 East And Center Street, from One-Family Residential (R1.6) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
   Denied 7:0.
   The neighbors were against it. The Landmarks Commission was against it. Community Development Staff were against it. The Planning Commission was against it. And I agree that the proposed project doesn't fit into the character of the surrounding area. I look forward to the completion of the effort to write a design corridor for this section of Center Street so that we can more clearly communicate with potential developers interested in the area.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the uses allowed in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. City-wide impact.
    Approved 7:0.
    Resturants and Professional Services (with some exceptions) were allowed in 'historic buildings' now they are only allowed in 'existing commercial buildings. Personal Services (with some exceptions) are now also allowed in 'exisiting commercial buildings'. This only applies to areas zoned 'Residential Conservation'.
11. 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.
    A substitute motion to continue this item for 6 weeks was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    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. 
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.105(1) to increase wall signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway zones. City-wide Impact.
    Approved 4:2, with Council members Kim Santiago and David Harding opposed, and with Council member Gary Winterton abstaining.
    I was on the flip side of this item. I think we should have continued it to allow more study. I probably would have supported if we had more information about the consequences of approving or denying the proposal. 
    It is my understanding that this will only affect the Zions Bank and Wells Fargo buildings. At some point, the plan was to allow only one sign per building side facing a public street. Now there is already two signs on one side of one of the buildings and another business wants to put up a sign on the other building.
    I didn't comfortable voting to change the regulations without better understanding the consequences.

What's Up? - 17 July 2017

I have more colors than last time:
Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents
Light blue text comes from my previous comments, and
Green text indicates a quote from someone else.

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 18th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of a prospective Arts Council appointment
   Continued from last time, we'll meet one more prospective appointee to the Arts Council.
2. A discussion on an inter-local agreement with Utah County regarding the 2017 Municipal Election
   Provo City and Utah County will be working together to administer a vote-by-mail election for the 2017 municipal elections. The interlocal agreement specifies the responsibilities for each entity. 
3. A presentation regarding the Economic Development Department's efforts to create jobs in Provo
   As a part in a series of ongoing presentations to better familiarize the Council with the purposes, goals, and work of the Economic Development Office, this presentation will focus on their efforts to create jobs.
4. An update regarding recommended long-term sanitation rate changes
   At the May 2, 2017 Work Meeting, the Council received a presentation from the Public Works regarding the Sanitation Fund. Council was informed of five options in which a proposed 10% rate increase in FY18 could be implemented. Sanitation makes money on the black cans, but loses money on the blue and green cans.
   Then, at the May 16, 2017 Work Meeting, Council asked Sanitation to return with a final recommendation regarding Sanitation fees. 
   No word on what their recommendation will be.
5. A presentation by the Utah County Commission on the Utah County Resource Management Plan
   The State requires all counties in Utah to produce a Resource Management Plan (RMP) by August 1, 2017. Utah County has been working on its RMP for approximately two years, and the County is getting close to approving a final version. There was an extensive public comment period last year, and many of the ideas provided by the public have been incorporated into the latest RMP draft. Commissioner Lee would like to give community leaders throughout Utah County one last chance to provide input as the County gets closer to finalizing its RMP.
   This is a 129-page document, and a fairly dense one at that. I'm only part way through it, but I don't want to hold up my "What's Up?" any longer. I'll finish reading it after I publish this.
6. A discussion with the Redevelopment Department
   The purpose of this item is to, "To help Council members better understand the Redevelopment Agency’s roles and objectives." Similar to past presentations by the Water Division and the current presentations by the Office of Economic Development.
7. A presentation of the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
   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.
8. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Subsection 14.10.080(3) regarding street-side yards on corner lots. City-Wide Impact.
   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.
9. The Provo City Community Development Department requests an amendment to Chapter 14.06 and Subsection 14.10.090(4) regarding patio roofs and their extension into a required setback. City-Wide Impact.
   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.
10. David Gardner requests an Ordinance Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units attached to an industrial use in the Manufacturing Park (MP) Zone. Rivergrove Neighborhood.
    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.
11. Provo City Economic Development Department requests an amendment to Section 14.38.105(1) to increase the amount of signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in the Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway Zones. City-Wide Impact.
    There are interested parties wanting to advertise by using wall signs in downtown Provo. The current code does not provide for additional signage for larger buildings. This amendment was proposed to provide more wall signs for larger buildings in the Downtown.
    Why was this limitation implemented in the first place? What is the downside to allowing more wall signs? Is it really in the overall best interest of the Downtown community? I wonder if this is a case where a building already has a second sign installed and is now requesting a change to city ordinance to make it legal.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 18th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation of the employee of the month for June 2017.
2. A presentation of the employee of the month for July 2017.
   There is no further information in the Document Packet so we will be kept in suspense to see who is being recognized.
3. A presentation of the American Public Works Association-Utah Chapter Awards.
   The Utah Chapter of the American Public Works Association will present two awards. The Public Works Project of the Year award is being presented to the City for the Provo Westside Connector project and the Utah APWA Member of the Year Award is being presented to Greg Beckstrom. Congrats!
   
