Council Meetings - 29 October 2019

Wow, this was a marathon meeting. I was on a work trip out of the country for my "day" job. I had hoped to call in during the meetings, but was not able to. The only thing better than sitting through 6 hours of meetings, is watching six hours of meetings on YouTube! You might notice a different tone in my "previews" for this meeting. Once I realized I wouldn't be able to call in, I hastily typed out my thoughts on the issues to share with my colleagues on the Council.

The parking and "xeriscaping" items are pretty cool, but I feel most passionately about Electronic Sign discussion.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:30 PM, Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

1. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Planning Commission approval of reductions in required parking, including for multi-family residential uses. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
   The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of Section 14.37.050 of the Provo City Code, relating to Reduction in Off-street Parking Requirements to remove the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and to allow residential developments to apply for a reduction in off-street parking requirements based on a TDM plan approved by the Planning Commission in a Project Plan application. Planning Commission recommended approval. In a committee meeting, the now-director of our new Department of Development Services explained that in areas where this is already an option, much good came from even small reductions (one or two spaces). This does give the Planning Commission quite a bit of power, but I believe that it will be worth it. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. If developers want a reduction in the number of parking stalls they are required to provide, this would give them an option to create a plan to reduce the parking demand and then have a traffic engineer study and issue a report on their plan and requested reduction. The Planning Commission would be allowed to reduce the parking requirement based on the proposed plan and the engineer's evaluation.



Business

2. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council authorizing the acceptance of a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for the Airport. (19-087)
   The Public Works Department intends to apply for a $5 million State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund loan to front the costs of infrastructure for the new Airport Terminal. The application for the loan will be considered before the Utah Department of Transportation Commission in September. Prior to receiving funds, the Commission requires a resolution by the Council. It is anticipated that MAG funding to be programmed for 2023-2024 will be used to repay the loan. I support this. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The application has been approved by the State. Interest rate: 2.1% APR, 5-year repayment after the project is finished.
3. A presentation regarding the Young Single Professionals Committee. (19-115)
   Amber Savage and Bill Hulterstrom have requested time to present to the Council about the Young Single Professionals Committee. This committee was created by Mayor Kaufusi. I am glad that the Mayor put together this committee. Young single professionals are an important part of Provo and help make us who we are as a community. Some people have claimed that our efforts to encourage compliance with occupancy laws are evidence that we don't value the young single professionals in our city. This is unfortunate because it is simply not true. All are welcome here, but we do expect everyone to follow the law. Continued.
4. A discussion regarding the policy direction for the allocation of sewer connections for developments west of I-15. (19-110)
   This discussion follows presentations and discussions on the topic in two Work Meetings on October 8, August 27, and September 10, 2019.
   
   For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.
   
   With a number of forces at work, many land owners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.
   
   Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and land owners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.
   
   The Administration sees this as an important policy question that impacts the City budget, development pace on the west side, housing availability, agricultural preservation, transportation, and other important policy issues. The Council's consideration of any potential policy changes should be made carefully with good data and careful consideration, and these discussions are intended to begin a dialogue with the stakeholders to see if a change in current policy is warranted or advisable. I believe most, if not all, of the provided background information on this item is recycled from past agenda items. I believe that the thrust of this discussion will be on the outcome of the staff committee that Cliff heads to advise on how to allocate sewer connections when there is more supply than demand. My thoughts on this are that (1) we are likely to have a solid idea in a week whether Dixon Middle School will be moving in the next couple of years. (2) Barring the need to accommodate Dixon, I am comfortable with the current 7-year plan and believe that it is best for smart-growth to allow the availability of infrastructure to throttle growth, particularly if we can find a way to allocate the limited resource to the best proposals. We have a limited resource, let the proposals compete for the connections and let the best proposals rise to the top. (3) Even if we choose to accelerate by bonding or allowing developers to front the money, there will still be more demand than supply for some period of time. There is enough demand in the east and south-east portion of West Provo to use all of the connections until the parallel 36" is complete, so unless we limit the number of connections to this area, the west and north-west portions of West Provo won't have any connections until the parallel 36" is complete. Our decision on how we are going to allocate will likely affect the order in which the infrastructure projects are built. (4) I would like to allocate sewer connections based on how well a proposal aligns with City goals (i.e. I'd allocate all current connections to a development if that meant we get a grocery store in the near future), but I worry that we will be warned that this could be legally precarious. A motion to proceed with the next steps as proposed was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I think the committee made some good recommendations, and so far it sounds like the development community feels it is fair. Much of the property still needs to be rezoned and that is the time for the Council to ensure that the proposals are aligned with the policies.
5. A discussion regarding a potential Sensitive Lands ordinance amendment. (19-117)
   The Foothills Protection Committee has reviewed the Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone (FCOZ) currently in effect in Salt Lake County. The FCOZ provides protection to the aesthetic and natural elements along foothills and canyon areas in the County. Provo City Code Chapter 15.04 (Sensitive Lands) has some elements meant to protect areas that could be vulnerable to grading and cutting, however, there is interest from the Foothills Protection Committee to explore adopting elements of the FCOZ into the Provo City Code and attempt to further protect Provo Foothills in a similar manner to what Salt Lake County has done with the FCOZ. I like how the preamble to the SLCounty program talked about balancing the interests of all stakeholders. I'm looking for that in whatever proposal we entertain. How does this effort interact with the coming effort by CNS and residents in Northeast Provo to create an area master plan (similar to what was done in Southeast Provo)? A motion to move forward with developing a draft of an ordinance that is inspired by or drawn from the best elements of the FCOZ (Salt Lake County’s Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone) for the Council to look at in the future, and to move forward with creating the neighborhood plan was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. The discussion tied Foothill protections tightly with the planned development of a Northeast Area Master Plan. There is definitely some overlap, but I see these plans as fairly independent and focused on different things. I would support drafting the foothills protection ordinance to make sense for all of our foothills independent from the Master Plan drafting.
6. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Section 3.08.010 (Officials' Oaths and Bonds Required). (19-113)
   Current Provo City Code 3.08.010 requires that certain city officials take an oath of office and provide a bond, but is somewhat ambiguous. In the 2019 regular legislative session, Utah Code Section 10-3-831 was enacted to clarify the bond requirement. The Legal Department proposes that 3.08.010 be repealed and replaced by language complying with the current Utah statute. Based on the material, I think this is addressing the issue that was being brought up by that one emailer asking to see the oaths and bonds by the elected officials in Provo. I'm glad that the State provide clarity and that we are complying with the State statute. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. This is a very small, but good fix to our code.
7. A discussion regarding parking permit programs policy. (19-120)
   As the Council discusses parking permit programs across the city, it has been requested that the Council discuss their general approach to them. Since I started paying attention to issues before the Council, I've seen several parking permit programs proposed, but only one or two actually created. Usually, the applicants withdraw their request once they realize all that they entail. With our new license plate readers and with the direction of the Joaquin and Downtown parking committees, Parking Permit Programs have changed and I believe that they will continue to change in the near future. We've already made the change to LPRs, and I believe the city will be considering a new mobile payment system. I believe that we should have a cohesive and coherent system across the City, but I don't know what that looks like in the established areas and in the areas that are currently expressing interest in starting new programs. I think we should accommodate residents in their desires for their neighborhoods, but I also think we need to be careful about assigning public resources to private use. And I definitely feel that permit programs should pay for themselves over the long run. Continued. There was quite a bit of discussion on the item before it was continued. I had first thought that they had skipped over this item in my absence, but I think they covered all the aspects that I hoped would be discussed.
8. A discussion regarding Downtown Provo parking program policy. (19-116)
   The Downtown Parking Committee has been involved in regular meetings since August 2019. At this point they feel prepared to meet and discuss a policy that could be adopted to guide the Administration as they move forward with implementing a parking program in the Downtown Provo area. I think the vision should be easy to adopt. It is a feel-good statement about all we want Downtown Parking to be. But it is also an important tool to focus our efforts and to help us know how to weigh options and choices as we strive to implement the vision. The proposed policy is a bigger deal. There will be real impacts if we choose to go down this road. This is a change from how we've been doing things. The Committee, made up of three Councilors, high-level Administrative Officers and Staff, and Quinn Peterson from DPI, feel that this change will give us much more value for the resources that we have invested and continue to invest in parking downtown. We feel that this proposal is aligned with the 2013 Strategic Downtown Parking Plan and while bold, is the next logical step in its implementation.
   
