Council Meetings - 27 March 2018

Provo is in the midst of an affordable housing crunch. We will be considering a proposal that will help provide some quality housing units for a group (married students) that is underserved by our housing inventory. But I am concerned about how well the development will integrate into the neighborhood. Take a look; it's items 6 and 7 on the Work Meeting agenda. Other hot topics are parking, legal difficulties with the County, and more legal difficulties with the County about parking.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with Landmarks Commission

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Council regularly schedules meetings with key boards and commissions to discuss current issues and ways to improve processes. We had a great visit with the Landmarks Commission. Not only is it their role to identify, designate, and protect the City's historic and cultural heritage, a big part of their job is to foster awareness and appreciation of our historic and cultural heritage. They shared this great photo of District 5 with the Council. I had never seen it before. Click on it to see a larger rendition.

1. A review of the purpose and duties of the Landmarks Commission.
   The Landmarks Commission consists of seven Provo residents, appointed by the Mayor, who survey and inventory historic resources of Provo as well as conduct reviews and make recommendations concerning historic preservation issues, among other duties. Provo is a great place to live, in large part due to the lives and sacrifices of those who came before us. Historic landmarks across the City add so much character to our community and remind us of our heritage and culture. Our historic program allows owners to voluntarily designate their properties. With designation comes regulations which are designed to protect the properties. There often is a significant cost to preserve structures to historical standards, and there is little incentive given to owners to have their properties designated.
   
   I am grateful to the people of Provo who choose to add their historic properties to our registry. I am also thankful to the members of the Landmarks Commission for their service to the City in this area.
2. A discussion of the Landmarks Commission initiatives.
   • Historic Home TourI believe this yearly event, associated with the Freedom Festival, has always been held in District 5. This year it is focused on my home neighborhood of Dixon! The walking tour is in June and July, with two Open House days (June 14th and 15th) where visitors can see the interior of several homes. See the Freedom Festival page for more details, and download the Historic Provo self-guided tour booklet.
   • Walking Tour AppGet the free app at the AppStore and at Google Play.
   • Outreach and social mediaCheck out their YouTube playlist to learn more about some historic places in Provo. You'll be inspired to go out and experience these places in person.
   • Preservation AwardsThe inaugrual Stephen Hales Award - For Individual Contribution to Preservation in Provo was given to his wife, Calli Hales. Stephen Hales was elected as District 5's representative on the Provo Council in 2013 and tragicly passed away in 2014. Calli Hales was appointed by the Council to fill the vacancy until a special election was held in 2015. Both Calli and Stephen are life-long contributors in our Community.
     
     2017 Preservation Awards were given to:
     • Habitat for Humanity for the George Taylor Jr. House
     • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the Provo City Center Temple
     • Encircle LGBT + Family & Youth Resource Center for the Alexander House
     As you can see, historic preservation and appresiation is alive and well in Provo City!
   • CLG Grants ProjectsThis year a $10,000 federal grant (administered by the State) is being matched by the Provo City School District to conduct a study on Dixon Middle School. Some critical decisions about the future of the school will be made in the next few years. If you are interested in its future, consider following the "Save Dixon Middle School" Facebook group.
3. A discussion on Landmarks Priorities.
   The Commission and Council are discussing possible incentives. There are regulations on registry structures which restrict what owners can do with them and often make them more expensive to maintain and renovate. If there is public value in preserving these structures, perhaps there should be a public contribution to their preservation.
   • Incentives
   • Surveys
4. A discussion on how the City Council can help the Landmarks Commission.
   • Adopt incentives
   • Funding

---

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

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 a proposed amendment to the C-PACE agreement (16-092)
   Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) is a State-run program that finances energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation upgrades to commercial properties. On September 6, 2016, the Council passed a resolution approving a C-PACE agreement with the Governor’s Office of Energy Development. The agreement outlined how an entity would be able to use C-PACE funding within Provo City. The C-PACE program was significantly updated during the 2017 State legislative session. Shawna Cuan, Managing Director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Development, will present the changes to C-PACE and explain how they affect Provo City. I believe that no one has used this program in the year and a half since we approved it. Perhaps it needs to be publicized more. Also, we excluded solar from the program while we were actively discussing how to structure solar fees. Now that that issue has been resolved, I believe we should remove that exclusion. A motion requesting that the Administration enter negotiations with OED, discuss with the Energy Department, move forward with option 1, remove the solar restrictions in the previous version, and return to discuss with the Council was approved 7:0. I believe that if we turn the program over to the State Office of Energy Development, then there will not be any solar restrictions. I spoke with an Energy Department representative, and it doesn't appear that there will be any concerns over this, so I believe we will be able to move forward quickly on this.
2. An update on Downtown Provo Inc. (18-027)
   Quinn Peterson from Downtown Provo, Inc. (DPI) will present on what DPI is doing to benefit downtown Provo. From everything I've seen, Mr. Peterson has done a great job turning DPI around, and it is beginning to fulfill the function for which it was created. Presentation only. Great things are continuing at DPI. One helpful development is that DPI has worked with local business owners to come to a consensus on how they would like to see parking addressed in Downtown Provo. Right now our parking system is not serving anyone well. DPI is asking that we take specific steps in enforcement, way-finding, and city-owned structured parking management. Once these steps are taken, the businesses will support paid on-street parking if there is still the need. This sort of collaborative approach is so constructive and effective. This is an example of why DPI exists, and the kind of thing that should have been happening all along and is now finally happening.
3. A presentation on the Parks and Recreation Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Parks and Recreation Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. Presentation only. We have a pretty amazing Parks and Rec Department. The presentation highlighted some of their on-going successes, including what they conclude is the most successful Rec Center in the United States. I didn't hear any specific budget requests. They did warn that we need to consider the on-going landscaping costs with new projects. For example, we look closely at the construction costs of the Bulldog Bullevard revamp, but we also need to consider that new landscaping will add costs to the Parks and Rec Department for up keep.
4. A presentation on the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (18-005)
   Every year, the Finance Division prepares a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and presents the CIP to the Council in advance of the budget season. The CIP is a short-range plan which identifies capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing the plan. The Provo City Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is 176 pages of light reading. It lays out all of the coming capital projects -- airport, streets, sidewalks, trails, sewer, water, parks, building, and so on. Not everything is set in stone, but it shows the direction that we are headed. Presentation only. We just walked through the document together, hitting the highlights, summaries, and giving the Council a chance to ask questions.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

