Council Meetings - 3 October, 2017

***UPDATE: Rather than copying all of this information into a new post, I'm updating the old post with the results, and my reports on the various items.***

The big topic for tomorrow will still be the rental contract proposal (items 4 and 11 in the Work and Council meetings, respectively). The appointment of a new Police Cheif is big news (CM3). People may also find the discussion of electronic signs (WM3) and Setbacks for South Campus (CM8) interesting.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 2017

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

Business

1. A discussion on proposed code revisions from the Sanitation Department (17-123)
   The proposed changes are to establish a minimum requirement for sanitation services at all residential dwellings throughout the City. They explain when and where refuse collection service is required and clarify requirements for refuse container size. It looks like the biggest change is that a minimum volume per dwelling unit is being set.
   There is a phrase in the proposed language that says, "or the owner of a dwelling contracts to have the owner’s refuse collected and disposed of by a commercial hauler". I think the second "owner's" should be changed to "dwelling's" or "residents in the dwelling's".Presentation only. This item will be brought back to a future Work Meeting. There were actually two parts to this presentation. The first part was to introduce a proposed change to clarify the city code: All SFD homes are required to use city garbage collection, multi-family units can use city services or the owner/manager can arrange a separate service, but must meet the required weekly volume capacity (95 gallons). In the second part of the presentation, Public Works proposed that we continue with the recently adjusted can fee rate structure through at least the end of this fiscal year (June 2018). We will resume discussion on structural changes through the regular budget process which starts in January.
2. A discussion on the Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan Fee in the Stormwater Consolidated Fee Schedule (17-102)
   An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was discussed at two previous work meetings and additional information was requested. We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   A motion to move forward with the table of stepped fees to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. Builders would prefer a table to a formula. I feel better about the stepped rates because the intervals make more sense now. There is still some question if the rates are too high. Public works will verify the calculations before it comes to the Council Meeting.
3. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage (17-110)
   This discussion about how signage is regulated in Provo City Code is intended to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing code changes in a future meeting. This was discussed at a previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed. The basic idea is that static electronic signs are no more obtrusive than back-lit signs, so we should consider allowing them anywhere back-lit signs are allowed. We had a good discussion in our last Work Meeting, but a few questions came up, like what to do with "scrolling" signs. Hopefully, we will have good recommendations on these questions this time.A motion to move this item to the next Planning Commission meeting was Approved 7:0. Looks like all of the kinks have been worked out. I'm comfortable with the "low churn" signs (which can not be changed more than 3 times per day. I'm still uncomfortable with the "high churn" signs which can change every 8 seconds. I think we need to carefully consider which areas in our city allow high churn signs. Perhaps we need a mid-churn level.
4. A discussion on a proposed zoning ordinance amending Provo City Code 6.26.150 (17-104)
   The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. Council has discussed this in work and regular meetings, has held an open house and posted surveys on Open City Hall to get public input on the topic, and has held public hearings during the regular Council meeting. The Zoning Committee met to discuss this feedback and will update the Council in preparation for tonight’s regular Council meeting. Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
   Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.A motion to utilize version 2 of the draft [which included definitions] was Approved 7:0. A motion to postpone a vote on this item until the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 4:3, opposed by Council members Kim Santiago, George Stewart, & Kay Van Buren. Several improvements were made over the past two weeks. We discussed voting on it in our evening meeting, and the possibility of waiting until either the next or following meeting to vote. In the end we narrowly voted to continue it for two more meetings before voting on it. This will allow for more time to fine tune the proposal, as well as to reach out to help clear up some of the misunderstandings surrounding this proposal.



Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

5. A discussion on a zone change request of approximately 0.642 acres from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR), on property generally located at 925 East 1140 South. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan. It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here is the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below
6. A discussion on a zone change request on approximately 2.29 acres from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8) on property generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road. Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
   This rezone request is to facilitate the creation of a seven lot residential subdivision that would include incorporating two existing homes. The property is currently illegally subdivided into five parcels and the proposed R1.8 zone is potentially inconsistent with the General Plan policies on density. Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated. The presentation on this item was continued to the evening Council Meeting. This item was already scheduled for the October 3, 2017 Council Meeting. See Item #9 in the Council Meeting below