   The impact of this policy change can be illustrated by revisiting a recent downtown parking decision. When working with PEG on the Freedom Plaza project, which included the new State Courthouse and Convention Center parking, we stated that we aren't in the business of managing parking garages and instead paid millions into PEGs parking structure for them to manage. The long-term results of similar decisions in the past have been less than stellar. This policy change means that we are in the business managing garages and in the future we would be investing the same money into garages that the City would own and operate and that private developers could pay into to meet their parking obligations. This policy change would also enable us to look at past investments, and consider if it makes sense to take over the operation. A motion to adopt the downtown parking vision, downtown parking policy, and direction discussed regarding next steps was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if this is seen as one of the most important things I worked on while on the Council.
9. A discussion regarding an update on parking enforcement in the new department structure. (19-114)
   Provo City will be moving parking enforcement and licensing functions from Customer Service to Community and Neighborhood Services to improve coordination among the various functions in that department like parking management and code enforcement. This is a small but important step in the City's evolving role in parking. It is also aligning our operation with the recommendations of the 2013 Strategic Parking Master Plan. A motion to express support for what the Administration has done in this area was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. I'm glad this was done.
10. A discussion regarding the Sign Ordinance Committee's proposed text amendment to clarify sign size requirements in 14.38.120-140. (19-119)
    As part of its comprehensive review of electronic sign regulations in Provo City Code, the Sign Ordinance Committee proposes new language and tables to clarify the sign size requirements found in PCC 14.38.120-140. The current graphs have not been updated in several decades and lack introductory text. The committee proposes that introductory text be added and that the graphs be replaced with tables. No concerns. A motion to send the proposal to the Planning Commission for review was approved 5:0, with David Sewell and David Harding excused. This proposal wouldn't change anything, just present the standard in a clearer manner.
11. A discussion regarding hold time for electronic signs. (19-118)
    Currently, Provo permits electronic signs to change their message once per eight seconds in high-churn areas and three times per day in low-churn areas. The Sign Ordinance Committee has discussed amending these hold times and would like to hear the thoughts of the other members of the Council. When staff researched electronic sign policy in thirteen other local cities, they found that six of the 13 cities had a hold time of eight seconds. Eight seconds is also the state standard. Some cities permitted hold times as short as two seconds or had no hold time policy. None of the cities had hold times longer than eight seconds. I believe that I still don't understand this proposal, and I may be missing something important. I apologize if my comments aren't helpful due to this possible misunderstanding. This proposal seems to me like a major departure from the sign corridor work that the Council (including Kay and Gary) did before I joined. It also seems like a major departure from DS's argument that non-churning electronic signs are no more obtrusive than back-lit signs and should be allowed anywhere back-lit signs are allowed. I was totally convinced by that argument and supported that change. But by the same logic, I feel that electronic signs with appreciable churn are more obtrusive than backlit signs and still need to be convinced that they should be allowed everywhere that backlit signs were. I consider a once-a-day change to be no appreciable churn. I definitely thank that changes every 8-seconds is appreciable churn. I feel that changes three times-a-day is a generous amount for a sign being treated like a traditional backlit sign. Presentation only. The committee feels that 3-changes-a-day is too restrictive, but are split on whether a 60-second hold or 8-second hold would be best. We already have "high-churn" corridors that allow 8-second hold, this is for the current "low-churn" areas. I still don't support increasing the churn rate in "low-churn" areas.
12. A resolution appropriating $98,432 in the General Fund for an Economic Development Director position in the Development Services Department. (19-111)
    Recently, the Administration recommended and the Council supported a transfer of funds from the new Development Services Department to the Mayor's Office to fund the new Assistant CAO position. At the time, we believed that there were adequate funds in the Economic Development Division to fund their needs as well as the new position. Following a more comprehensive budget review, we realized that funds for a vacant position in the Economic Development Office had been taken during the FY2020 budget process and allocated elsewhere in the budget and that the Department has been left with a budget not sufficient to replace the Economic Development Director at a level commensurate with the Mayor's vision for this critical function. It is the recommendation of the Mayor, Administration, and the Director of Development Services that we appropriate $98,431 from the General Fund balance to the Department of Development Services to adequately fund the economic development functions of the City. As we prepare for the FY2021 budget, we will look for ways to fund the position on an ongoing and sustainable basis. This is growing the city government, but I believe that the City is to the point that we need an Assistant CAO (which caused this hole that needs to be filled). Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. This is also an important component for succession and continuity in the Administration.
13. A discussion regarding updates to Title 18 of City Code Including Associated Drainage Manual and Management Program. (19-109)
    The stormwater design manual has not been updated since 1986. This manual, along with the city stormwater management program and illicit discharge detection and elimination manual, are adopted into Title 18 by reference. The Public Works Stormwater team proposes updates to these manuals and other wording contained within Title 18. The documents look good to me, but there is a whole lot there. If I could participate in the presentation, I would ask if they felt that the updates contain any substantial changes to policy or practice. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the Council Meeting on November 12, 2019. This a good update with a few good policy changes.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

14. A discussion on an ordinance to amend Provo City Code to identify zones where cannabis production is permitted. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190365)
    With a mandate from the State of Utah requiring that cannabis production establishments be allowed in all agricultural and industrial zones—unless the City acts to establish at least one (1) agricultural zone and one (1) industrial zone that permits such use—and an inquiry from the public regarding where such use can be conducted in the City, staff believes it is important for the City to consider where this use should be permitted within City boundaries.
    