5. A discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, and a discussion of possible changes to the Home Occupations chapter generally (17-0025OA)
   At recent work and Council meetings, the Council has considered an applicant’s request to extend daytime business hours from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. (The Planning Commission’s recommendation was to extend the businesses hours to 9:00 pm.) Several Council members expressed concern about the implications of longer hours being the default for major home occupations across the City. Council Member Dave Sewell has prepared a presentation for the Council’s consideration that proposes a different standard for operating hours than in the recent proposal and identifies several additional proposed changes to the home occupation ordinance, based on suggestions from constituents, Council Member Stewart, and Community Development staff. We've been talking about this for a couple of months. We now have a more comprehensive review of the regulations and a cohesive proposal. I support everything the proposal is trying to do, and only have a few questions about the methods to achieve those objectives. A motion to bring this item back for discussion at the April 10, 208 Work Meeting was approved 7:0. We've had a few home occupations abusing ambiguities in the code, or outright flaunting the regulations, causing problems with their residential neighbors. I support making adjustments to the code, but I hope that we don't swing the balance too far away from home occupations. Provo is known for our entrepreneurial spirit and start-ups. Many start-ups started up in homes.
6. A discussion on a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting.
7. A discussion on a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. (for items 6 and 7) In my opinion, this is the most important issue of the day. On one side we have an affordable housing crunch. This project is designed as married student housing, a group that is far larger in our community than the housing we have designed for them. This pushes them out into other forms of housing, increasing the competition and lowering the availability of these other types, which drives up housing costs. From this perspective, this project is exactly what we need in Provo right now.
   
   From the other perspective, this is a fairly large and monolithic project that doesn't blend well into the existing neighborhood. The neighbors have pushed for a number of changes, but so far the developer is continuing forward with the original proposal. Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, with the condition that the two buildings are limited to three stories, as opposed to the four that is in the proposal. But the developer is moving forward with the request for four stories.
   
   This is a tough one to balance. We need more housing of this type, but it needs to be done well, in ways that enhance our existing neighborhoods. Along State Street is a good place for higher densities, but this proposed development would also project into the neighborhood. I met with the applicants to discuss some ways that the project could be altered so that it would integrate better into the neighborhood. We talked about several options. The minimum change that we talked about would allow it (from their understanding) to fit into the MDR (medium density residential) rather than the HDR zone. I am disappointed that they didn't decide to move forward with even this small change.
   
   See the proposal. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. We previewed the item and had a little discussion among councilors. The majority of the discussion took place in the evening meeting so check out the report of items 6 and 7 in that meeting (below).
8. A discussion on a text amendment to Chapter 14.30 (Supplementary Apartment Overlay) to adjust the parking standards. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180025)
   There are two areas of the City where the Supplementary Apartment Overlay (S) exists, both being adjacent to BYU Campus. The (S) Overlay is very similar to the Accessory Apartment Overlay zone with one clear distinction – the number of allowed unrelated individuals. The (A) overlay allows two unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment, while the (S) overlay allows four unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment. Despite the difference in occupancy, the required parking ratio is the same; four spaces are to serve the principal residence and the accessory apartment. It is proposed that the parking standards be raised two additional spaces to reflect the higher occupancy allowance of the (S) overlay. This is the first I've heard about this request. I know there is a parking crunch in this area, but I wasn't aware that there was much redevelopment or active conversions going on. I do worry about over requiring parking in areas that could become less auto-centric because of their proximity to the BYU campus and Downtown, and with the coming upgrades to public transit. I'm interested to learn more about the motivations behind this request. This item was already scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. The related presentation was continued until the evening meeting due to a time shortage.