   Public Comment 
4. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions.
   Listed in the Document Packet are

   Marc Liebman	Parks and Recreation Board	June 30, 2020
   Jeffrey Kahn	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Heather Jensen	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2020
   Jane Wise	Provo Arts Council	June 30, 2018
   Valerie Lee	Provo Housing Authority	June 30, 2021
   Andrew Howard	Planning Commission	June 30, 2020
   Shannon Ellsworth	Planning Commission	June 30, 2020

   I believe there are a few other names that have been proposed. Perhaps they will be added before we vote in the evening.
   "I am continually impressed at the quality of individuals you recommend for these boards. It's wonderful that we have people like these in our community, and great that they can be identified and are willing to serve." Take a look at their introductions. Provo is a better place because so many great individuals are willing to serve their community.
5. A resolution authorizing the mayor to approve an interlocal agreement with Utah County to conduct a vote-by-mail election for the Municipal Primary and General Elections to be held in Provo City on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 and Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
   This will be discussed as item 2 in the Work Meeting. We've already committed to a Vote-by-Mail election this fall being run by the County. This would just formalize the agreement.
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 9.925 acres of real property, generally located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West, from One-family Residential (R1.7) to One-family Residential Accessory Apartment Overlay (R1.7A). Sunset Neighborhood.
   In my last "What's Up?" my most voluminous reaction was to this item before we heard it in the Work Meeting (item #6). I have fairly strong mixed feelings about this proposal. I voiced my unease and my concerns were shared by some of the other Councilors, but the discussion didn't help me resolve my conflicted feelings. I suppose we will hear from residents in favor and in opposition to the proposal tomorrow night.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.095 to allow for larger signage in certain areas of the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   This was item 7 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote last time, "The Planning Commission report was a little sparse on this item. It mentions that the Commission brought up questions about brightness and messaging, and that the applicant addressed the questions, but it doesn't explain what the questions were or how they were addressed. I am also concerned about possible impacts on surrounding neighbors. Being adjacent to the freeway will hopefully help. The Commission must have had their concerns adequately addressed as they recommended approval on a 5:0 vote. Freeway drivers should also be considered. I imagine I'm not the only person who has experienced painfully bright and distracting video signs on the freeway." In our Work Meeting discussion, Staff discussed the 8-second hold on electronic displays, and that sign brightness is already covered in the City's existing sign regulations.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 59.7 acres of real property, generally located at 1560 South 1100 West, from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Agricultural (A1.5) to One-Family Residential Performance Development Overlay (R1.8 PD) and Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1). Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   This was item 8 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote at that time, "Both Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of this request at the present time. Both groups have indicated that much of the proposal has merit in the long term, but that conditions are not yet right. Major concerns are the current redesign of the sewer infrastructure which won't be settled for a couple more months, as well as ongoing work on the details of the Southwest Area Master Plan.
   After spending so much time and effort with the other members of the Westside Planning Committee, it was neat to see our work referenced when evaluating this project."
   This is what was written in the local newspaper as the highly experienced developer didn't like the direction the approval process is headed and turns to the press.
   This is what Wayne Parker, the Provo City's Chief Administrative Officer, said in response to the article and the discussion it generated on Facebook, "I'd like to share a couple of thoughts about this having been involved in the discussion for several months now. For many years, the City's general plan called for this area to be agriculture in the 20-30 year time horizon, except for possible non-residential development near the airport. So very little investment was made in infrastructure like water, sewer and storm drainage. Once Duncan Aviation came on to the horizon in earnest about 6 years ago, the General Plan was amended to residential in the area (with an environmentally sensitive designation) and the City's capital improvement plans began to reflect this need for city infrastructure. As the Lakeview Parkway funding began flowing in from federal and state sources, we knew that development pressures would follow, and we were working on a systematic plan to fund infrastructure that would support Duncan and possibly other development. But it takes a long time to get projects like water, sewer and storm water improvements going. The City needs to do studies to determine ideal locations for lines and lift stations for sewer and storm water improvements, to budget for the projects, to test soils, and to acquire rights of way and easements. Master plan studies for sewer and stormwater were done about 5 years ago, and we are now in the midst of land acquisition and geotechnical studies to determine the best alignment for these lines. As the article indicated, we now anticipate the lines going in during the 2018 construction season. So additional insights - first, the developer in question is a great developer and we would love to have them building in Provo. The land they chose and put under option is land that is not currently served by city utilities. There is a lot of land in Provo like that. The developer has the choice to install those utilities in accordance with the master plans or to wait until the City has the infrastructure ready. So, our answer has been consistently "no" to the development because of timing. The developer will now have the opportunity to appeal all of those "no's" to the Municipal Council this week. That is how the process works. Second, I certainly understand their position that their 3-year effort to get approved has been stymied, but they acquired a piece of property that has no access to utility infrastructure. If and when the utilities are in place, that is the time to discuss the rezone and possible land uses. This is an issue that the City deals with almost daily with developers who are ahead of the city infrastructure. But I don't know any city where every piece of property in the city is shovel-ready for development. And, as Beth Alligood points out, this specific development proposal is still in conflict with the West Side Development principles that have been adopted by the Municipal Council. I hope this helps, even though the post is way longer than I would like."
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 2.5 acres of real property, generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 900 East And Center Street, from One-Family Residential (R1.6) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
   This was item 9 at last week's Work Meeting. This is what I wrote last time, "Staff and the Planning Commission are both recommending denial of this request as well but for different reasons. The main reason for this one is that the design does not fit the character of the surrounding area. I appreciate the shout out from Commissioner Rowan for form-based code which would more clearly communicate these expectation to potential developers, and I appreciate the efforts of some of the neighbors to draft language for an East Center Street Design Corridor."
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change the uses allowed in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. City-wide impact.
    You might be detecting a trend. All of the land use items from Work Meeting last week are on our agenda for the Council Meeting this week. Here is what I wrote about this item last week, "The RC zone is mostly used in older parts of the City. It was used decades ago as a place holder until a final zoning determination could be made for each area. Sometimes there is nothing as permanent as a temporary designation. I am a proponent of allowing neighborhood-scale commercial within our neighborhoods, so, in general, I am in favor of this request. I am worried, though, about the lack of feedback. This could indicate that no one in the community has concerns, but it may indicate that people aren't paying attention who may be upset later on."
11. 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.
    This was item 11 on last week's Work Meeting. Here is what I said about it, "The Southeast Area Master Plan identifies this area as a good place for higher density housing. In particular, I believe the idea is that this area could be designed specifically for the "young professional" demographic. I'm excited to see what can be done if developments are designed from the ground up for this group.
    Unfortunately, there are already businesses in this area, some new, some have been around for a long time. Some have been sitting on their land for a long time with an eye to developing it for manufacturing uses sometime in the future. This area could also be a cohesive manufacturing strip in the City providing jobs and industrial services.
    My biggest fear is that if we try to split the difference and tuck multi-family developments between the manufacturing sites we will fail to get a quality area for either use."
    In our meeting last week we voted to change our implied motion (start point for discussion) to be a rezone of the entire area, without exceptions for the properties that don't currently have manufacturing uses, but were planning to use the land for manufacturing uses some time into the future.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.38.105(1) to increase wall signage permitted in a multi-tenant building in Downtown, ITOD, Downtown Gateway, and West Gateway zones. City-wide Impact.
    This item will have been heard earlier in the day, rather than last week. See item 11 in the afternoon meeting above.