    Staff notes the relative newness of the legal, medicinal use of cannabis in Utah and Provo City, as well as the laws for such. Further, approximately 50-percent of the land within the City lies in either an agricultural or industrial zone. It is staff’s opinion that the City should begin administering the use by permitting it in one (1) agricultural zone and one (1) industrial zone, only, with the idea that the City would consider cannabis production establishments in other zones through applicant initiated applications.
    
    If approved, this text amendment would permit cannabis production facilities in the A1.10 (Agricultural) Zone and the FI (Freeway Industrial) Zone. The A1.10 Zone requires a minimum parcel/lot size of 10 acres. Nearly all of the A1.10 zoned land is located near the airport (north and east of it). Currently, the cultivation of crops is a permitted use in the A1.10 Zone. All of the FI zoned land is located on the west side of I-15 on the very north end of the City. The minimum parcel/lot size in the FI Zone is 10,000 SF. Currently, drug related uses (e.g., manufacturing of medicinal chemicals or analgesics manufacturing) are conditionally permitted in the FI Zone. There is a combined total of approximately 480 acres of land in the A1.10 and FI Zone. The proposal also includes a definition of cannabis production establishment, which definition reads essentially the same as the definition for such in Subsection 4-41a-102(7) of the Utah Code.
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval. I am not comfortable with the tension between State and Federal law regarding cannabis. I support taking the bare minimum steps to comply with the State and to minimize our exposure and maximize the protection of our community. This proposal seems like a reasonable course of action to do just that. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The presentation and discussion went as I expected and described in the preview.
15. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify development landscaping requirements and allow for xeriscape. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190280)
    The Community Development Department has proposed to amend the Development Landscaping Requirements (15.20), Permissible Lot Coverage (14.10.120) and Illustrations (14.06.030). These amendments are to further the goals and objectives of the General Plan. One goal from the General Plan is to encourage xeric landscaping around the perimeter of residential projects. Staff has identified that additional standards to the aforementioned sections of Provo City Code would provide aid in community beautification and enforcement of code regulations. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support this effort and the proposal seems reasonable to me. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. When done poorly, xeriscaping looks bad, detracts from the surrounding area, and gives water conservation a bad name. When done well, it is good for the community in multiple ways. This code update clarifies what is allowed in the City.
16. A discussion on an ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 11.87 acres of real property generally located at 1400 S State Street from Residential (R1.10) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190154)
    John Kollman is requesting zone change approval from R1.10 to MDR for land between South State Street and the railroad tracks, and between 1320 South and 1512 South. The concept plan for this zone change consists of thirteen, four-story buildings with sixteen units each and a total of 470 parking stalls. The concept also shows a total of 29,672 square feet of open space, or about twelve percent of the gross floor area of the project. Approval of the zone change will require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a full project plan, showing that it will meet all code requirements associated with the MDR zone. Planning Commission recommended approval. I'm not wild about the site plan. I don't think higher-density has to look like we are warehousing people. But I'm not the target demographic, so perhaps this is what some people are looking for. I wonder, though, if one of the reasons YSPs have congregated in some of the HOAs that they have is because they were looking more for a more homey feel than apartment towers scattered around a parcel, surrounded by parking lots.
    
    Oh well, despite my aversion to the aesthetics, I support the proposal, and hope the professionals have a better read on this than I do. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. After the presentation, I'm still in support of the proposal and still not a fan of the look and layout.
17. A discussion regarding a PRO Zone rezone and accompanying ordinance text amendment for one acre of property generally located at 385 N 500 W. Dixon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293 and PLOTA2018292)
    This item is the requested rezoning of approximately 0.91 acres (1/4 of the block) from the RC to the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use PRO Zone. The creation of that PRO zone is being presented in a preceding item. The property is currently zoned RC Residential Conservation. The Timpanogos Elementary School is located directly to the north of the McClean properties. To the east, across 500 West, is an RC Zone, mostly consisting of residential uses. Directly to the south the property is zone PO Professional Office, and is developed with an office building. To the southwest are the Dixon Place townhomes that are within an MDR Medium Density Residential zone. And, to the west the property borders an R1.6A area, with the closest dwelling being a duplex fronting on 400 North. In the R1.6A area, only one other dwelling is as close as 50 feet to the McClean property, with the others being over 100 feet away. The existing uses on the properties to be rezoned include a duplex, a six-unit apartment building, and a medical clinic. The medical clinic also includes five legal residential units in its basement. The intent of the proposed rezoning would be to allow an additional six-unit apartment building on the site. As with the existing six-unit apartment building, the new building would include six, two-bedroom units.
    
    Planning Commission recommended approval. The subject property is on my block. The applicant has done a great job over the years managing and maintaining the apartments that are already on the property. This gives me greater confidence that even with the requested densification this property will be a net benefit to the area. There always is the fear that the property will change hands and may not always be so well managed.
    
    I support the proposal, but don't consider it a routine request and I think that it should receive a second hearing to allow the neighbors the full chance to review the final proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. The discussion mirrored my preview.



A discussion regarding updates to Title 18 of City Code Including Associated Drainage Manual and Management Program. (19-109)

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.