Redevelopment Agency Item

9. A discussion on the Downtown Provo Parking Structure terms of agreement (18-034)
   On Monday, March 19, Mayor Kaufusi and representatives from Utah County and PEG Development signed a terms sheet regarding the development of parking structures in downtown Provo. The legal agreement will likely be negotiated within 90 days from when the term sheet was signed. While the Council is not legally required to ratify the term sheet, it is still appropriate for the Council to provide input, if desired. I am thrilled that we have come to terms with the County to resolve the Convention Center Parking Impass. I hope this marks the start of a more collaborative relationship between the leaders of the City and the County. At the same time, though, the Council needs to make a serious assessment whether this deal is in the best interests of the residents and tax-payers in the City. Our obligation is to provide 350 parking spaces. This deal calls for us to put in $2M in property and property tax increment of not only this property, but an expanded zone. Perhaps this is reasonable for not only the parking obligation, but also to facilitate this development, but I think it is an important question to ask, and important to get a good answer. A motion to consider the first resolution as the implied motion for the resolution on the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting agenda was approved 6:1, with David Harding opposed. I didn't feel that I had enough information to make an informed decision, so I supported moving forward with the second proposed resolution which would allow for Council review of the final agreement.



Closed Meeting

10. 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
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Roll Call
• Prayer
• Pledge of Allegiance

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation of the March 2018 Employee of the Month.
   Presentation only. A big CONGRATS and THANKS to Cathy Smits, the Aquatic Supervisor at the Rec Center



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.
Beth Alligood, a neighborhood chair and area representative, urged us to use a scalpel rather than a machette when making changes to the Home Occupation regulations.



Consent Agenda

2. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the recodification of Provo City Code. (18-033)
   In the past, the Provo City Code was not available online and was printed and distributed widely in a hardcopy format. Each year, a new volume of the City Code was published as the “Provo City Code, 2008 Edition,” the “Provo City Code, 2009 Edition,” etc. The first part of the code (Title1) would also be updated with the current volume’s year to say that the current version of the City Code superseded any previously codified version. Because the Provo City Code is primarily accessed online now, the Code can technically be updated after any Council meeting throughout a given year. As a result, staff are proposing that the Council alter the language of Title 1 to remove the year from the Title. Simple clean-up. The Consent Agenda were approved 7:0.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution ratifying the Mayor's signature on the first addendum to the Fifth Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Provo City and Utah County relating to the Ice Sheet Authority.
   This one was added last minute. It is regarding the Ice Sheet dispute with the County and effectively gives both sides another month to negotiate before the Rink gets auctioned off. Approved 7:0. Hopefully this saga will be resolved within a month.
4. An ordinance granting Zayo Group LLC a nonexclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Provo City, Utah. (18-010)
   This is a fairly standard required franchise agreement required for operating within the city. A minor change to the section on the dedication of fiber was made. Here is a summary of the changes: "1) The language was changed to insure that the City cannot use the fiber or allow others to use the fiber in a manner that competes with Zayo. 2) Although Zayo must provide 4 strands of fiber for City use throughout the term of the agreement, the company is not required to provide Single Mode Fiber. Zayo indicates that it uses SMF 99.9%, but cannot guarantee it 100% of the time. The IS department has assured that this should not be an issue." Approved 7:0. We probably could have taken care of this one on the consent agenda.
5. A resolution appropriating $178,620 in the Fire Department, General Fund for the purchase of wild fire equipment and other needs applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-031)
   The Fire Department recently received compensation for helping fight fires in other locations during the past year. The compensation is greater than what Provo’s Fire Department had to spend on these other fires. As a result, the Fire Department staff would like to use the excess money to purchase equipment that will help them fight wildfires in the future. As I've said previously, "There are different ways that this 'excess' money could be used. This seems like a reasonable way to use it. It will grow our capacity for future needs." Approved 7:0. I only half joked that the Firefighters should be taken out to a steak dinner, since they are the ones who earned this money.
6. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. Approved 7:0. Items 6 and 7 were discussed together. We continued item 7 until next time, but moved forward with the General Plan amendment. That part was non-controversial.
7. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. This is what I wrote about these items in the Work Meeting above, "In my opinion, this is the most important issue of the day. On one side we have an affordable housing crunch. This project is designed as married student housing, a group that is far larger in our community than the housing we have designed for them. This pushes them out into other forms of housing, increasing the competition and lowering the availability of these other types, which drives up housing costs. From this perspective, this project is exactly what we need in Provo right now.
   
   From the other perspective, this is a fairly large and monolithic project that doesn't blend well into the existing neighborhood. The neighbors have pushed for a number of changes, but so far the developer is continuing forward with the original proposal. Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, with the condition that the two buildings are limited to three stories, as opposed to the four that is in the proposal. But the developer is moving forward with the request for four stories.
   