Business

7. A discussion on a proposed Business Loans of Utah Revolving Loan Fund (17-121)
   In an effort to strengthen small businesses, the Economic Development Department is proposing a revolving loan fund designed to stimulate redevelopment and utilization of deteriorated commercial and industrial properties. Funds for this program were appropriated as part of the FY 2017-18 budget. Economic Development presented this program to us a number of months back. Basically we can access $7 for every $1 that we contribute in a first-loss position, to use as loans for small businesses who haven't quite made it to the point that commercial banks are willing to lend to them. We may earn money off of the interest of these loans, but we would also be in the position to lose the money that we front, if the businesses default on their loans. The real return on the investment is in higher property taxes, sales taxes, new jobs, and a more vibrant city. Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting. The program changed a little. We had previously approved it, but the Office of Economic Development wanted to make sure that we still supported the program after the change. I think the change is in our favor.



Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
(and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF PROVO)
(and STORMWATER SERVICE DISTRICT)
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A proclamation pertaining to Provo's sister city, Meissen, Germany (17-121)
   "No files found" in the document packet. Presentation only. I was in Dresden a few weeks ago for business. I should have looked it up because Meissen is not far from Dresden and I could have visited.



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

2. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (17-089)
   The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
   • Jeff Rose - Energy Board
   • Elizabeth Smart - Library Board
   • Deon Turley - Planning Commission
   • Ben Markham - Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee
   I have interacted with all four of these individuals, and Provo City is fortunate to have such quality individuals willing to serve on our boards and commissions. Approved 7:0. Welcome aboard, and thank you for serving!
3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Rich Ferguson as the Chief of the Police Department for Provo City. (17-122)
   Rich Ferguson was appointed interim police chief in March after the resignation of former police chief John King. Ferguson has been with the Provo Police Department for 27 years. After the recent upheaval, I am grateful that our next Chief has been with the Provo City Police Department for so long. Chief Ferguson's character and competence are well known. He will serve the Department and our city well. Approved 7:0. I've been impressed with Chief Ferguson over the past several months as he has served as the Interim Chief. I hear more stories, both in public and in private, of our officers going above the call of duty and providing great service than I do from angry or upset citizens. Chief Ferguson has been a part of the Provo PD for decades and is ready to lead the department.



Stormwater Service District

4. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule. (17-102)
   An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was originally set to be heard at the August 29 Council meeting, but was continued due to requested changes raised in the August 29 work meeting. This issue was heard in the earlier meeting as item #2. (We continued this item last time because Public Works requested at the meeting a fee that was substantially higher than what was included in our packets. The continuation allowed time for the public and builders to weigh in on the proposal. I have heard from an association representing builders. They don't mind paying their fair share, but feel that the idea that each inspection costs the City $50 is wrong because the inspections usually occur at the same time that other inspections are going on. And their preferred fee structure would be a base fee, then a cost per acre, with a cap at 20 acres. They also said that a table is easier to use than a formula.

   Number of Disturbed Acres		Fee
   >	<=	$
   0	1	200
   1	4	350
   4	9	500
   9	16	650
   16	25	800
   25	36	950
   36		1100

   
   ) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

5. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with Provo City and a Development Agreement with Provo City and Duncan Aviation. (17-114)
   Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund. This item has been on the past several meeting agendas and was part of a larger group of items. This is part of the fulfillment of past commitments and will bring a project that will have a significant positive impact on our economic development. Approved 7:0. It seems like items related to the Duncan expansion at the airport has been on every agenda for the past several months. I believe this is the last of them...until the financing is lined up.