Action Agenda

1. A resolution requesting the recertification of the Provo City Justice Court by the Utah Judicial Council. (19-112)
   Utah State Code requires Justice Courts to be recertified at the end of each four-year term. The current term of the Provo City Justice Court will expire in February 2020. I have no concerns. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. The Provo City Justice Court is the prime example in the State for how a Justice Court should operate.
2. A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council authorizing the acceptance of a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for the Airport. (19-087)
   This was item 2 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #2 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. This is part of the State participation in the Airport Terminal build.
3. A resolution appropriating $98,432 in the General Fund for an Economic Development Director position in the Development Services Department. (19-111)
   This was item 12 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #12 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #12 in the Work Meeting.
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to correct and update Section 3.08.010 (Officials' Oaths and Bonds Required). (19-113)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #6 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #6 in the Work Meeting.
5. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to identify zones where cannabis production is permitted. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190365)
   This was item 14 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #14 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. See my report of item #14 in the Work Meeting.
6. A public hearing regarding the creation of a permit parking area at approximately 1625 North 300 West in the Carterville Neighborhood. (19-108)
   This public hearing is the first step in the process to study the creation of a permit parking area in the Carterville Neighborhood. A petition was initiated by Jim Gale regarding an area around 1625 North 300 West. I support initiating the study. I hope the applicants have realistic expectations about what is possible. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. The applicants did a good job talking with the residents in the area and in explaining the problem.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clarify development landscaping requirements and allow for xeriscape. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190280)
   This was item 15 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #15 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I'm grateful to Community and Neighborhood Services for their work on this code. We now have a strong, clear code on water-wise landscaping.
8. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 11.87 acres of real property generally located at 1400 S State Street from Residential (R1.10) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190154)
   This was item 16 on the work meeting agenda See my preview of item #15 in the Work Meeting. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I hope we don't look back at this approval with regret. Higher-density developments don't have to look like we are warehousing, "all the people coming to Provo". I assumed that this project would be geared toward the Young SIngle Professionals, but I'm not sure they are taking advantage of the allowances we are giving.
9. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to clarify that electronic display and animated signs are prohibited in Agricultural and Residential zones. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190351)
   The Provo City Department of Development Services is requesting a text amendment to Section 14.38.010, to add a clarification that Electronic Display and Animated Signs are prohibited in agricultural and residential zones. Although the prohibition can be understood from language in other sections of the ordinance, staff believes making the prohibition explicit in Section 14.38.010 reduces possible confusion that might occur without the change. Planning Commission recommended approval. I support this. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. Simple code cleanup.
10. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately one acre of property, generally located at the 385 N 500 W, from Residential Conservation (RC) to a Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLRZ20180293)
    This was item 17 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #17 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. "Continued per Council rules" refers to our practice that land-use items generally get two hearings, unless they are entirely routine matters. We have created a rule that the item gets continued if even one Councilor asks for it.
11. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.50 to establish the 500 West Medium-Density Mixed-Use Project Redevelopment Option Zone (PRO Zone). Dixon Neighborhood. (PLOTA20180292)
    This was item 17 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview of item #17 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. See my previous report.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding Planning Commission approval of reductions in required parking, including for multi-family residential uses. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
    The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the text of Section 14.37.050 of the Provo City Code, relating to Reduction in Off-street Parking Requirements to remove the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and to allow residential developments to apply for a reduction in off-street parking requirements based on a Transportation Demand Management plan approved by the Planning Commission in a Project Plan application. Planning Commission recommended approval. See my preview of item #1 in the Work Meeting. Continued per Council rules. I'm comfortable that this change will be a win-win-win for both the community, the future residents of the developments, and the developers. Not all of my colleagues are as comfortable with it. I do support a second hearing because this definitely isn't routine.
13. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Commercial (C) to Residential (R). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
    The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Commercial, but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires a change in the designation from Commercial to Residential. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. It seemed like the developer and residents were not that far apart at the last meeting, particularly from where they started. I sure hope that they were able to come to an agreement. Approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. It seemed like the developer and residents were not that far apart at the last meeting, particularly from where they started. I sure hope that they were able to come to an agreement.
14. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
    The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current zoning designation for the site is Public Facilities (PF), but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires rezoning the property to a zone that allows that use. The applicant’s proposal consists of developing 120, one-bedroom units to help meet the demand for housing in the area. The project site is located at the intersection of Canyon Road and Stadium Avenue in northeast Provo, in the Pleasant View Neighborhood. The proposal to develop 120 units will require a zone change from the current PF Zone to a zone that will allow for multi-family, stacked units. The applicant has requested to rezone the property Campus Mixed Use (CMU) which allows for apartments or condominiums and has a height limit of 75 feet. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Surrounding zoning designations include R1.8A and R1.8S north and east of the property, PF for the institutional uses to the south, and RC and R4 for the apartments immediately west and north of the site. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. See the above preview. A motion to substitute for the implied motion the version of the ordinance with the development agreement, and the revised and executed development agreement as the exhibit, was approved, after which the ordinance was approved 6:0, with Councilor David Harding excused. I support the rezone and feel that this will be a good use for this corner of the intersection.
15. ***CONTINUED*** Provo City Com Dev Dept requests amendments to Sec 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
    This was not ready to be heard.
16. ***CONTINUED*** Provo City Public Works Department requests amendments to Section 15.03.020(3) to update 2019 standards to 2020 standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190366)
    This was not ready to be heard.
17. ***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests approval of the 2019 Moderate Income Housing Plan, which is an update to the existing plan. City-wide. PLGPA20190194
    This was not ready to be heard.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 8 October 2019

The item I'm most excited about is the changes to the A and S overlays. It adds the option of detached accessory apartments, and adds additional protections for tenants and neighbors by treating them like other residential rentals (requiring Rental Dwelling Licences and regular inspections).

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. A discussion regarding west side sewer capacity and a consideration of options. (19-085)
   The Council heard a presentation at Work Meeting on August 27 from City Staff and a presentation from the development community representing Ivory Homes and DR Horton at the September 10, 2019 Work Meeting. The discussion centered around the wastewater capacity restraints in Provo west of I-15. During this meeting Council will receive an update from Public Works regarding updated sewer capacity projections, have a policy discussion regarding wastewater policy options that Council is willing to consider, and lay out potential options. This provides an opportunity for Council to ask questions and consider potential options for accelerating capacity expansion if elected officials would like to explore that potential. What I heard in the previous meetings is that the Council is comfortable continuing on with our current 7-year build-out plan, even though it will delay some developments that could otherwise happen right now. This plan may have to be changed if the School District Bond is approved and Dixon Middle School is moved to Footprinter's Park. To me, the biggest question that needs to be answered, while we wait for the results of the bond question, is "how do we allocate the remaining sewer capacity, and new sewer capacity as it gets added piece by piece while we get through the next 7 years?" A motion to commit to being willing to look at the opportunities to accelerate development of the master lift station failed 3:4, with Kay Van Buren, David Harding, David Knecht, and George Handley opposed. We assigned an ad-hoc committee of council and city staff to study and bring back recommendations regarding how to prioritize and allocate the sewer connections that we do have, as well as additional capacity as it comes online. Some of us felt that we should have that information before we signal a willingness to accelerate the infrastructure.
2. A discussion regarding a Water Conservation Plan (19-105)
   Utah legislature passed the Utah Water Conservation Plan Act in 2004 which requires all public water systems with over 500 connections to update their water conservation plan every five years and submit it to the state. An update to Provo City's Water Conservation Plan is due by December 31, 2019. A draft plan will be presented to the Council in this work meeting. Adoption of the final plan will be publicly noticed later this fall after comments from the State and the Council have been addressed. This draft is a really interesting read. The City has been very proactive in maintaining the water system and in promoting conservation of water. We are well ahead of the State goal of 25% reduction in usage, and we are still pursuing better conservation. Presentation only. I support our efforts to use our water more effectively and this is a strong plan to help us do so.
3. A presentation and discussion on the 40-Year Water Supply Plan (19-104)
   Water in Utah is owned by the State. The State gives people or entities the right to use water. Anytime water is not being used, the State can declare the right to use the water forfeited and give the right to use the water to someone else. Because Cities grow, their need for water will increase over time and so the State allows Cities to acquire and hold water rights that may not be needed at present, but will be needed in the future. But in order to do this, the City has to show the State a need for the water. This 40-Year Water Supply Plan outlines what water Provo City has and how the City intends to use it. As previously discussed, the State Engineer is currently adjudicating water rights (determining what water is being used) in the Provo area. This 40-Year Plan protects Provo City's rights from forfeiture during the adjudication process. This report is much more in-depth and technical. If you've wondered why the City is exploring Aquafer Storage and Recovery, this document will provide you with everything you might want to know, plus some. Presentation only. Sometimes water rights are referred to as paper water. You will never quench your thirst with paper water if the real water it represents isn't there. We need to protect both our paper water as well as consider steps that will ensure the real water is available too.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