What's Up? - 10 July 2017

I apologize for my extended absence. Between work travel, family vacations, the holidays, and starting a reelection campaign, I've fallen a few weeks behind. I hope to do a post-meeting report on the last three batches of meetings later this week. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer as much as I am, though I'm looking forward to it calming down just a bit.

So far I've been blogging the regular Work Meetings and Council Meetings, but there are other public meetings that the Council participates in. On Tuesday we are having a joint meeting with the Provo Metropolitan Water District Board. I figure I should give y'all a heads up on these other meetings as well.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

JOINT MEETING WITH THE METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD

12:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion on the mission of the Metropolitan Water District of Provo, its relationship with Provo City, and developing a cooperative and productive relationship.
   In December 2016, the Council inadvertently made some inappropriate changes to MWD Board. In February 2017, we undid our mistakes. And in March of this year, we filled the vacancies on the Board. This Joint Meeting will be a good opportunity to make sure that everyone is on the same page about the purpose and work of the MWDB and to ensure we have good communication and cooperation to meet the needs of Provo residents.

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, Jul 11th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. An introduction of prospective Board & Commission Appointments.
   Prospective appointees include:
   • Valerie Lee, reappointment to Housing Authority, four-year term
   • Marc Liebman, appointment to Parks and Rec, three-year term
   • Natalie Gibbs, appointment to Parks and Rec, one-year term
   • Shannon Ellsworth, appointment to Planning Commission, three-year term
   • Andrew Howard, appointment to Planning Commission, three-year term
   • Jane Wise, appointment to Arts Council, one-year term
   • Stuart Wheeler, appointment to Arts Council, one-year term
   • Scott Glenn, appointment to Arts Council, two-year term
   • Jeffrey Kahn, appointment to Arts Council, three-year term
   • Heather Jensen, appointment to Arts Council, three-year term
   I wrote this to the Mayor upon receiving these recommendations: "I am continually impressed at the quality of individuals you recommend for these boards. It's wonderful that we have people like these in our community, and great that they can be identified and are willing to serve." Take a look at their introductions. Provo is a better place because so many great individuals are willing to serve their community.
2. A presentation from Downtown Provo, Inc. Executive Director regarding their efforts
   DPI has a new Executive Director, Quinn Peterson. I am optimistic that DPI will finally reach its potential under his leadership. 
3. A presentation regarding Economic Development efforts in the downtown Provo
   As part of the budget review process, the Council felt like they needed to better understand the Economic Development Department’s efforts and what they plan to do moving forward. This presentation is part of a four-part comprehensive presentation to better understand the following topics along with what Economic Development is doing regarding them:
   • Downtown
   • Retail and Incentives
   • Job Creation
   • Retaining businesses
   • Future of Westside, including Housing, Commercial development, and the airport, and
   • Mountain Vista
   Similar to the presentations given by the Water Division, these presentations will give the Council better working knowledge of Economic Development's efforts.
4. A proposal from the Rules Committee regarding Minutes policy
   New state law says that you satisfy the requirement to capture the substance of a meeting if you have a link to an audio recording that has time stamps available. The Rules Committee is considering altering minutes policy to rely more on the video/audio rather than to capture everything in the written record.
   As part of the Rules Committee, we reviewed the new law and explored various options. We feel this will improve the ability of the citizenry to access the information they desire while relieving a significant workload on Staff.
5. A discussion on the video component of OnBase Agenda Online
   As an ardent reader of my blog, you know that most of the documents I link to are hosted on the City's SIRE Public Access System. And you know the frustrations of all links breaking each time any update is made, as well as all sorts of quirks and limitations. The City is moving from the SIRE system to OnBase and I am naively optimistic that it will solve all of the problems. We are getting very close to the switch over, and I assume that this agenda item has to do with that. Perhaps we'll be asked if we want to pay more for a video feature.
6. A zone change request from R1.7 to R1.7A to allow for accessory apartments for homes located along 690 South and 770 South, east of 1100 West. Sunset Neighborhood.
   
   
   