Action Agenda

6. A resolution authorizing the execution of a Tax Increment Funding Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency of Provo City and a Development Agreement with the Agency and Duncan Aviation. (17-114)
   Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund. This is the same agreement in the last item, but now we are considering in our role as Council, rather than our role as the board of the Redevelopment Agency of Provo. No action was required on this item; the Council previously authorized these agreements on August 29, 2017 as part of Resolution 2017-40. This was incorrectly noticed.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.056 acres of real property, generally located at 2585 North Timpview Drive, from R1.10 to R1.9. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (17-0014R)
   The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone, but could qualify for R1.9. This is the second hearing for this land use item. I didn't hear any new arguments over the past two weeks. I support the request. Approved 7:0. The majority of the neighborhood was in favor of this, but one couple adjacent to the lot was opposed. The proposed project meets almost all of the requirements for the current zone, and would meet all of the requirements once the flag lot regulations are fixed. It makes sense to rezone to R1.9 to allow this to move forward now.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding setbacks for front yards and side street yards in the Campus Mixed-Use Zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. (17-0006OA)
   The Campus Mixed-Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes. This will also be the second hearing. I invited feedback from a number of Provo-centric Facebook groups. I was surprised that the feedback was more nuanced. I expected "Yes, of course, the setbacks need to be increased," but instead there were plenty of differing opinions but the overall message was, "What's wrong with this building wouldn't have been fixed with setbacks." Approved 7:0. I was on a business trip the week before this meeting and had the opportunity to walk around three different cities and looked at many examples of small setbacks and no setbacks. I came away comfortable that this adjustment to the setback will not be harmful to what we are trying to achieve in this area. But I made sure the message I heard on social media was conveyed, that what's wrong with the building on 700 N and 900 E will not be fixed by setbacks alone. I think everyone agrees on that point. Community Development will continue to bring fixes to us.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.642 acres of real property, generally located at 925 East 1140 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #5. (It is being recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission. It is aligned with the Neighborhood Plan. It looks pretty good to me. Here are the site plan and a map of the location:
   
   
   
   ) Approved 7:0. This proposal fits this plot very nicely. I like how it fronts the road.
10. An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 2.29 acres of real property, generally located at 1282 North Geneva Road, from Agriculture (A1.5) to One-Family Residential (R1.8). Lakeview North Neighborhood. (17-0009R)
    This rezone request is to facilitate the creation of a seven lot residential subdivision that would include incorporating two existing homes. The property is currently illegally subdivided into five parcels and the proposed R1.8 zone is potentially inconsistent with the General Plan policies on density. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #6. (Well, this plot is back before the Council again. It appears that not much has changed since the last time we denied the request. It seems that everyone is willing to work with the applicant, but that willingness isn't being reciprocated.) A motion to continue this item to the October 17, 2017 Council Meeting was Approved 7:0. The applicant requested a continuation to allow him to supply the requested information to Community Development. I, personally, won't be voting in favor of the rezone unless the proposal, now with all of the required information, goes back before the Planning Commission. I rely on the Staff report, the Planning Commission report, and the neighborhood input. The process can not proceed properly if certain information is not provided until the last stage.
11. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
    Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. This proposed addition to the City Code is a step in achieving that goal. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold. First, it educates landlords and tenants regarding the legal requirements regarding the occupancy restrictions of a particular residence. By requiring landlords to provide tenants with a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and the Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities document, both the landlords and the tenants can have a clear understanding of their legal obligations so that they do not unwittingly violate the City Code. Additionally, it provides a way to indirectly enforce occupancy restrictions against landlords who intentionally violate the City Code. Landlords who are willfully violating occupancy restrictions are forced to choose between informing prospective tenants that they are breaking the law or violating this section of the code, as well. This is the second public hearing on the ordinance. This issue was heard at the earlier meeting as item #4. (Along with the contract, landlords are required to provide a copy of the tenant's rights and responsibilities, and the legal occupancy of the unit. These contracts and disclosure will protect law-abiding tenants and landlords. It will also make it harder to claim ignorance when over-occupation occurs. This will help our zoning enforcement officers be more effective when enforcing over-occupancy requirements. Some suggestions for changes have been made since the change was proposed. I don't see those suggestions reflected in the latest language. I'm curious if the Zoning Committee considered them.
    Our packet includes a very interesting graph on how much has been spent on zoning enforcement over the years.) During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the November 14, 2017 Council Meeting. The vote was continued until November 14th. Please see item 4 in the Work Meeting above.