4. A discussion on a request for a General Plan amendment from Commercial (C) to Residential (R) for property at 1900 N Canyon Rd for a 120-unit apt bldg for married/student housing. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
   The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Commercial, but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires a change in the designation from Commercial to Residential. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Pleasant View neighborhood chair has kept us aware of the evolving discussion. The proposal has received positive recommendations from the Community Development staff and the Planning Commission. I heard that the response from the neighborhood has been mixed, but mostly negative. I also believe that there is some discussion going on about a developer agreement that would memorialize some compromises between the developer and neighbors. I have a lot to learn before we make a decision, but at first blush this looks like a great place for this kind of development. Away from the core of the neighborhood and up against high intensity uses. Again, at first blush my biggest complaint is that I don't see any "mixed" for the Mixed Use zoning that they are requesting. Where is the ground floor commercial? Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 8, 2019. See the report for item 4 in the evening meeting.
5. A discussion on a request for a zone change from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for approximately 1.34 acres, located at 1900 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
   The subject property is developed with the existing UCCU building and a parking area. The current zoning designation for the site is Public Facilities (PF), but the applicant desires to develop a multi-family residential project on the subject site which requires rezoning the property to a zone that allows that use. The applicant’s proposal consists of developing 120, one-bedroom units to help meet the demand for housing in the area. The project site is located at the intersection of Canyon Road and Stadium Avenue in northeast Provo, in the Pleasant View Neighborhood. The proposal to develop 120 units will require a zone change from the current PF Zone to a zone that will allow for multi-family, stacked units. The applicant has requested to rezone the property Campus Mixed Use (CMU) which allows for apartments or condominiums and has a height limit of 75 feet. Surrounding property General Plan Land Use Map designations include Public Facilities at the Brigham Young University Stadium site and parking areas. The remaining properties in the vicinity are designated as Residential. Surrounding zoning designations include R1.8A and R1.8S north and east of the property, PF for the institutional uses to the south, and RC and R4 for the apartments immediately west and north of the site. Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. See the previous preview. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 8, 2019. See the report for item 4 in the evening meeting.
6. A discussion regarding the assignment of parking spaces to Provo City Housing Authority (19-107)
   Previously the Agency entered into a lease with 80 East to allow them to use a portion of the Agency-controlled spaces within the Wells Fargo structure to meet their parking obligations for a planned mixed-use development. Provo City Housing Authority now desires to purchase the property from 80 East and intends to develop a 74-unit apartment complex on that site and needs to have the rights to those spaces assigned to them. These are from the same block of spaces that the Blue Sky is requesting parking. This project is on the same block as the garage and spots had previously been allotted for a previous proposal at that location. This request is not for dedicated spots. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 8, 2019. See the report for item 12 in the evening meeting.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

1. A proclamation welcoming students from Provo's sister city Meissen, Germany
   We enjoy a warm relationship with our sister city, and are enriched by the cultural exchange. Presentation only. It's fun to see all of the teachers and students from Meissen and their host families from Provo. It's also fun to see fellow councilors break out their rusty German.
2. A presentation on the Public Information Organization for Provo City and recognition of Nisha King as the recipient of the Communicator of the Year Award by the Utah Public Information Officers Association (19-106)
   It's great to see the great work of our fine officers recognized by outside groups. Presentation only. Sargent King is a class act in whatever role she takes on in the Police Department.
3. A spotlight on the Downtown Neighborhood
   The Downtown Neighborhood recently elected its first co-chair representing residents. Presentation only. This is an important step as the Downtown Neighborhood welcomes more and more residents into the mix.
   

   Public Comment

   • This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
   • For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
   • For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
   
   
   

   Action Agenda

4. An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Commercial (C) to Residential (R). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
   This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. Continued by Council rules to the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. It was obvious that the applicant and the neighborhood had long been in discussions. It felt like they were 95% of the way to an agreement, but the neighborhood objected to a couple of specifics in the development agreement. Hopefully, they can get everything ironed out over the next three weeks.
5. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
   This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. Continued by Council rules to the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. See the report for the previous item.
6. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding Accessory Apartments. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190120)
   This item was heard and continued by the Council in the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Council staff recently published explanations of the proposed code changes. We've been working on this for a long time. My only remaining question is in regards to defining an accessory apartment as a separate unit. I think this makes sense with detached accessory apartments (which are being proposed) but I'm not so sure about attached accessories which are regulated to be easily convertible back into extra space in the primary unit. A motion to substitute a revised ordinance for the version referenced by the implied motion was approved, after which the item was approved 7:0. We had a couple of people express how excited they were to build an accessory apartment in their backyards. They were disappointed when they learned that this change only affects areas that are under the A and S overlays. I believe it would be healthy for more neighborhoods to opt into these overlays.
7. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to place over-occupancy on the list of Nuisances. (19-094)
   Because of Council establishing zoning compliance as one of their top priorities, various ideas have been put forward for discussion. One idea is to possibly add over-occupancy to the listing in City Code for nuisances. If over occupancy is defined as a nuisance then it can be pursued in civil court rather than just criminal court. If we are going to have laws, then it is reasonable to expect people to follow them. This change will make it easier to enforce the laws we already have. Approved 7:0. This was described as a tool that will be effective against the few landlords who blatantly flaunt occupancy rules and serially over-occupy despite enforcement efforts.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 4 regarding personnel policies in Title 4. (19-082)
   As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, we noted a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. I'm comfortable that this proposal gives the Administration the flexibility that they were looking for and preserves the Council oversight needed for effective checks and balances. Approved 7:0. This is a good update and a good compromise.
9. A resolution designating the Director of Community and Neighborhood Services Department of Provo City as the Certifying Officer as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (19-103)
   The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that someone be appointed at Provo City’s Certifying Officer in regards to HUD programs. With the recent reorganization of departments it was necessary to make this designation clear. This is just part of the reorganization. Approved 7:0. Dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s.
10. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the General Plan regarding a designation change from Residential (R) to Commercial (C) for approximately 1.2 acres of real property, generally located at 1009 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190191)
    This was not ready to be heard.
11. ***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.2 acres, generally located at 1009 West 2000 North, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Commercial (CG). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190192)
    This was not ready to be heard.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

12. A resolution approving the Assignment of the Parking Lease with 80 East to Provo City Housing Authority. (19-107)
    This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 7:0. I find it interesting how easily this request went through, compared to how difficult it has been to find an acceptable solution for the last request.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 24 September 2019