   I have mixed feelings on this one, but apparently the Planning Commission does not. With a 4:0 vote they are recommending approval. Their discussion included multiple comments that they see no potential negative consequences. Accessory apartments allow the owner of a home to rent out a portion of that home, as long as the owner lives in the other part. The idea is that the owner will be very careful about screening tenant, will take care of nuisance problems quickly, and will be responsive to tenant needs, because they are living in such close proximity. There are several upsides to accessory apartments. At their best they allow a new family to own a home sooner, with the renters helping to pay the mortgage. Later, as earning potential goes up as does the need for more space, the growing family can expand into the "accessory" space. Later still, when the baby birds leave the nest, the spare space can be rented back out to help fund a retirement. This is just one example of how the flexibility can help address our communities housing needs and provide more stability. At their worst, allowing accessory apartment removes homes from the market for growing families and leads to all sorts of zoning infractions. I would say the number one housing need in my own neighborhood is for homes with enough space and bedrooms for an average Provo family. Over the past decade I've known so many families who come here as young families, still students or young professionals, and they fall in love with the neighborhood and want to stay forever, but after a few years and a couple of kids they are forced to move away because there are no houses available to meet their needs. Many of the houses with three or more bedrooms in my neighborhood have been converted into multi-family housing. This is due in large part to the 'A overlay' which allows accessory apartments. Many are not legally compliant accessory apartments because they were not created with a building permit, many do not meet the requirements to become legal accessory apartments, and many were once used as accessory apartments, but over time and multiple owners, they are functioning as duplexes, without the owner occupying one part of the house.
   I wish there was a way to get the benefits of accessory apartments without the negatives that have crept in over time. I hope the applicants understand the potential negative consequences that may not be obvious in the short term.
7. A request for an amendment to Section 14.38 to allow for larger signage in the Regional Shopping Center (SC3) Zone for the Provo Towne Center Mall. East Bay Neighborhood.
   The Planning Commission report was a little sparse on this item. It mentions that the Commission brought up questions about brightness and messaging, and that the applicant addressed the questions, but it doesn't explain what the questions were or how they were addressed. I am also concerned about possible impacts on surrounding neighbors. Being adjacent to the freeway will hopefully help. The Commission must have had their concerns adequately addressed as they recommended approval on a 5:0 vote. Freeway drivers should also be considered. I imagine I'm not the only person who has experienced painfully bright and distracting video signs on the freeway.
8. A request for a zone change from RA & A1.5 to R1.8(PD) & Neighborhood Shopping Center (SC-1) Zone for property located at approximately 1560 South 1100 West. The proposed R1.8(PD) Zone includes 55.24 acres. The proposed SC-1 Zone includes 4.46 acres. Sunset and Lakewood Neighborhoods.
   
   
   Both Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of this request at the present time. Both groups have indicated that much of the proposal has merit in the long term, but that conditions are not yet right. Major concerns are the current redesign of the sewer infrastructure which won't be settled for a couple more months, as well as ongoing work on the details of the Southwest Area Master Plan.
   After spending so much time and effort with the other members of the Westside Planning Committee, it was neat to see our work referenced when evaluating this project.
9. A request for a zone map amendment from the R1.6 (One-Family Residential) and RC (Residential Conservation) zones to the MDR (Medium Density Residential) Zone on approximately 2.5 acres generally located on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection at 900 East and Center Street. Foothills and Provost Neighborhoods.
   
   
   Staff and the Planning Commission are both recommending denial of this request as well but for different reasons. The main reason for this one is that the design does not fit the character of the surrounding area. I appreciate the shout out from Commissioner Rowan for form-based code which would more clearly communicate these expectation to potential developers, and I appreciate the efforts of some of the neighbors to draft language for an East Center Street Design Corridor.
10. A request for an amendments to Section 14.32.020 to allow Eating Places and Personal Services within the Residential Conservation (RC) zone in existing commercial structures. City-Wide Impact.
    The RC zone is mostly used in older parts of the City. It was used decades ago as a place holder until a final zoning determination could be made for each area. Sometimes there is nothing as permanent as a temporary designation. I am a proponent of allowing neighborhood-scale commercial within our neighborhoods, so, in general, I am in favor of this request. I am worried, though, about the lack of feedback. This could indicate that no one in the community has concerns, but it may indicate that people aren't paying attention who may be upset later on.
11. A discussion regarding a Provo City Community Development Department request for a Zone Change of approximately 58.6 acres of property generally located at 1500 South State Street from Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone to Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    The Southeast Area Master Plan identifies this area as a good place for higher density housing. In particular, I believe the idea is that this area could be designed specifically for the "young professional" demographic. I'm excited to see what can be done if developments are designed from the ground up for this group.
    Unfortunately, there are already businesses in this area, some new, some have been around for a long time. Some have been sitting on their land for a long time with an eye to developing it for manufacturing uses sometime in the future. This area could also be a cohesive manufacturing strip in the City providing jobs and industrial services.
    My biggest fear is that if we try to split the difference and tuck multi-family developments between the manufacturing sites we will fail to get a quality area for either use.
12. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

The evening Council Meeting has been CANCELLED because there were no action items on the agenda.

What's Up? - 2 June 2017

It looks like another full Tuesday. Here is my run down of the agenda items. I hope it helps you to understand the items before the Council.

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

1:00 PM, Tuesday, Jun 6th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. A discussion regarding the feasibility of a new city center and public safety complex
   We had an in-depth discussion during the 16th May Work Meeting regarding the work that has been completed so far on this issue. The Council indicated an interest in the City digging deeper. Wayne Parker, the City's Chief Administrative Officer, will be proposing some next steps including refining the cost model and beginning public outreach.
2. A discussion on recommendations from the DAPR Committee regarding land use agenda noticing
   Under current practice, it usually takes at least five weeks for a Planning Commission item to get on a council meeting agenda...After evaluating the process, the DAPR (Development Approval Process Review) Committee has determined that one of the best ways to improve the flow of land use items is to adjust the current noticing practices...Besides amending the City’s 14-day noticing requirement to 10 days, most of the proposed changes would mainly involve staff coordination and scheduling logistics. Take a look at the full proposal.
3. An overview of the Economic Development Department and a discussion regarding tools/programs available for incentives
   After the in-depth presentations on the Water Division, certain Council members have expressed interest in learning more about some of the other departments—in this case, about Economic Development. Staff from Economic Development will spend 30 minutes providing an overview of their department and answering questions. 
4. A discussion on 2017 Council Assignments for Boards, Committees, and Liaisons
   The Budget & Audit Committee mission statement has been prepared and is ready for Council ratification.
5. A discussion on minimum dwelling unit sizes
   On April 11th the Council passed new regulations governing minimum unit sizes. There was a feeling of urgency to pass the ordinance before the protections on pending legislation expired. There was some discussion about refining the regulations, but it was decided to just move forward with the broad regulations and then we would have time to more fully deliberate the intricacies. I asked to begin this discussion at this Work Meeting. The main goal of this first discussion is to explore what Councilors are hoping to achieve with this regulation.
6. A discussion on a request for an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow a new PRO Zone for property generally located at 691 East 600 North from property currently zoned Residential Conservation. Joaquin Neighborhood.
7. A discussion on a request for a Zone Change from Residential Conservation (RC) to a PRO Zone to allow 10 residential apartments on 0.19 acres located at 691 East 600 North. Joaquin Neighborhood.
   