Adjournment

What's Up? - 29 September 2017

I'm continuing to play with the format. Please let me know what you think. Is it helpful?
Thanks to Karen Tapahe for the background information and Elizabeth VanDerwerken for the results
As a reminder, the 'Public Docs - Howto' link above gives instructions on how to access all of the documents in the Council's meeting packet.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Agenda
11:00 AM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

1. A discussion on recent changes to the public noticing process for Planning Commission and Council hearings
   Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. There are no documents associated with this item in the current packet, but this is related to the changes that the Council approved back on August 8th. In short, it improves the development approval process so that by default, neighbors get more and better notice before land use items are heard by the Council, the public gets more opportunity to address the Council on these items, the Council gets a better opportunity to consider that input, and the applicants/developers get a shorter wait before finding out if the proposal will be approved. Does that sound too good to be true? Take a look at the details. Avid readers of this blog know all about the changes to the public notice process and how excited I am for it. Three land use items that we heard on this day were the first to use the new process. The Planning Commission had previously reviewed and recommended the new process and they also sounded excited to see it implemented.
2. Additional questions and discussion
   We talked about good communication between the Commission and Council. We hear from them regularly (via reports on each item they review), but they rarely hear anything from us. We also discussed the proposed contract regulations on rentals. There wasn't a direction for the conversation, I think it is just a topic that is on everyone's minds and we were mulling it over together.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda
12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