Perhaps the best way to describe tomorrow's meetings is that they are a mixed bag, with everything from the most mundane code clean up to a discussion of a potentially controversial proposal. We have items that impact the whole city, and items with a very hyper-local scope. We have administrative oversight, bureaucratic minutia, committee proposals, and justice reports. We really have a little of everything.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. A discussion regarding the carryover of certain Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget amounts into Fiscal Year 2019-2020. (19-098)
   Provo City's Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget ordinance allows for the carryover of certain approved unused budgeted amounts into Fiscal Year 2019-2020. All unused capital improvement fund budgets may be carried into the new year. Unused budget amounts from all other funds may also be carried over into the new year with the approval of the Mayor. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the City Council of the amount and nature of the capital improvement and operating carryovers. The practice of the City has been to take the money left over in budgets and put half of it back into the General Fund and put half of it into employee recognition which funds several things including tuition reimbursement and performance bonuses. The idea is to encourage and reward employees for working efficiently and coming in under-budget. As an alternative, sometimes supplemental requests (department requests for new money) that were not funded during the regular budget process may be funded using unused budgeted money from the prior year. Presentation only. I support the uses of money left over in last year's budget, as presented by the Administration. I also questioned if the current practice is properly balancing the roles of the two branches. I wondered why this is only a presentation and not an item that the Council is being asked to approve. The response in the meeting was that up until several years ago the Administration wasn't even making this presentation. We are continuing to look into this issue. Again, I support everything that is in the presentation, I just want to make sure we have the proper checks and balances in place, in case there are ever problems in the future.
2. A discussion regarding defining over-occupancy as a nuisance. (19-094)
   Because of Council establishing zoning compliance as one of their top priorities, various ideas have been put forward for discussion. One idea is to possibly add over-occupancy to the listing in City Code for nuisances. I first thought that making over-occupancy a nuisance would be an escalation. Instead, I believe it adds a lower step, allowing for civil prosecution rather than just criminal prosecution. I still know very little about this proposal and expect to learn much during this presentation. A motion to move this item to a future Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. This is a tool that our Zoning Compliance Office is asking for. It will be used to encourage people who knowingly are breaking the law and are resisting coming into compliance without having to get into a full criminal trial.
3. A discussion regarding proposed amendments to Personnel Policies in Title 4. (19-082)
   This is a continuation of a discussion from the Work Session on July 9, 2019. As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, we noted a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. Some of the City practices on employee leave and compensation has been out of compliance with City ordinance for many years. This proposed amendment would update the City code and bring it into alignment with current practice. I support the overall effort, I just want to make sure that the Council's role in fiscal oversight is appropriately incorporated. Presentation only. This item will be brought back to the Council on October 8, 2019. We had some good discussion on this item, and some tweaks will be made before it comes back to us on October 8th. These tweaks should strike the right balance.
4. A discussion regarding an improvement agreement to construct a road in the Mountain Vista Business Center. (19-099)
   Economic Development has requested a discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an improvement agreement with Scannell Properties and Hall Labs, a developer who is purchasing over 60 acres of land at the Mountain Vista Business Center and their long-term tenant. As a matter of sequence, Provo City will sell the parcel to Hall Labs who in turn will sell it to Scannell Properties. They intend to develop a business park consistent with the rest of the surrounding business park. Their plans for the 130,000 square foot building are currently in the development review process. A new road will need to be constructed to access the interior of the parcel. The project is anticipated to cost $3.6 million, with half coming from a matching grant with the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA). The City will use a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the land to pay the remaining half ($1.8). Hall Labs will purchase the parcel before the construction of the road, but would like an improvement agreement with the City. The City has already signed a Notice of Award with the EDA and so would not be committing any more to Hall than has already been committed to the EDA. In order to facilitate the sale before the Work and Council Meetings on September 24, Economic Development has prepared a Memorandum of Understanding. The memorandum states the following, among other things: 1. Provo City has signed a Notice of Award with the EDA for the construction of the road, 2. the road in on our Local and Collector Street Master Plan, and 3. Provo City intends to build the road to the interior of the parcel as described above. Timing is of the essence because this property falls within a federally establish Opportunity Zone which provides major tax relief for capital gains investments. However, there are also established timeframes for deploying capital which Hall Labs and Scannell Properties are fast approaching. 2 Economic Development is certain that the sale of the land would proceed if there were no need for the road. This is a solid next step in the build out of the Mountain Vista Business Park. I'm glad that the sale of the property will cover our cost of the road. As the background explains, this is not committing to something that we haven't already committed to. Which is comforting in one way, but concerning in another. Why is the Council being asked to approve something if the City has already committed to it? A motion to substitute for the implied motion a version of the resolution that authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute an agreement that reflects the deal points which have been discussed was approved 5:0, with Gary Winterton and David Harding excused. It's been a decade in the making, but Moutain Vista is beginning to fulfill the vision of what we wanted it to be.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion regarding a zone change of approximately one acre of real property, generally located at 674 E 3230 N from Residential Agriculture (RA) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190175)
   The applicant currently has a single-family home on an acre of land in the RA zone. The applicant would like to subdivide the lot into three lots. To accomplish this, she is requesting a rezone from RA, that requires half-acre lots, to R1.10, that requires 10,000 square-foot lots. The existing home on the property would remain and become Lot 1. Two flag lots would be created behind Lot 1 with access from 3230 N. running parallel to the eastern boundary of the property. The property has RA zone to the east and west and has R1.10 zone to the north and south. Planning Commission recommended approval. While not ideal, I feel this is a reasonable request to allow in-fill development. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 24, 2019. My opinion didn't change because of the presentation.
6. A discussion regarding proposed ordinance amendments regarding accessory apartments. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190120)
   This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. The public was invited to submit comments over the past few weeks. The actual language still has to be finalized, but the Committee has incorporated public feedback and made a few adjustments to the proposal. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 8, 2019. These changes should improve the experience for landlords, tenants, and neighbors.



Business

7. A discussion regarding recommendations from the Sign Ordinance Committee. (19-102)
   The Council tasked the Sign Ordinance Committee with reviewing and updating Provo City Code with regards to electronic signs. The committee has worked since the end of March and identified six areas of sign policy: location, churn, animation, brightness, size, and buffer zones. The committee will present their recommendations regarding location, churn, animation, and size. They have decided not to make any recommendations regarding brightness and buffer zones at this time, but will revisit the issues at a later date. There is not much information to go on, so I'll have to just wait and see what is presented. A motion to forward the proposed change to Provo City Code Section 14.38.010 to the Planning Commission for review was approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. There was a lot of discussion on what role we see electronic signs playing in our community.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time. None requested.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

A presentation of the Justice Court Annual Report. (19-097)
I've come to look forward to Judge Romney's annual report. He has to be one of the best speakers in the city. His reports also instill a lot of confidence in the management of our Justice Court. Presentation only. I think Judge Romney should teach a course on civics.

Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.

Action Agenda

A resolution appointing individuals to boards and commissions. (19-003)
Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Arturo Soza be appointed to the Civil Service Commission and Patricio Hernandez to the Energy Board. These two have impressive resumes and will make great additions to their respective boards. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. I'm grateful that we have so many good people willing to provide service to the community through their work on boards and commissions in Provo.

A resolution appropriating $289,399 in various funds and transferring $50,460 from the General fund to correct elements of the FY19-20 budget and account for a position moving from the Development Services Department to the Mayor's Office. (19-095)
Some errors have been found in the FY20 budget, and Finance would like to resolve them sooner than later. Dixon Holmes’ appointment as Assistant Chief Administrative Officer also requires moving his salary from Development Services to the Mayor’s Office budget. The impact of corrections are less than the description makes it seem. More money will be going out of the General Fund, which is shown here, but also more money will be going Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. The appointment of Mr. Holmes as Assistant CAO is important for the smooth transition and continuation of operations in the City.