   This is a tough one to balance. We need more housing of this type, but it needs to be done well, in ways that enhance our existing neighborhoods. Along State Street is a good place for higher densities, but this proposed development would also project into the neighborhood. I met with the applicants to discuss some ways that the project could be altered so that it would integrate better into the neighborhood. We talked about several options. The minimum change that we talked about would allow it (from their understanding) to fit into the MDR (medium density residential) rather than the HDR zone. I am disappointed that they didn't decide to move forward with even this small change.
   
   See the proposal. Continued to the April 10, 2018 Council Meeting. Without the developer proffering a development agreement, our options are to zone this parcel HDR, MDR, or LDR (high, medium, or low density residential). Based on the discussion, I don't see the Council approving HDR. I think it would be a toss-up between MDR and LDR. Votes for MDR would be to allow more married-student housing which will help with our affordable housing problem. Votes for LDR would be because the neighbors are clearly against a four-story development, and the proposal doesn't integrate well into the neighborhood. I am hopeful that a development agreement will be proffered which addresses the neighbor concerns and we can get a good development that is beneficial to Provo broadly as well as the immediate community.
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding parking requirements in the Supplementary Residential (S) Overlay Zone. Citywide Impact. (PLOTA20180025)
   There are two areas of the City where the Supplementary Apartment Overlay (S) exists, both being adjacent to BYU Campus. The (S) Overlay is very similar to the Accessory Apartment Overlay zone with one clear distinction – the number of allowed unrelated individuals. The (A) overlay allows two unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment, while the (S) overlay allows four unrelated individuals to reside in a legally established accessory apartment. Despite the difference in occupancy, the required parking ratio is the same; four spaces are to serve the principal residence and the accessory apartment. It is proposed that the parking standards be raised two additional spaces to reflect the higher occupancy allowance of the (S) overlay. This is what I wrote about this item in the Work Meeting above, "This is the first I've heard about this request. I know there is a parking crunch in this area, but I wasn't aware that there was much redevelopment or active conversions going on. I do worry about over requiring parking in areas that could become less auto-centric because of their proximity to the BYU campus and Downtown, and with the coming upgrades to public transit. I'm interested to learn more about the motivations behind this request. Continued to the April 10, 2018 Council Meeting. We asked several clarifying questions and discussed the concern by the public and neighborhood chairs that they weren't aware of this item. We continued it for two weeks to allow the public more time to consider it. I still don't see a strong argument for this proposal and I see many strong reasons not to do it.
9. Consideration of the proposed terms of agreement regarding a parking structure in downtown Provo (18-034)
   On Monday, March 19, Mayor Kaufusi and representatives from Utah County and PEG Development signed a terms sheet regarding the development of parking structures in downtown Provo. The legal agreement will likely be negotiated within 90 days from when the term sheet was signed. While the Council is not legally required to ratify the term sheet, it is still appropriate for the Council to provide input, if desired. Whether we take up this issue in the evening meeting depends on how our discussion goes in the afternoon meeting (item 9) A motion expressing the will of the Council that the Administration try to ensure that the ground floors of the parking structures have habitable space, and that the parking structures will be less than 8 stories tall was approved 7:0. Version B of the resolution, allowing the Mayor to execute the final agreements, was approved 7:0. I first voted for a failed motion to consider the resolution that would have allowed the Council to approve the final agreement. I just want to make sure we know what this deal will cost us, and that we aren't giving up too much relative to our liabilities that we are resolving.



Redevelopment Agency of Provo

10. Consideration of the proposed terms of agreement regarding a parking structure in downtown Provo (18-034)
    If the Council passes a resolution regarding agenda item 9, it also needs to be passed by the Redevelopment Agency of Provo. This is the flipside of the previous item. We would have to approve any resolution as the RDA board as well. Version B of the resolution, allowing the Agency CEO to execute the final agreements, was approved 6:0, with David Knecht excused. See the report for item 9.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 6 March 2018

The future of our City is being created, bit by bit, in these really boring Council meetings where City policy is decided. In Tuesday's meetings, we'll be discussing updates to our General Plan, considering the adoption of "Complete Street" policies, and deciding how to encourage better compliance with our zoning ordinances, along with a number of other important decisions. I invite everyone to pay attention and provide us feedback on these proposals.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, March 06, 2018