   
   Items 6 and 7 address the same proposal. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Community Development Staff is supportive. Key points from their presentation: • The current zone doesn’t allow for new development other than one, single-family unit. • The Joaquin Neighborhood Plan calls for higher density development in this area. • The property is surrounded by other residential dwellings leaving this parcel to be developed separately. • The Campus Mixed Use (CMU) zone allows for baching singles and this is not something that the applicant would like to pursue, they would like to provide one bedroom units that would attract married students. • The proposed project for this site would require a rezone. • A PRO Zone has been drafted to accommodate the development of this property.
   Concerns raised by the public: The front façade doesn’t conform to the character of the neighborhood and that it seems like too many units are trying to fit on this site. • That there could be a shortage of parking if every unit had more than an average of 1.5 vehicles.
8. A discussion regarding the Provo City Parks & Recreation Department's request for a Zone Change from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to Public Facilities (PF) for Construction of the Spring Creek Park located at 1140 South State Street. Spring Creek Neighborhood.
   The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Community Development Staff is supportive. Key points from their presentation: • The need for a neighborhood-scale park has been identified in both the General Plan and the Parks Master Plan. • The standard practice in Provo is to have parks zoned PF • The associated Project Plan has been reviewed by the CRC and found compliant with all ordinance requirements.
   Concerns raised by the public: None.
   
   
9. A discussion regarding a request for the rezone of 5 properties, totaling approximately 22 acres, from the RA (Residential Agricultural) and A1.5 (Agricultural 5-acre minimum) zones to the R1.8 (Single-Family Residential) zone, located approximately 831 and 1041 West 1560 South to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision with an 8,000 square foot lot size minimum. Lakewood Neighborhood.
   
   The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial. Community Development Staff is not supportive. Key points from their presentation: • The General Plan and draft Westside Planning Committee policies identify this area as one that could be served by residential development, however, infrastructure and sequencing is a critical factor. • Provo City Code requires rezone requests to be accompanied by a preliminary subdivision demonstrating code compliance, including equitable development potential for remnant parcels or adjacent properties. • Applicant’s preliminary subdivision has failed to meet numerous code requirements in Title 14 and Title 15. • Concerns raised by the neighborhood and staff have been unresolved by the applicant. • Staff has provided some possible solutions to the applicant, but it would reduce the overall lot count. • The applicant has requested to pursue Planning Commission and Council approval, regardless of staff’s negative recommendations.
   
   This is the first new proposal to come to the Council since we adopted the West Side Planning Committee's policy recommendations. I'm interested to see how those policies come into play during the discussion and deliberation.
10. A discussion regarding a Provo City Community Development Department request for a Zone Change of approximately 58.6 acres of property generally located at 1500 South State Street from Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone to Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Spring Creek Neighborhood.
    
    
    This is a Community Development initiated proposal. The neighborhood plan calls for this area to develop into Medium Density Residential/Mixed Use with a baching overlay. I believe the target demographic is young professionals. The land is currently zoned for light manufacturing. Our current practice is not to pre-zone land, particularly for residential, so that development proposals still have to be approved by the Council. The problem here is that new light manufacturing development could take place which would set back the vision and neighborhood plan. Community Development suggested zoning it as Low Density Residential. That way a developer would still need to apply for a rezone in order to develop MDR. The Planning Commission worried that some developer might just move forward with an LDR development which could also thwart the vision. The Planning Commission recommended that we rezone the land to R1.10, which would give developers even more incentive to seek a rezone. I'm wondering if A1.10 might be even more effective, or if it would be overkill.
11. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

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

1. Earthquake Safety Public Service Announcement
   
   Public Comment
2. A public hearing on a resolution approving the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan, including the third year update to the 2015 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, as amended.
   Every year, as Lead Entity for the Utah Valley HOME Consortium, Provo City submits an Annual Action Plan (an update to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan submitted to HUD) outlining the goals, objectives and the proposed use of federal CDBG and HOME resources to address housing, economic development, and community development projects to be undertaken.
   I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in homelessness in the County read the Action Plan. I wish we had discussed this plan in a Work Meeting beforehand.
3. A resolution of intent to create a permit parking area in the Foothills Neighborhood.
   This public hearing will be the second in regards to this particular proposal. Under City Code, 9.80.70 (5), the purpose of this public hearing is for the Council to “consider a resolution of intent to create a permit parking area. The Municipal Council may adopt, reject, or adopt with modifications the terms and conditions of the proposed permit parking area.”
   Provo just hired a Parking Manager. I believe he will be starting later this month. I think we should consider bringing him into the discussion before we create any new parking programs.
4. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 0.279 acres of real property, generally located at 801 West 500 South, from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood.
   
   
   The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Community Development Staff is supportive. Key points from their presentation: The subject property is a vacated portion of former 800 West right-of-way between the Southern Pacific Railroad and 500 South. Mr. Sweetwood has previously received approval for the development of a used car sales lot and office. When he became aware that the neighborhood plan recommended the LDR Zone as the future zoning for the property and surrounding area he made the decision to pursue the development of townhomes on the property. The property is bordered to the east and west by single family homes and to the south across the railroad by former commercial manufacturing facilities.
   
   
   I have not heard any opposition, and the Neighborhood Chair is supportive.
5. Consideration of a motion to amend or rescind Ordinance 2017-18, previously approved on May 16, 2017, regarding the rezoning of property generally located at 3700 North University Avenue.
   