A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the sale of a ladder truck to the Nolensville Volunteer Fire Department. (19-100)
The City owns a 105-foot ladder truck that was replaced by a new truck this past spring. The City listed the truck with Brindlee Mountain Fire Apparatus to assist with finding a potential buyer. The agreement was for them to list and advertise the truck for a 10% fee on the sale if it was under $125,000. The Fire Department recently lowered the price to $95,000 and found a buyer willing to pay the $95,000 pending an inspection. The potential buyers are from a volunteer fire department in Nolensville, Tennessee. Sounds like a win-win for all involved. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It is estimated that this is significantly more than we would have received if the truck had gone to auction.

A resolution approving an improvement agreement regarding construction of a road in the Mountain Vista Business Center. (19-099)
This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It's been a decade in the making, but Moutain Vista is beginning to fulfill the vision of what we wanted it to be.

An ordinance amending Provo City Code to prohibit parking in bicycle lanes. (19-101)
Provo City Code 9.31.010 specifies in what sections of the roadways people are not allowed to park. It does not mention bike lanes. Provo Parking is asking the Council to make this an enforceable violation. Apparently, there is currently no regulation against parking in a bike lane. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. There was a surprising amount of discussion on this item, both during public comment and among the Council. I believe there was some confusion about what this item was doing.

An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190217)
The Bicycle Master Plan calls for improving the design and increasing the amount of bike parking in Provo City by making a minimum amount required as is done with car parking. This proposed ordinance text amendment creates a standard for design and quantity of bicycle parking for new developments. First, the code provides guidance for design on short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle parking. Short-term parking is designed for stops of two hours or less and is typically an uncovered bicycle rack that touches the bicycle at two points and allows for secure locking of the frame with a U-lock. Long-term bicycle parking is designed for stays of around eight hours or more and is to be secured and protected from weather. Second, the code provides a minimum standard for the amount of bicycle parking to be built. It has two tiers of minimums: one as a base level for all developments and a second as a higher level for developers who hope to offset the amount of car parking required with enhanced bicycle parking. These ratios come from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals and are recommended in Provo City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Planning Commission recommended approval. We continued this item last time to give the public more time to review and respond, but also to clean up some of the language. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. It is important to promote alternative forms of transportation in order to allow our transportation system to better serve everyone across all modes of transportation.

An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately one acre of real property, generally located at 674 E 3230 N from Residential Agriculture (RA) to One-Family Residential (R1.10). Edgemont Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190175)
This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. While not ideal, I feel this was a reasonable request to allow in-fill development.

An ordinance to amend the Consolidated Fee Schedule and to ratify corrections to Provo City Code Title 10. (19-071)
This ordinance is intended to make and/or ratify several corrections in the city code. The Council approved Ordinance 2019-30 in June, which included an error among other updates to the consolidated fee schedule. The ordinance on the agenda tonight includes a correction to the Stormwater Impact Fees. The Council also approved Ordinance 2019-31 in June, which amended Provo City Code Title 10 (Water Resources). Code Publishing Company, who maintain the online version of the Provo City Code, shared several questions with Council staff regarding several points of clarification from the recent updates. After confirming the correct text with Public Works staff, the corrections have been made to the online code and the corrections are now being presented to the Council for their ratification and approval. This is pretty much correcting typos. Approved 6:0, with Gary Winterton excused. Fixed.

***CONTINUED***Silverado Management (Dave Hunter) requests a General Plan amendment from Commercial (C) to Residential (R) for property at 1900 N Canyon Rd for a 120-unit apartment building for married/student housing. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED***Silverado Management (Dave Hunter) requests a Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) for approximately 1.34 acres, located at 1900 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED*** The Housing Committee of Provo City requests amendments to Section 14.37.050 to allow for reductions in required parking for residential uses subject to Planning Commission approval. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190289)
This was not ready to be heard.

***CONTINUED*** The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. (16-0005OA)
This was not ready to be heard.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 10 September 2019

There is a strong development theme to these meetings. I think the most impactful item will be #1 on the Work Meeting agenda: Plans to pay for (and possibly accelerate) the installation of new infrastructure in Southwest Provo to accommodate growth. The Airport, Parking, and the Amanda Knight Hall building also appear on the agenda.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.

Business

1. A discussion regarding sewer capacity west of I-15 and a consideration of options. (19-085)
   For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.
   
   With a number of forces at work, many land owners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.
   
   Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and land owners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.
   
   The Administration sees this as an important policy question that impacts the City budget, development pace on the west side, housing availability, agricultural preservation, transportation, and other important policy issues. The Council's consideration of any potential policy changes should be made carefully with good data and careful consideration, and these discussions are intended to begin a dialogue with the stakeholders to see if a change in current policy is warranted or advisable. "I've heard many voices asking that we don't rush development of West Provo. We, the community, have put in great effort to develop a strategy for growth in this area. We have established Development Policies. We have created a high-level land use map, a cornerstone of the Southwest Area Plan. But the Southwest Area Plan has not been completed yet. The text of the document, and the finer detail about how the various aspects will be balanced, is not yet complete. We had previously set a course which already is increasing sewer rates across the City by 300%. I am not convinced that we should raise rates even more to accelerate new infrastructure even more to speed development. There may be proposals for developers to front the money for this infrastructure to be paid back in time by the City. But are we really comfortable shifting the balance of power that much? Right now we regularly hear residents pushing back on developer plans before the Council, asking us to scale back the plans. Imagine if the developers could say, ""well, we have already put in the infrastructure, we can't scale back the plans now.""" Presentation only. The general feeling of the Council seemed to be that unless the public dictates otherwise by passing the School Bond in November, that we are content to continue with the seven year plan to get the sewer infrastructure in place in West Provo. Some development will be able to continue, particularly as sewer is rerouted east of the freeway, but development will be throttled until everything is in place. The alternatives are to increase utility rates across the City, or cede greater power to developers by allowing them to pre-pay for the infrastructure.
2. A discussion regarding the Downtown Pedestrian Plan proposed by Downtown Provo, Inc. (19-093)
   In discussing the Provo City Transportation Master Plan, the downtown business community felt a statement on the area from 500 W to 200 E along Center Street could be helpful to clarify their expectations. Specifically, they indicated agreement and support for the designation of Center Street from 500 W to 200 E as a pedestrian mall allowing for pedestrians to receive priority in this area. Further they have concerns about how this plan is being implemented. As part of their statement, they request that as decisions about parking, light patterns, traffic flow and other future projects keep pedestrian friendly environments as the top priority. Finally, they provide a list of suggestions that could help enhance this effort. They are as follows:
   • Enforcement of the 15 mph limit on Center, and other speed limits in high traffic pedestrian areas.
   • Synchronizing light patterns and new green arrows encouraging cars to use 100 N for freeway access.
   • Additional signage including new pedestrian way-finding signs.
   • Additional kiosks in public spaces allowing for way-finding and designated public announcement areas.
   • Physical changes that allow a driver to recognize a difference as they enter the “historic downtown” corridor. such as:
     1. Either raised crosswalks
     2. Crosswalk lights
     3. Or other physical changes
   Center Street, along this stretch, is a very special place. It has been designated as a pedestrian mall, but hasn't been treated as such. I'm very interested in considering these requests by the Downtown businesses. Presentation only. I support this request by the businesses. Center Street should be treated as a destination, not a thoroughfare.
3. **CONTINUED** A discussion on defining over-occupancy as a nuisance. (19-094)
   "In Provo City Code there are differing items which have been listed as a ""nuisance."" There are advantages that Provo City Enforcement gains by having over-occupancy on the list of nuisances. By placing over-occupancy as a nuisance creates a more effective way to enforce."
4. A discussion regarding an appropriation related to elements of the FY19-20 Provo City Budget that need to be revisited (19-095)
   Some few errors have been found in the FY20 budget, and Finance would like to resolve them sooner than later. In this meeting they would like to go over the details of an appropriation they intend to bring to the Council at the September 24, 2019 Council Meeting. Finance will be on hand to present their findings and available to ask questions. I don't know the nature or extent of these errors. The document packet doesn't specify, so I'll have to wait for the presentation to find out. Presentation only. Most of the mistakes cancel each other out. Some decrease one fund but increase another fund.
5. A discussion regarding a proposed ordinance amendment to Provo City Code to reduce off-street requirements for multi-family developments if certain considerations are met. (19-092)
   The Executive Housing Committee has met and discussed easing parking requirements for multi-family developments if they meet certain considerations. Currently there is no path for this reduction unless the project is being headed by a nonprofit. The Housing Committee would like to see this discussed first with the Council in Work Meeting to ensure there is sufficient support for the action before it is taken to the Planning Commission for consideration. There is also not a lot of information on this item, but I saw an early draft in a committee. The idea is that if a project can build in features that reduce parking demand, *and* they provide space that can be converted to parking in the future if the demand still is high, then they don't have to build all the parking at the beginning. A motion to send the proposal to the Planning Commission for review was approved 7:0. This is definitely worth further consideration