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

Business
1. A discussion on the UDOT & H.W. Lochner 500 West Project (100 N to 800 N/Center to 1230 N) (17-117)
   UDOT is evaluating improvements to 500 West between Center Street and Bulldog Boulevard in Provo. These improvements will include changing the pavement type from asphalt to concrete, planted medians, the addition of bike lanes and a multi-use path along the corridor. Significant improvements are planned for 500 W, just east of Center Street. This is an extension of the great redesign and reconstruction of State Street in Southeast Provo, and across 300 S. My biggest concern at this point is the removal of the tunnel beneath 500 W that the school children use, so they don't have to cross a very busy section of State Street. Apparently, the combination of foot traffic and vehicular traffic doesn't warrant an enhancement like a tunnel or a sky bridge, but since that infrastructure is already there, I believe it warrants special consideration if the State really feels like they need to remove it. If they don't want to build a bridge, perhaps they should consider leaving the tunnel. Presentation only. Take a look at the project's website. (It may not format correctly on mobile devices.) I like the landscaped medians. I like that the medians won't block any of the intersections. I like that the new material (concrete rather than asphalt) will mean far less frequent construction in the future. I like the widened sidewalks. I like the multi-use path. I like the bike lanes. I don't like that it appears that the tunnel will be removed. I don't like that the corners will be rounded, allowing cars to make turns at a higher velocity, endangering pedestrians and bikers who would otherwise be attracted to the street. Construction will last most of next year, from Spring until late Fall. Daily Herald article.
2. A discussion on parking (17-096)
   This is a followup to the August 8 work meeting where the new Provo City parking manager presented information and answered questions. Today's Policy Lunch was held in Joaquin Park. It was a good reminder and illustration of just how bad parking is in this area and the almost-non-existent enforcement of parking regulations. There was one particularly unsafely parked car at the nearest intersection. I was parked right on the corner and was blocking the crosswalk/sidewalk. I feel that the City needs to step-up our parking enforcement, but I also feel that every driver should be given a warning if they have no previous warnings or tickets within the past year. Educate first, then penalize those who willfully break the law and make our neighborhoods less safe for others. This is but one of many issues that our Provo Parking Administration needs to address. Presentation only. We discussed the parking policies outlined in the previously developed Parking Strategy Plan. These principles will need to be woven into Provo City's Vision, General Plan, and Transportation Master Plan.
3. A discussion on the appropriation for the Freedom Lot on Block 90 (RC Willey conversion) (17-106)
   This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center. The biggest question in my mind is, "Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?" I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used throughout the City. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. The Daily Herald article does a good job summarizing the discussion.
4. A presentation on complete streets and the 500 N transportation pilot project (17-118)
   The North Park Neighborhood Chair and Timp Neighborhood Chair, along with a member of the Provo Bike Committee will be briefing the Council on the recent pilot residents executed on 500 N. In addition, they will be talking about walkable and bikeable neighborhoods and complete streets. The redesign that went along with the repaving of a section of 500 W was a great project. The Provo Bike Committee was awarded a grant from the Utah Department of Health to pilot some ideas to make 500 W friendlier to active modes of transportation (think bikes, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.). It turned into a great community event. There were some aspects of the project that were quite painful, but through diligent efforts on all sides, we came to a good resolution. I am concerned that without appropriate care and effort, small holes in our growing transportation network will significantly decrease the effectiveness of the network. Presentation only. Kirby Snideman, Shannon Bingham, and Aaron Skabelund all did a great job presenting the work that was done on 500 W and suggesting ways to make our streets more welcoming for pedestrians and cyclists.
5. A discussion on possible code changes regarding signage (17-110)
   This discussion about how signage is regulated in Provo City Code is intended to determine whether Council is interested in pursuing code changes in a future meeting. This was discussed at the previous work meeting, but more discussion was needed. This one is all about electronic signs. The premise is that appropriately-controlled, static (low-churn) electronic signs are as obtrusive as an old-fashioned back-lit sign so they could be permitted anywhere that back-lit signs are currently permitted without negatively affecting the community. Low-churn signs could be changed up to three times a day. They can not have any animation or motion-video. The brightness is regulated and is restricted more at night. After looking at the proposed changes, by biggest concern is if the 8-second minimum hold time for high-churn electronic signs are enough. I know that is an industry standard, but perhaps what is good enough for our freeways isn't good enough for inside our city. High-churn signs are only permitted along certain stretches of commercial roads in our city. I was surprised to see that Center Street, between the freeway and State Street, is one of these designated corridors. Right now I can't think of any of these signs on that stretch right now. I'm not certain that a high-churn sign would be a good fit for that section of the street. This item will be continued to a future Work Meeting, following refinement of the proposal We dove a bit more into the details. A potential short-coming was identified with older electronic signs that rely on scrolling messages. I at least planted the questions of whether 8-seconds was long enough in "high churn" areas, and if Center Street, between 500 W and the freeway, should be a "high churn" area.
6. A presentation on Provo City's Media Services and Channel 17 (17-108)