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. An update on the Victim Services Grant (18-028)
   The Provo Police Victim Services Division is mostly funded by local, State, and Federal grants. They are required (as part of the grant) to provide the Council with two updates per year on the grants. Victim Services presents every six months. It is always a sobering presentation. On one hand, it is heartbreaking that this division directly serves more than 1% of our residents each year. On the other, it is inspiring to see the professional and compassionate service that this dedicated team provides. Continued to a future Work Meeting.
2. A discussion on a proposal on reestablishing a youth council program (18-030)
   Provo City has had a youth council program in past years; however, due to a lack of funding, the program was put on hold. Last year, the Council approved $2,500 its budget to reestablish the program. Since then, volunteers from Communities that Care have offered to provide a volunteer to recruit and oversee students who could serve on a youth council. I'm grateful for the community help to get this program up and running. A motion to proceed with implementation of the youth council program was approved 5:0, with Kay Van Buren and George Stewart excused. The proposal is to use the rest of the school-year and the summer to recruit and set up the program for a kick-off at the start of the next school-year.
3. A presentation on the Police Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Police Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. It is good to be frugal. It is also good to properly fund the critical services that we depend on. By just about every measure, our police force is stretched too thin. They are doing a valiant job with the resources they are given, but the service-call load per officer is multiple times higher than surrounding communities. We need to support our police force better if we hope to keep the level of protection and service we currently enjoy. A motion that public safety is the Council’s top budget priority for the General Fund out of those budget presentation made to the Council thus far was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused. By every metric I'm aware of, our police force is understaffed and underfunded. An extensive outside review 6 years ago recommended having 120 officers. We are still at 105. We have fewer officers per capita than SLC, Orem, Sandy, Ogden, St George, and on and on. Even more worrisome to me is the average number of calls for service each officer receives on a shift. It is two to four times the averages in other Utah cities. I hear great stories from the community about the caring and professional service they've received from our police force. Sadly, our officers are burning out from all the forced overtime and the heavy workload. Some are choosing to leave to other cities. I also hear complaints about the lack of traffic enforcement in the City. Traffic enforcement is one of the first areas to be vacated when more serious calls come in. The frequency of automobile-related crashes has gone up as the time spent on traffic enforcement has gone down.
   
   Cheif Furgeson has requested eight new officers, five of whom would be assigned to traffic enforcement. The other three would be assigned to either gangs or cyber crimes. This represents a significant increase in funding, but I believe it is needed and more than justified. If we approve such an increase, I expect that the community would notice a significant improvement in traffic enforcement. And I expect that the metrics will also show a significant improvement as well.
4. A presentation on the Fire Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. The Fire Department will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. I am interested in an update on the status of the Fire Department, but I believe we are doing better keeping up with the operations and short-term maintenance, but there are some long-term capital expenses that we have fallen behind on. Presentation only. The Fire Department is better off on staffing levels. Their needs are more in facilities. Beyond the critical need for a new Public Safety building (which would be shared with our Police Department and Emergency Dispatch), there is a need to rebuild Provo City Fire Station #2.
5. A discussion on an appropriation for the Fire Department (18-031)
   The Fire Department recently received compensation for helping fight fires in other locations during the past year. The compensation is greater than what Provo’s Fire Department had to spend on these other fires. As a result, the Fire Department staff would like to use the excess money to purchase equipment that will help them fight wildfires in the future. There are different ways that this 'excess' money could be used. This seems like a reasonable way to use it. It will grow our capacity for future needs. Presentation only. This item was scheduled for the March 27, 2018 Council Meeting. I think this is another indication of the value we receive from our Fire Department. The "reimbursement" for the services rendered by our department were more than twice what we expended.
6. A presentation on the Innovation Program (18-029)
   As part of the FY2018 Budget, the Council approved $100,000 for an innovation program. The idea was that City employees could submit project proposals that would help improve City services and/or save money in the long run. The presentation will highlight the projects that received funding through the innovation program and how they were selected. There are many areas where I feel the City has erred on the side of saving pennies in ways that have cost us real dollars (see our crossing guard program). I love this program because it does the opposite. We are investing small amounts in pilot programs, some of which may fail, but collectively will save the City significant money while improving our services at the same time. Presentation only. The early results of this initiative have been remarkable. I know of a project that missed the cut but was deemed valuable enough by the department that they are shifting money around to fund it anyway.
7. A discussion on an amendment to the Provo City Code regarding recodification of the City Code. (18-033)
   In the past, the Provo City Code was not available online and was printed and distributed widely in a hardcopy format. Each year, a new volume of the City Code was published as the “Provo City Code, 2008 Edition,” the “Provo City Code, 2009 Edition,” etc. The first part of the code (Title1) would also be updated with the current volume’s year to say that the current version of the City Code superseded any previously codified version. Because the Provo City Code is primarily accessed online now, the Code can technically be updated after any Council meeting throughout a given year. As a result, staff are proposing that the Council alter the language of Title 1 to remove the year from the Title. This is a simple clean up; part of the transition from paper to electronic documents. A motion to place this item on the consent agenda for the next Council Meeting was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused.
8. A discussion on the General Plan update (18-032)
   Since December, Council members have been providing input on various updated drafts of the General Plan. With the support of the Policy Governance Committee, their feedback has been incorporated by staff into the most recent draft. The next step in updating the General Plan is to gather public feedback on the latest version. Staff will request Council’s permission to pursue public feedback on the current draft of the General Plan. This effort has consumed many, many hours of my time so far this year. And I still wasn't able to review the whole thing. We are making significant improvements. There has to be a balance between getting it done in a reasonable time period and making sure it is exactly right. I hope that the community will contribute significantly in the review and update effort. A motion to begin the public comment and outreach process was approved 6:0, with Kay Van Buren excused.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission




9. A discussion on a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. Items 9 and 10 are related and I will preview them together here. There is a housing shortage across the nation, throughout the state, and particularly here in Provo. We have an acute shortage of housing that meets the needs of married students. This acute need contributes to the market pressures that cause investors to buy up and sub-divide single-family-detached housing to rent (with varying degrees of legality). Our lack of married student housing is contributing to the housing shortage and instability in our neighborhoods.
   