   
   There is not much in the meeting packet about why we might consider amending or rescinding the ordinance. From email exchanges, I understand it is a concern that the Council passed a higher height restriction than it had intended, and perhaps something about the setbacks. Based solely on the applicant's responses in our last Council Meeting, I believe we will be able to make the amendments without any opposition.
6. A public hearing on transferring utility revenues to the General Fund and other funds.
   During this year’s session, the State Legislature passed a bill requiring municipalities to hold a public hearing regarding the transfer of utility revenues to other funds. This public hearing will satisfy the State requirement.
   If you are curious about why we transfer some of our utility revenues into our General Fund, I invite you to read this open letter to our state legislature delegation. 
7. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a budget for Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018 in the amount of $207.8 million, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
   This is our $208,000,000 budget. We won't actually be voting on it until 20 June.
8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018 in the amount of $5.238 million.
   This is the RDA (which is technically a separate entity) portion of our budget. We will be voting on this on 20 June.
9. A public hearing on transferring Stormwater fund revenues to the General Fund and other funds
   See the description of item #6.
10. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Stormwater Service District for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    This is the Stormwater Service District (which is technically a separate entity) portion of our budget. We will be voting on this on 20 June.

What's Up? - 23 May 2017

The meetings last Tuesday lasted almost 12 hours. It's days like those that make me question my sanity for running again.

What Was Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

11:00 AM, Tuesday, May 16th, City Conference Room, 351 West Center

1. Discuss the feasibility review of a new city center and public safety complex
   Presentation only. The majority of council members were in favor of the direction the Administration proposed to continue looking into the feasibility review and coming back to the Council with more information, including a proposal for public outreach and a commission to study the issue.
   Our City Complex is aging and the maintenance is getting more expensive every year. So we will need to decide if we want to sink some significant money into it to renovate it, or invest significant money into the creation of a new complex. It doesn't help that we have long outgrown the current building. The committee has recommended that we look at rebuilding at the current site. I am hopeful that we will continue to look into the possibility of joining the County and State complex on the southeast corner of Center and University. I am also hopeful that we will be wise with our resources in both the short and long terms. If we do build a new city hall and a new public safety complex, I hope we will not be talking about tearing it down in 40 years. I hope that we will build something long lasting, something worth saving.
   
   The first 140 or so pages of the meeting documents are related to this item. Feel free to dig in as much as you would like.
2. A discussion regarding the proposed FY 2018 Tentative Budget
   Discussion only. Council members were invited to submit specific questions to Council staff for distribution to Department Directors in advance of the Council’s Budget Retreat on June 8, 2017 and Public Works Budget Retreat on May 24, 2017.
   This was another in a long line of opportunities for Councilors to be briefed and to ask questions about the budget. We are preparing for a couple of retreats to dig deeply.
3. A presentation from the Water Division
   Presentation only. This was the final installment of the Water Division’s presentations to the Council. Public Works Director Dave Decker indicated that it would be helpful to present one or two more sessions to the Council addressing issues for Stormwater and Wastewater, respectively. The Administration proposed that together with Council Leadership they evaluate the effectiveness of these presentations and whether this would be beneficial to continue with other departments.
   In this presentation, we focused on the final step of the water system: delivery to homes and businesses. We looked at the hardware used to prevent contaminations from entering the system from customers, as well as new wireless meters. We looked at how the Division delivers water at pressures within an appropriate range.
   This was the last of six presentations by the Water Division. They represented a significant investment in time, but I felt that it was a valuable use of our time to more fully understand the issues surrounding this most basic of all city services.
4. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
   A motion to direct Public Works staff to include in updates to the Consolidated Fee Schedule rate increases in the compost pickup for residents from $2.00 to $3.00 per load, and for non-residents from $5.00 to $6.00 per load was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   A substitute motion to adopt option 1 for Sanitation rate increases and for Public Works to return to the Council in July 2017 with a recommendation for long-term rate changes was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   The second vote was the significant one. We need to implement a rate increase along with the budget this year. Because of the time that it would take to implement a new rate structure, we are limited to just adjusting the rates. I am hopeful that when the Sanitation Division returns in July that we will be able to adopt a more rational structure. I would like to see a simple fee that covers all sanitation service, but at the very least, I hope we will eliminate the "Triple Play Penalty"
   If you are interested in the wonky details, I'll post some excerpts from some email I sent discussing the topic. If you aren't, just skip down to item 5.
   As requested, I am sending you my preference on the sanitation fee increase proposals that you presented on Tuesday, and I would like to suggest another option as well.
   I support Option 4 with the uniform price for all three cans. I support Option 2 in the interim until Option 4 can be implemented.
   I also suggest another option, which I'll call Option 5. Perhaps Option 5 could be used in the interim, or could be considered longer term if Option 4 does not have enough political support at this time.
   Option 5
   
   

   Black Can	$16.25
   Blue Can	$3.75
   Green Can*	$4.75
   Triple Play Discount	$1.00

   *only charged March - November
   
   I switched the cost of the blue and green cans. Because the yard waste operation costs the City more, the green can is now a dollar more than the blue can. The $2 black can discount for recycling is gone. Instead, the cost of the blue and green cans was taken down a dollar each. And now instead of a Triple Play penalty (see next paragraph) there is a $1 per month Triple Play discount.
   
   With our currently our rate structure and with Option 2, if you have a single black can, adding a green can costs $18.75 per year, adding a blue can costs $45 per year. It is odd that the blue can costs so much more than the green can since the yard waste operation costs the City more than the household recycling operation. This is mainly due to the black can discount applying all year even though the fee for the green can is not applied over the winter when the can is not picked up. Now for the Triple Play penalty: if you have a black and a blue can, adding a green can costs $42.75 per year. If you have a black and a green can, adding a blue can costs $69 per year.
   With Option 5, adding a blue can to a black can still costs $45 more a year. Adding a green can to a black can costs $42.75 more a year. Adding a blue can to black and green cans costs $36 more per year. Adding a green can to black and blue cans costs $33.75 more per year. I think this makes far more sense.
   