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

6. **CONTINUED** A discussion regarding an amendment to Provo City Code Section 14.34.295 to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
   As Community Development has processed applications for new development in the zones to which the design standards apply, staff has identified multiple ways in which the Downtown Development Design Standards (the standards), could be improved to better facilitate quality development. The current design standards, while having served well since their inception, contain some elements that are unclear or have led to multiple conflicting interpretations. Also, some numerical standards have also been shown through experience to be too high or too low. Lastly, staff has found regulatory areas that needed to be addressed more thoroughly, added in whole to the standards. The proposed amendment completely replaces the entirety of Section 13.34.295. The revisions add significant clarity and new regulation in the areas of Ground Floor Treatment, Massing, Architectural Detail, Parking, Access and Site Design, and broader area wide design elements including open space and pedestrian linkages. Also added are special standards for the Startup District and Center Street areas.
   
   Planning Commission continued this to their September 11 meeting.
7. A discussion regarding a request for a Provo City Code amendment to Section 15.03.035 to add clarification to grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
   The Council Office has requested an amendment to Section 15.03.035 of the Provo City Code to require project plan approval when cutting is involved as part of a grading permit except for when the permits related to the development of detached one-family dwellings. Having a project plan application be required before this type of grading is permitted will help ensure that all necessary departments are aware of grading work and what the purpose is for the request.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago. A motion to substitute for the exhibit the version that included the word ‘cubic’ and the proposed language “other than a permit related only to the development of a single detached one-family dwelling” was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was passed in the evening meeting. See my report there.
8. A discussion regarding an ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
   Upon reviewing Provo City's Bicycle Master Plan, Parking and Sustainability Coordinator Austin Taylor found need to apply its suggestions regarding bicycle parking to Provo City code. The master plan calls for improving the design and increasing the amount of bike parking in Provo City by making a minimum amount required as is done with car parking. This proposed ordinance text amendment creates a standard for design and quantity of bicycle parking for new developments. The Planning Commission recommended approval. If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was continued in the evening meeting. See my report there.



Closed Meeting

Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed in Utah State Code (§ 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq.). If a closed meeting is needed, it will be announced at that time.



Adjournment

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.



Public Comment

• This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
• For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
• For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.




Action Agenda

1. A resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Energy Department to the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements related to the new Airport terminal. (19-088)
   Public Works will need to install sewer improvements on the west side of the City in order to meet the requirements of a new Airport terminal. In order to meet the required timelines for terminal construction short term financial assistance is needed, which is available from the Energy Fund by means of an inter-fund loan. This short term $4 million loan would meet requirements of Utah State Code and would be repaid in full with interest. This is a short term (6-month likely, 12-month max) loan that allows a construction team that is already in West Provo to move directly into this project, rather than being sent home and asked to come back in 6 months when the new fiscal year begins. Approved 7:0. This was a smart move that reduces the cost of the project.
2. A resolution appropriating $4 million in the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements on the west side of Provo City, including at the airport, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (19-096)
   An Interfund Loan has been proposed where Energy is intending to loan Wastewater $4 million to accomplish necessary Wastewater infrastructure relative to the new Provo City Airport Terminal. This project has multiple stakeholders and because we have received both Utah State and Utah County funds to help with the expansion of the airport, this project has been placed as a priority for completion. Because the Council has opted for a pay-as-you-go funding source, the revenues need to first be collected so that Wastewater may pay Energy back. This is related to the first item which transfers the money. This item authorizes the expenditure of the money. Many entities are contributing to the building of the new terminal. This is part of Provo's share. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
3. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of the real property generally located at 800 North University Avenue and known as Amanda Knight Hall from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190244)
   Amanda Knight Hall, built in 1938-1939, is a women’s dormitory formerly associated with Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The dormitory is located at the corner of 800 North and University Avenue, just two blocks north of the original campus of the university. Brigham Young University sold the property earlier this year to Mountain Classic Real Estate of Salt Lake City to facilitate its preservation through a return of the building to its original use as women’s housing. This application is not accompanied by a concept plan as no substantial changes are proposed for the site or building exterior. The requested rezone facilitates the preservation of a significant historic resource and a return of the building to women’s housing under private ownership.
   
   Planning Commission recommended approval. This is what I wrote last time. I'm curious what the developer will come back with.
   
   'After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.
   
   'In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.' Approved 7:0. I have mixed feelings about this. This building is worth saving, but if we don't institute some manner of onstreet parking management then we are making the same mistake that previous councils have made that have made parking so bad in Joaquin to begin with.
4. **CONTINUED** The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Central Business District, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
   This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda.
5. An ordinance amending Section 15.03.035 Provo City Code for clarification of grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
   This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago.' Approved 7:0. "I believe that this will go a long way to preventing problems like we had a couple years ago near the mouth of Provo Canyon with the ""Gravel Operation""."
6. An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
   This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards.' This item was continued by Council Rule to the Council Meeting on September 24, 2019. We continued this item to allow the public more time to provide feedback and to fix some problematic language.



Adjournment