   This proposed project would be a solid step in the right direction in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel the current proposal does not integrate well into the existing neighborhood. Part of the project fronts South State Street, where I think the scale and design are appropriate. But there is not a good transition or buffering as it interfaces with the community off of State. The second building is also four stories and is pushed back towards people's backyards. Instead of front doors and porches facing the second street (500 S), the neighbors are faced with a giant parking lot.
   
   I have received many concerned emails from nearby neighbors, have been in communication with the Maeser Neighborhood Chair, and attended the last Neighborhood Meeting to discuss this proposal. I also recently reached out to the applicant. I am hopeful that we can find a solution that will help address the housing shortages in Provo generally and will also be a boon to the immediate area.
   
   The Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommends limiting the height of the buildings to three stories (rather than the proposed four stories). This would likely reduce the number of units to 48. Continued to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting.


10. A discussion on a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the last item. Continued to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting.
11. A discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to extend the hours of operation from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
    This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Everyone seems to be okay with the scaled-back request. Staff supports it. The Planning Commission actually recommends extending the period until 9:00 pm. I still have some concerns about unintended consequences, particularly because the change will apply across the City. I am hopeful that my concerns can be allieviated. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the March 6, 2018 Council Meeting, but it was anticipated that it would be continued. It was apparent that these regulations need a thorough review.
12. A discussion on a proposal to adopt by resolution a Complete Streets Policy and incorporate said policy as an appendix to the General Plan. Citywide impact. (PLGPA20180028)
    This item was continued by Planning Commission but Community Development staff believe that the Complete Streets Policy is significant enough for Council to learn about, even before Planning Commission is prepared to make a recommendation. The goal is to make Council members aware and better prepared to make a decision on the Complete Streets Policy in future meetings. This is a major piece of legislation with long-lasting impacts. Community Development wants both the Planning Commission and the Council to hear it over two separate meeting cycles. Take a look at the Planning Commission Report of Action. I have never seen the Commission so eager to support and move something forward. It's almost comical, well as comical as a dry meeting report can be. But the thing is that I am just as eager. I'm chomping at the bit to get this implemented. It will greatly impact the long-term health of our community. Presentation only. Like the Planning Commission, I think we are ready to move forward with this.



Closed Meeting




13. 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
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 06, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation from Sarah Simons and Utah County Health Department regarding vaping.
Presentation only. The youth presenters did a great job explaining the harmful effects of vaping and pointing out the inconsistencies between the restrictions on smoking and vaping in public.
2. A presentation of the Golden Spoke Winter Bicycle Commuter Award
Presented by the Provo Bike Committee Presentation only. Congrats to Colby Sanford!
3. Presentation of the Employee of the Month for January 2018
Presentation only. Congrats to Robbie Lamb, our Utility Billing Manager, for being the Provo City Employee of the Month!
4. A presentation by the Covey Center of “Barefoot in the Park”
Presentation only. If you haven't seen a play in our Blackbox Theater, you are seriously missing out.


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.
We heard from Scott Tayson, Ben Free, and Diane Christensen. Ms. Christensen alerted the City to an abuse of a grading permit that was then investigated and shut down.



Action Agenda

5. ***CONTINUED***A resolution to adopt the Complete Streets Policy as a component of the Provo City General Plan. (PLGPA20180028)
   This was continued by the Planning Commission so it is not ready to be formally heard by the Council.
6. ***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending requirements for street access into buildings in the General Downtown (DT1) and Downtown Core (DT2) zones. Downtown, Timp, Joaquin, North Park, Maeser, Franklin, and Dixon Neighborhoods. (PLOTA20180032)
   This was continued by the Planning Commission so it is not ready to be formally heard by the Council.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.18 (Fire Alarm Regulations) and Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to prevent over-frequency of false alarms. (17-133)
   This is the result of an in-depth review of Fire Department fees and it was recommended that a False Alarm Fee be added in order to strengthen enforcement of fire alarm regulations and prevent the frequent occurrence of false alarms. There is also a proposed amendment to Provo City Code regarding fire alarms that details the circumstances where a fee would be charged as well as the regulations regarding alarms. I've written about this for the 5 Dec 2017 meeting: "Some business owners have faulty fire alarm systems that frequently call out the Fire Department. Because there is no charge for the Fire Department responding to alarms, these business owners have no motivation (besides common decency) to fix their system and end these false alarms. The proposal is to start charging fees after THREE false alarms in a year. The Department is also requesting that commercial fire alarms be registered with the City, including a 24-hour contact person." Approved 7:0
8. An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding major home occupations. Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
   This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. See my preview for item 11 in the earlier meeting. A motion to continue this item to the March 27, 2018 Work Meeting was approved 7:0. As I wrote earlier, "It was apparent that these regulations need a thorough review."
9. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the minimum number of residential units giving rise to a requirement for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. I think I will support this. From last time, "Other zones for low-density, medium-density, and high-density residential, as well as the Campus Mixed Use zone all have similar amenity space requirements, but only for projects with 20 or more units. Only DT1 and DT2 require it for projects with 5 or more units. I'm interested in the rationale for these requirements at all, and why the threshold of 5 was selected in the first place."
   