   Here is a head to head comparison, using the annual total:
   
   

   	Current	Option 2	Option 5
   1 Black	$174	$195	$195
   2 Black	$348	$390	$390
   Black and Blue	$219	$240	$240
   Black and Green	$192.75	$213.75	$237.75
   Black Blue Green	$261.75	$282.75	$273.75

5. Steven Sweetwood requests a Zone Change from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone for 0.279 acres of property located at 801 West 500 South. Franklin Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   So far I've only heard positive things about and support for this proposal.
   
6. Ken Menlove requests Street Vacation of 1780 South running west from Industrial Parkway to facilitate development of self-storage units on 4.79 acres of land in the Planned Industrial Commercial Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting.
   There are many good reasons to return and land, and no good reason not to. The street was built by the developer and given to the City. Now the development going in doesn't want the street.
   
   
7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   A motion to amend the proposed draft of the ordinance from an average depth of 105 feet to an average depth of 113 feet was Approved 6:0, with Council Member Kim Santiago excused. This item was already scheduled for the May 16, 2017 Council Meeting and the draft ordinance and materials were updated to reflect the change.
   With this motion we changed the implied (default) motion that we would be considering in the later meeting. One hundred and thirteen feet was selected because that is the depth that an R1.10 zoned lot of minimum width would need to be before the additional provisions would take place. See more discussion in item 9 of the evening meeting.
8. Closed Meeting
   A closed meeting was held.

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 16th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for April 2017.
   Presentation only.Public Comment
2. A resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
3. A resolution approving the HOME Investment and Partnerships (HOME) Program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I felt strongly that we should have seen items 2 and 3 in a Work Meeting before hand. The presentations in the Council Meeting were very helpful, but having the opportunity to really consider, explore, ruminate, and discuss big items is important. Much of the federal funding will be used outside of Provo next year. For a long time, we have said that we would like to see subsidized housing spread more evenly across the County. These proposals will definitely move us in that direction. I can't help questioning if we could put some of our funding into programs like a land trust here in Provo. I was very tempted to ask that we continue the item, but I wasn't sure that it would make a difference at this point.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay zone. City-wide Impact.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   This is really a book-keeping ordinance that should be passed either way, but the timing is necessary if we were going to approve item 6.
5. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow Retail Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres of real property, generally located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue, from Agriculture (A1.5) to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved as amended 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   Items 5 and 6 were heard and discussed together. Once we decided that we wanted to accommodate the proposal, both the zoning and the General Plan needed to be updated. See the last What's Up? for more details on the proposal.
   
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   Approved 4:2, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Members Kay Van Buren and David Sewell opposed.
   This item was much more difficult to decide on than the last. Some people liked it, some people thought it went too far, a few others wondered if it didn't go far enough. The developer and neighbors met many times and went through many iterations. The process definitely was not truncated, the applicant circled around after every significant change to present again to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. After split votes and significant neighborhood opinion against the proposal, the last proposal received a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation and was nearing a 50/50 split amongst neighbors.
   
8. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   A motion to send this petition to the Parking Committee was Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   At this point, the Council was anxious to move quickly through the meeting and not spend extra time on items where there was already support. We were all willing to move this issue onto the next step. I wonder if it would make more sense to wait until our incoming Parking Manager is in place and can provide input.
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
   I would have preferred to simplify the requirements and have a simple 20' setback for both front and back yards, but in the end, the modified committee recommendation functionally provides what I was looking for in the regulations, so I voted for it.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral compensation.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    As discussed many times before, this ordinance increases the mayoral salary up to $120,000, which is on par with mayoral compensation in comparable cities.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council members' compensation.
    Approved 5:1, Council Member Kim Santiago excused; Council Member Kay Van Buren opposed.
    I would have preferred by far to approve this ordinance earlier in the evening when more people were in attendance. It had been many years since any adjustment had been made. This would raise the compensation to $18,000 which brings us into line with comparable cities. I am hopeful that the new compensation will make it so that fewer people will find it financially prohibitive to serve on the Council.
12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
13. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
14. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Approved 6:0, Council Member Kim Santiago excused.
    We had two weeks to look over the proposed tentative budgets and happily adopted them as a starting point for our discussions that will be ongoing over the next month.

Who's In?

Our representative democracy works best when voters have options to choose from when electing their representatives. In order to have choices at the ballot box, people have to be willing to run. The filing period for Provo municipal races opens in 10 days and only stays open for 7 days. Please consider who you would like to represent you and encourage them to run. Consider running yourself.

There are three City Council seats on November's ballot, along with the Mayor's seat. I've heard of several people interested in the Mayor's seat, being vacated by Mayor Curtis, and a few for the City Wide District seat, currently held by David Sewell, who is standing for reelection. So far I haven't heard any interest in District 2. It is currently held by Kim Santiago and she has indicated that she isn't running again. I also haven't seen any announcements, other than my own, for District 5.

Two years ago, three of us filed to run for the District 5 seat. Within a couple of weeks, the two other candidates had withdrawn. Fortunately, a member of our community stepped up as a write-in candidate, so I wasn't unopposed for too long.

We need multiple good candidates to provide a real choice to our neighbors. As I said a couple years ago, "Having an opponent also gives the campaign a sense of urgency and brings it more sharply into focus...I believe that healthy discussion and debate leads to better ideas and broader and deeper understanding...and, in the end, a better representative will be elected, whoever that may be."

What's Up? - 15 May 2017

Black text comes from the agenda
Blue text are my current comments
Purple text are from my former comments
Brown text comes from the support documents. 

What's Coming Up?