   During budget discussions this summer, Council members had some questions regarding the media services budget. This presentation will give an explanation of what is covered in this budget as well as projects being done by Channel 17. When we had iProvo when we first moved here, we had access to Channel 17. Since then, we get our TV "over-the-air" and I've only seen Internet video's produced by Channel 17. Are they still "broadcasting" on cable? Presentation only. They are still "broadcasting" on Google Fiber TV and hope to be back on Comcast very soon. He said that they looked briefly into over-the-air broadcasting, but it is very expensive. Their broadcast is a looped replay of all their content, which is now almost up to 24-hours. But the real focus is on YouTube. Their most popular video has almost 200,000 views. They also highlighted their "Garbage Can-Can" PSA, and want everyone to watch "Welcome Home".
7. A discussion on the Stormwater Fee Schedule (17-102)
   An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was discussed at the previous work meeting and additional information was requested. At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project. A motion to continue this item to the October 3, 2017 Work & Council Meetings was approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. They did it! The currently proposed fee for SWPPP plans is calculated using a formula: $200 + $150 x √acres. It is a nice smooth curve, rather than a step function. Now, instead of costing twice as much, a 5.1 acre SWPPP is cost just a little more than a 5 acre SWPPP.
   But, in addition to changing the format of the fee, the department is asking for substantially higher fees than was published before. They assure us that the fee does not exceed the cost to provide the service. I requested that the item be continued so that the public had more time to respond to the higher fee.
8. A discussion on conducting fee reviews (17-116)
   For the past two years, the Council has been reviewing City fees in order to understand what services the City may be subsidizing. This discussion will be centered on discussing how to best proceed with fee reviews in the future. I feel like the reviews have been helpful, but only a few actual changes have come out of the effort. It will be interesting to see if the staff conducting the reviews feel that the outcome has been worth the effort. Discussion only. The Council Office has taken over the lead in this effort. The Office will carefully select the next group of fees to find ones that are most likely to matter. Once "Provo 360", the new integrated computer platform, is fully up and running, fees can be reviewed with far less effort. Parts of Provo 360 area already operational. Everything will be running within the next 18 months.
9. A discussion on the zoning disclosure requirement (17-119)
   Provo City Code Chapter 6.25 requires that a seller or lessor of residential property must disclose the property’s zoning requirements to potential buyers or lessees. The Council’s Zoning Committee has discussed this requirement and would like to share a few ideas pertaining to zoning disclosure with the Council. Back when we bought our house in Provo, I only had the fuzziest of notions about zoning. I remember receiving a zoning disclosure which led to a good discussion about zoning and land use and what uses are permitted on the property that I was buying. Even though I wasn't planning on using my property in any unallowed ways, I still felt it was a very valuable conversation. I imagine if I had been planning on using it in an unpermitted way, I would have found it even more valuable to know of the permitted uses before I bought the property. Presentation only. This requirement has been on our books for 17 years, but Realtors are adamantly against individual cities making their own requirements. To me, the solution would be for the Legislature to adopt the regulation state-wide.
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
10. Provo City Public Works Department requests an amendment to the Aspen Loop road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. 17-0002SV
    The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road. The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. No one had concerns.
11. Gordon Jacobson requests a Zone Change from R1.10 to R1.9 for 1.056 acres of property, located at 2585 North Timpview Drive. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. 17-0014R
    The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone. I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. No one had concerns, but Mr. Knecht also felt that multiple flag lot "poles" should be able to be combined to reduce the required width. Community Development agreed to put it on their list of things to consider in the next update. See also the report for item 11 in the evening meeting.
12. Matt Evans requests a Zone Change from Agricultural A1.1 to Residential R1.10 for approximately 1.30 acres located at 1520 West 1150 South to facilitate a three-lot subdivision. Sunset Neighborhood. 17-0015R
    This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties. No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. The neighborhood is supportive of the request.
13. Provo City Public Works Department requests an Ordinance Amendment to add Section 15.03.020(3) to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-Wide Impact. 17-0017OA
    This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards. This seems fairly straightforward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. This will bring us into compliance with the new State Statute. Public Works committed to having the Complete Street standards worked out by the end of the year.
14. Provo City Community Development Department requests Amendments to Section 14.14E.050 to increase the required setbacks for front yards and side street yards from a maximum of 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet for commercial frontages and a minimum of 10 feet for residential frontages. Joaquin Neighborhood. 17-0006OA
    The Campus Mixed Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone. City staff proposed changes. In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the September 19, 2017 Council Meeting. See report for item 13 in the evening meeting.
Closed Meeting
15. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.
    Closed meetings (aka executive meetings) are held without the public present and must meet one of the conditions listed above.