   I have heard early reports on the Staff's investigation, and look forward to the discussion in the meeting. Approved 7:0 Five units was selected originally because anything less isn't considered an apartment building. I agree that a threshold of 20 makes more sense.
10. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Shopping Center (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
    This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. This had a first hearing at the February 20 Council meeting and was continued to allow for more input and review. This is what I wrote after the first hearing two weeks ago:"Dental labs are what they sound like, they make dental prostheses. They don't sell to the public. They would not add vibrancy to shopping centers, but compared to a vacancy, it could keep a shopping center viable. The Planning Commission recommended approval."
    
    I will probably vote for this, but I'm not thrilled about it. If we aren't restricting our shopping centers to shopping then what else should we allow in? Continued prior to meeting.
11. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
    This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. See the preview for Item 9 in the earlier meeting. Continued prior to meeting.
12. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview for Item 9 in the earlier meeting. Continued prior to meeting.
13. An ordinance amending the previously enacted Ordinance 2017-51 regarding rental contracts. (17-104)
    In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance about rental law. In January 2018, the Council revisited the ordinance after several revisions were proposed. Since then, the Zoning Committee has considered the proposed revisions and would now like to recommend an updated version of the ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Some of the revisions include:
    • Changing the effective date from March 1st, 2018 to August 1st, 2018.
    • Changing the title from “Contract Required” to “Rental Disclosure Required.”
    • Adding “or lessor’s agent,” throughout in order to handle the property manager issue.
    • Adding an affirmative defense if the lessee has requested the disclosure in writing but has not been provided it.
    • Adding “acknowledging the lease of the property” to (4)(d).
    • Adding back language regarding “reasonable cause” to subsection (5).
    From my last preview of this issue, "I still think there needs to be a way to link the landlord to the current tenants in the case of a sublease where the original lessee is unavailable (out of town). And, because disclosures should be made before contracts are signed and not afterwards, I think the penalty should be a civil fine, imposed as soon as the violation is found (and repeated until the disclosures are properly signed), rather the standard penalty and process that is used for zoning violations. The standard process is for violators to be given 30 days to come into compliance, if they do, there is no penalty. If this is the process that we use for the disclosure requirements, I fear that few of the disclosures will be given at the time of the contract and people will just wait until Zoning Enforcement contacts them."
    
    From my last report of this issue, "I am willing to support this proposal, even though I feel that more improvements can be made. I requested that we consider these additional changes if we find that ordinance isn't having as much of an impact as we would like once it is implemented and we gain some experience with it." Approved 7:0. I felt that the original version was too blunt and burdensome on those who willingly comply without sufficiently motivating compliance from people willing to break the law. I feel that this version removes much of the unnecessary burden, but still inadequately motivates compliance.
    
    I did get a verbal agreement in the meetings from my fellow councilors to revisit this issue in the future if we find that it does not achieve its intended results.

Adjournment

Council Meetings - 20 February 2018

***Update: I posted the time stamps in the Results of each item to make it easy to watch the item. Here are the slides that were presented in the Work Meeting. It has slides for the Wastewater, Stormwater, and Rental Law items.***

Provo has had a lot of good news lately. We are continually being recognized nationally for everything from our volunteerism to our quality of life and from our economy to how well the City is managed. I get the feeling that we'll be getting some bad news on Tuesday and that we will have some difficult and painful decisions to make. Over the decades, Provo City has done a great job keeping our taxes, fees, and rates very low. But we haven't always been great at properly saving for and reinvesting in our infrastructure. We've been playing catch up for a few years now, but I don't think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

In addition to the infrastructure items, I imagine that there will be interest in the Kiwanis-Bounous Park item and the Rental Contract Disclosure item.

As always, thanks to the stellar Council Staff who coordinate and assemble the agendas and documents, and prepare the background information. Really only the Previews and Reports (once they are written) are my own work.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 2018