COUNCIL WORK MEETING

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

1. Discuss the feasibility review of a new city center and public safety complex
   
   Our current City Center, which holds our city hall and city offices, is 45 years old and is roughly one-third the size of what a 2013 study found that we need. There are also life-safety issues. Any earthquake large enough to need an emergency response center would likely collapse our center and bury everyone in it. The Administration is exploring options, and will present what they have found so far.
2. A discussion regarding the proposed FY 2018 Tentative Budget
   Two weeks ago the budget proposal was finalized. We have now had some time to review it. We will be discussing it in this meeting as well as at a morning long budget retreat in June.
3. A presentation from the Water Division
   This is the sixth, and I believe last, in a series of presentations to help the Council better understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Water Division.
4. A discussion on sanitation rates and an update on composting
   I believe we are in year four of a five year utility rate increase plan. This year calls for a 10% increase in our sanitation rates (trash, household recycling, yard waste). Various proposals are being made on how to best structure our rates and rate increases.
5. Steven Sweetwood requests a Zone Change from the Heavy Commercial (CM) Zone to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone for 0.279 acres of property located at 801 West 500 South. Franklin Neighborhood.
   The subject property is a vacated portion of former 800 West right-of-way between the Southern Pacific Railroad and 500 South. Mr. Sweetwood has previously received approval for the development of a used car sales lot and office. When he became aware that the neighborhood plan recommended the LDR Zone as the future zoning for the property and surrounding area he made the decision to pursue the development of townhomes on the property. The property is bordered to the east and west by single family homes and to the south across the railroad by former commercial manufacturing facilities.
   The neighborhood chair is supportive, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends it.
6. Ken Menlove requests Street Vacation of 1780 South running west from Industrial Parkway to facilitate development of self-storage units on 4.79 acres of land in the Planned Industrial Commercial Zone. East Bay Neighborhood.
   
   Seems reasonable to me. I haven't heard any concerns from the public. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends it.
7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   We continued this again at our last Council meeting. You can read about it here (item 5 in the evening meeting). Since then a subcommittee has met to work out a proposal for the rest of the Council.
8. Closed Meeting

COUNCIL MEETING

5:30 PM, Tuesday, May 16th, Council Chambers, 351 West Center

1. A presentation on the Employee of the Month for April 2017.
   
   Public Comment
2. A resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
3. A resolution approving the HOME Investment and Partnerships (HOME) Program for the fiscal year 2017-2018 ending on June 30, 2018.
   I'm surprised at these two items. It appears that we are being asked to approve these two proposals, without discussing them previously, like in a Work meeting. Take a look at the documents for the CDBG proposal. Or the HOME proposal. That's a lot of material to absorb without having a good opportunity to ask questions before being asked to consider passing it in a Council meeting.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) zones to be permitted for the Special Development Plan Overlay zone. City-wide Impact.
   See item 7 (and 9) in the Work meeting on May 2nd.
5. An ordinance to amend the General Plan text regarding land use for the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue to allow Retail Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential land uses. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See item 8 (and 9) in the Work meeting on May 2nd.
6. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately four acres of real property, generally located at the northeast corner of 3700 North University Avenue, from Agriculture (A1.5) to Specialty Support Commercial (SSC), Professional Office (PO), and Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Specific Development Plan (SDP) Overlay. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   See item 9 in the Work meeting on May 2nd. It has a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow apartment units and change various requirements in the PRO-R22 zone. Riverbottoms Neighborhood.
   This issue was continued in our April 11th Council meeting. Since then another set of revisions were made to the proposal, and it went back through the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. I believe the major change was for the four-unit mansion houses on the north side of 4750 N have been replaced by single family residences. I personally believe that the owners on the south side of that street would be better served by the mansion houses. The area is nearing a point when redevelopment could occur and the owners might find more value in smoothing the transition between the apartments to the north and the single family homes further south. But, if that is what the owners along 4750 N want, and they have found a compromise with the applicant, I won't stand in the way.
   Previous incarnations of this proposal had a split Planning Commission vote, and a 3-2 vote against recommendtion. This time it found a unanimous recommendation.
8. A public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the Foothill Park Parking Permit Area.
   The purpose is to inform Council of the proposed parking area that the Council Office received a petition in February 2017. The residents of the area have brought the proposal forward on their own and the public hearing solely for the purpose of establishing public interest. If Council is interested in moving this item forward, they must make a motion to direct a study that the proposed parking permit area being undertaken. The Parking Committee is the body that reviews the application/petition. After they have a recommendation, they will submit a report and will review the report in a public hearing. A third public hearing is held thereafter to formalize the parking permit area. 
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to change yard requirements in the one-family residential zone.
   See item 7 in the earlier meeting.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Mayoral compensation.
    See the next item's description.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Municipal Council members' compensation.
    This is what I wrote after the Elected Officials Compensation Commission reported their recommendations at the 21 March Council Meeting.
    The Commission recommends raising the mayoral compensation from $109,500 to $120,000. It recommends raising the council compensation from $12,485 to $18,000. The mayoral compensation was last adjusted in 2013. If I heard right, the last time the council compensation was adjusted was in 2007 and it was a "cost of living adjustment". The Commission based its recommendations on the compensation of comparably sized cities around the State and also noted that the responsibilities of the Mayor and Council are greater than most cities because we run a power department and an airport.
    It doesn't surprise me that the council compensation lags behind other cities, even though we are asked to do more. Our Councilors are very concerned about the frugal use of public money. My guess is that even now many will not want to accept more money from the City. Of all the areas to "cut" during the budget process, a pay increase for ourselves will be the easiest.
    No Councilor runs for the money, but it can help take the edge off of the lost income caused by the time off work. The problem is that there is a large swath of our community who cannot take hundreds of hours off of their "day job" without some compensation. If Council members aren't compensated reasonably then Council service may become the domain of retirees and the independently wealthy. I believe that we should accept the Commission's recommendation to open the service opportunity to more people. I will suggest that any Councilor who is uncomfortable with the increase can donate it to the Provo City Foundation, or another charity.
12. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    See the item 14's description.
13. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    See the next item's description.
14. A resolution tentatively adopting a proposed budget for the Provo City Storm Water Special Service District for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018.
    Last Council meeting we continued these items because we had not had the opportunity to look over them yet.