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Redevelopment Agency of Provo
Regular Meeting Agenda
5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards
Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the Employee of the Month for September 2017
   Presentation only.
2. Justice Court Annual Report
   There are no support documents for this item. I assume that Judge Romney will present a summary of the work of the City's Justice Court. Presentation only.
Public Comment
This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Action Agenda
3. A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (17-089)
   The Mayor regularly makes appointments to various boards and commissions, with the consent of the Municipal Council. The following appointments will be presented to the Council for their consent:
   • Natalie Gibbs, Parks & Recreation Board
   • Stuart Wheeler, Arts Council
   • Scott Glenn, Arts Council
   I've said it before, but it bears repeating, Provo benefits greatly from the willingness of her residents to be involved and to donate their time, efforts, and talents to the community. Look no further than our boards and commissions for many examples of extremely accomplished individuals donating their expertise for the betterment of the community. Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused.
4. An ordinance enacting a new Provo City Code provision regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
   Council previously adopted the Code Enforcement Strategic Plan as a guideline for increased enforcement of the City Code. Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan is to use enhanced regulation and enforcement of rental dwelling licenses to increase compliance among landlords with Provo City occupancy laws. This proposed addition to the City Code is a step in achieving that goal. The proposed ordinance would require landlords to have a written contract with any tenant or subtenant leasing from them. The purpose of the ordinance is twofold. First, it educates landlords and tenants regarding the legal requirements regarding the occupancy restrictions of a particular residence. By requiring landlords to provide tenants with a copy of the rental dwelling license application approval letter and the Tenants’ Rights and Responsibilities document, both the landlords and the tenants can have a clear understanding of their legal obligations so that they do not unwittingly violate the City Code. Additionally, it provides a way to indirectly enforce occupancy restrictions against landlords who intentionally violate the City Code. Landlords who are willfully violating occupancy restrictions are forced to choose between informing prospective tenants that they are breaking the law or violating this section of the code, as well.
   This will be the first of two public hearings on the ordinance. This is the first of at least two hearings. There is a partially related open house on the 20th. I think the proposal has generated a lot of good discussion. I have heard a few really good suggestions for improvements already. I'm guessing that the proposal will evolve a bit before it is passed. Public Comment Only; Zoning Committee will reconvene to discuss public feedback/concern. This item was already scheduled for the October 3rd, 2017 Council Meeting. I haven't gone back to watch it, but someone said that this item took three hours. Much of that was the public comment portion. It is an emotional issue and we heard from both proponents and critics of the proposal. We will hear this item again on October 3rd, and I'd guess the odds are better than not that it won't be decided on for at least one more meeting.
5. A resolution confirming the sale and authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds (17-098)
   Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused.
6. A resolution approving the transfer of the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to the Utah Municipal Power Agency and approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement. (17-115)
   This is a request from Utah Municipal Power Association (UMPA) to transfer the Hunter Power Plant assets from Provo City to UMPA as agreed upon in the January 1, 2016, sale agreement. The Energy Department is proposing that the assets be transferred to in accordance with past agreements. It seems pretty straight forward to me, and in the City's interest. Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to add Conditional Uses within Public Facilities zones. City-wide Impact. (17-0012OA)
   The applicant is requesting that standard land use (SLU) #4603 be added to the public facilities zone as a conditional use. It is uncommon to have privately owned land within the Public Facilities Zone. The applicant believes that the current zone ordinance is too restrictive while the proposed use would be appropriate within the zone and allow a viable economic return on the property. What is the long-range plan for this property? Why is it zoned Public Facilities if it is privately owned? Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. RV, boat, and car storage is definitely a temporary use for this property. Eventually, it will become part of the campground, or maybe more integrated into the what's happening on the other side, toward the lake. It makes sense to keep it in Public Facilities because, with this text amendment, the desired use is permitted. Otherwise, the property would need to be rezoned as industrial or some other zone that is not compatible with the character or this area.
8. **CONTINUED** An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.642 acres of real property, generally located at 925 East 1140 South, from Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Spring Creek Neighborhood. (17-0012R)
   This item was continued before it was ever presented to the Planning Commission, so it will not come to the Council until a future date. This rezoning request is to facilitate the development of 9 townhomes. It is in compliance with the General Plan and follows the recommended land use in the Southeast Area Neighborhood Plan.
9. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.30 acres of real property, generally located at 1520 West 1150 South, from Agricultural (A1.1) to Residential (R1.10). Sunset Neighborhood. (17-0015R)
   This rezone request is to facilitate a formal three-lot subdivision of the applicant’s properties. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #12 ("No concerns. I am curious how the neighborhood meeting went, though.") Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. This item was heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #12 ("The neighborhood is supportive of the request.")
10. An ordinance amending the Aspen Loop Road dedication to more accurately match the final plat. Provost Neighborhood. (17-0002SV)
    The existing right-of-way was dedicated a number of years ago in agreement with the existing property owner, an adjacent property owner, and the City in order to provide access to the adjacent property for future development. The road has not yet been constructed. The applicant is seeking to realign the road to better address topography in the area. The proposed street vacation is to facilitate realignment of Aspen Loop Road. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #10 ("The realignment to better respect the topography makes sense to me. I don't see any reason not to proceed.") Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #10 ("No one had concerns.")
11. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.056 acres of real property, generally located at 2585 North Timpview Drive, from R1.10 to R1.9. Rock Canyon Neighborhood. (17-0014R)
    The property owner is seeking to subdivide the property. The existing home would be maintained and the remaining land divided into three additional lots. Two of the lots don’t have the width needed for the R1.10 zone, but could qualify for R1.9. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #11. ("I don't have any concerns about this proposal. I am a little surprised that the twin flag lots each need to have separate driveways rather than using one driveway to access both rear lots.") Continued to the October 3rd, 2017 Council Meeting So after hearing this in the Work Meeting, this appeared to be a slam dunk, the kind of item that would be voted on in the first meeting (under our new procedure). But a neighbor spoke up during the public comment portion. He said that he had just learned about the proposal from a post-card that the City sent a few weeks ago. He hadn't heard about a neighborhood meeting or anything. He spoke against rezoning the property.
    With the new procedure, I feel only non-controversial and non-opposed items should be voted on at the first meeting, so I asked that it be continued so that neighbors have the chance to discuss it with their Chair or find out more about the proposal.
12. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to adopt Public Works Standards by reference, as required by State Code. City-wide Impact. (17-0017OA)
    This amendment simply adds language to adopt standards by reference and lists those standards. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #13. ("This seems fairly straight forward, though there are some questions about whether the draft Complete Street standards should be included, and whether adopting the minimum standards is good enough, or if we should be looking closer at which standards should be enhanced.") Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #13. ("This will bring us into compliance with the new State Statute. Public Works committed to having the Complete Street standards worked out by the end of the year.")
13. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding setbacks for front yards and side street yards in the Campus Mixed-Use Zone. Joaquin Neighborhood. (17-0006OA)
    The Campus Mixed-Use Zone was adopted to accomplish the objectives of the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some recent developments have revealed shortcomings in the yard requirements of the zone.City staff proposed changes. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #14. ("In my opinion, this is a direct reaction to the building that just went in on 700 N and 900 E. The current setbacks are between 0' and 10' from the property line. The proposal is to change this to between 10' and 20' for residential buildings and 5' to 20' for commercial buildings.") Continued to the October 3rd, 2017 Council Meeting (Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #14.) "The new building on the northeast corner of 700 N and 900 E should be crowned "The Most Reviled Recent Development" in Provo, based on the comments I've heard from the public. Community Development has conducted a post-mortem to figure out weaknesses in the new Campus Mixed Use zone which allowed something like this to be built." (From my Council Facebook Page)
    I reached out to the public and expected to get an enthusiastic YES we need to increase the setback. But the response was not what I expected. Almost everyone agrees that the building is ugly and shouldn't have been allowed to be built like it is, though there have been a few that stated that they like the looks and the building. But as far as supporting the increased setback, the opinions have been split. Most feel that the biggest problems with the building are not due to the setbacks. My concern is that while the minimal setback may not be appropriate in this location, there may be other areas in the Campus Mixed Use zone, with a better design, where it would be appropriate.
    I also asked that this land use item be heard a second time in order to get more public feedback.
Redevelopment Agency of Provo
14. A resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement and a development agreement relating to the construction and financing of certain airport infrastructure facilities; and related matters. (17-114)
    Provo City agreed to provide improvements to the airport to accommodate development related to Duncan Aviation. Funding sources for this project include a 108 Loan to be repaid with CDBG funds, Economic Development Administration grant, bonds to be repaid with tax increment, and a transfer from the General Fund. This item was continued from the last meeting. Here is what I wrote before the last meeting, "Many of these commitments were made by a previous Council. I feel a fairly strong obligation to live up to our commitments. I'd only vote against this if I strongly felt like it was not in the communities best interest, or if I felt there was a better way to fulfill our commitments. Fortunately, I do believe that the expansion of Duncan into the City will be a very good thing for the City overall and that the commitments made were reasonable and the programs used were exactly what the programs were for." Continued to the October 3rd, 2017 Council Meeting I'm happy to be at this point and excited for this projects impact on our future.
15. A resolution appropriating $478,000 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
    This is a resolution appropriating funds to convert the block with the site of the former RC Willey store into temporary parking for patrons of the Utah County Convention Center. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item #3. ("The biggest question in my mind is, 'Do we know if this will satisfy the County's concerns?' I hope that we carefully plan out the payment system for this lot. I would like to see a uniform and integrated parking payment platform used throughout the City.") Approved 6:0, with Council member Gary Winterton excused. More than half the money will be spent on the tear-down.

Stormwater Special Service District
16. An ordinance amending the Stormwater Service District Fee Schedule. (17-102)
    An intended new fee for stormwater pollution protection plans (SWPPP) was accidentally excluded from the fee schedule that was passed in June 2017. This was originally set to be heard at the August 29 Council meeting, but was continued due to requested changes raised in the August 29 work meeting. Heard in the Work Meeting as agenda item 7. ("At our last meeting, we continued this item and asked Public Works to consider a different structure for the SWPPP inspection fees. The current documents don't show a change, so perhaps they considered a change but decided against it. To illustrate why I don't like the proposal, the fee for an SWPPP on a 20-acre project is the same as the fee for a 5.1-acre project, but a 5.1-acre project is twice as expensive as a 5-acre project.")
    This item was continued in our Work Meeting. Check out my report for it on item #7 of the earlier meeting. During the Work Meeting, this item was continued to the October 3, 2017 Work & Council Meetings.

What's Up? - 18 September 2017

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

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Joint Meeting with Planning Commission

Agenda

11:00 AM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

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

Business

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

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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

Closed Meeting

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

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

• Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

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

Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

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

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

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

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

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

Stormwater Special Service District

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