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 motion to reschedule the March 20th meetings
   Precinct caucuses for upcoming elections have been scheduled for the evening of March 20. In order to allow participation in these caucus meetings, it is being proposed that the March 20 Council meetings be moved to another date. Council staff recommend moving the meetings to March 27. I know that the precinct caucuses for the Republican Party are being held that night. I couldn't find the dates for the United Utah Party caucuses or the Democratic Party caucuses. Do any other parties hold caucuses in our County? (Video) A motion to reschedule the March 20, 2018 Work & Council Meetings for March 27, 2018 was approved 6:0, with Council member George Stewart excused. It looks like the local caucuses for the Republican, United Utah, and Democratic parties will all be held that night.
2. A presentation and discussion on wastewater planning (17-131)
   A decision needs to be made regarding Provo City’s wastewater infrastructure, specifically regarding the wastewater treatment plant. The Public Works Department will present information regarding potential issues relative to the treatment plant and development on the west side of Provo. Our current wastewater treatment facility is half-century old and maintenance costs are increasing. New regulations are coming which would be very expensive to meet at our current facility. Public Works is exploring various options for the next half-century. We need to wisely select which path we'll take. None of the paths will easy or cheap. (Video) Presentation only. The options were more refined and I think we are narrowing in on the right choices. If we build a new plant, one option is to bond for the whole thing now. The financing costs are high, but we lock in the low rates which takes out much of the uncertainty. Also, the hard decision is made now and we don't have to just trust that future Councils will follow through with the plan. The other option is to build it in phases. Bonding will still be needed, but in smaller amounts and for shorter periods (5 years vs. 30 years). This option has greater risk, but likely avoids significant financing costs. There is also the option to do a major renovation of the current treatment plant. The upfront costs are lower, but some of the basic infrastructure is not feasible to replace on the fly. If we decide to go with a new plant, we will need to select from a few possible sites. Anyway we go, we'll need to double our sewer rates. It will be painful. Instead of thinking of as needing to pay high rates in the future, see the perspective that we've been underpaying for decades.
3. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to fund the demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Why were the costs of asbestos abatement not anticipated? Were other bids received? Did the other bids anticipate asbestos removal? Did the accepted bid win because it didn't include these costs? Are we legally responsible to chip in the extra money? Are we morally obligated? What if we vote to not appropriate the extra funds? (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I can't say I fully understood how this all transpired even after the presentation and lots of questions. Only part of the job was bid out. The other was handled by our partner in the project. If we don't appropriate the additional money then we will be left with a large hole.
4. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to the Housing Consortium Fund to pay for approved self-help projects. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. This sounds like a simple book-keeping issue, but I hope to understand it better after the presentation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Yes, this is pretty much to fix some bookkeeping mistakes.
5. A discussion on revisions to the rental law ordinance (17-104)
   In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance about rental law. In January 2018, the Council revisited the ordinance after several revisions were proposed. Since then, the Zoning Committee has considered the proposed revisions and would now like to recommend an updated version of the ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Some of the revisions include:
   • Changing the effective date from March 1st, 2018 to August 1st, 2018.
   • Changing the title from “Contract Required” to “Rental Disclosure Required.”
   • Adding “or lessor’s agent,” throughout in order to handle the property manager issue.
   • Adding an affirmative defense if the lessee has requested the disclosure in writing but has not been provided it.
   • Adding “acknowledging the lease of the property” to (4)(d).
   • Adding back language regarding “reasonable cause” to subsection (5).
   It sounds like the committee has made some good progress. I know this is a tough issue. I still think there needs to be a way to link the landlord to the current tenants in the case of a sublease where the original lessee is unavailable (out of town). And, because disclosures should be made before contracts are signed and not afterwards, I think the penalty should be a civil fine, imposed as soon as the violation is found (and repeated until the disclosures are properly signed), rather the stardard penalty and process that is used for zoning violations. The standard process is for violators to be given 30 days to come into compliance, if they do, there is no penalty. If this is the process that we use for the disclosure requirements, I fear that few of the disclosures will be given at the time of the contract and people will just wait until Zoning Enforcement contacts them. (Video) Presentation only. This item will be scheduled for the March 6, 2018 Council Meeting. I explained that I am willing to support this proposal, even though I feel that more improvements can be made. I requested that we consider these additional changes if we find that ordinance isn't having as much of an impact as we would like once it is implemented and we gain some experience with it.
6. A discussion on the Storm Water Master Plan and Design (18-026)
   The Storm Water Division operates and maintains Provo City’s storm drains year-round to minimize flooding and water pollution within the city. The Storm Water Master Plan provides an overview of the various state and federal regulations that must be met and outlines the City’s efforts to plan, develop, implement, and enforce a plan that will satisfy those requirements. No associated documents were submitted so I'm not sure what the purpose of the discussion will be. (Video) Presentation only.
   
   Public Works gave us a hands-on demonstration about how the volume and rate of stormwater affects the capacity of our system.
   
   Most cities design their stormwater infrastructure so that it can handle a "10-year" storm without flooding. Provo designed ours for a "25-year" storm. Sounds good, right? But we also used a rain profile that is different than other cities, perhaps because we were one of the earliest to adopt these standards and they got to learn from our mistakes. Their profiles show a sharper spike while ours is more distributed across time. The end result is that our 25-year storm system has less capacity than their 10-year storm capacity. Public Works is still early in the process, but they will likely be proposing that we create more retension basins to protect from flooding when our stormwater system is overwhelmed.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. Other zones for low-density, medium-density, and high-density residential, as well as the Campus Mixed Use zone all have similar amenity space requirements, but only for projects with 20 or more units. Only DT1 and DT2 require it for projects with 5 or more units. I'm interested in the rationale for these requirements at all, and why the threshold of 5 was selected in the first place.
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. I think this is a good idea, but I still want to understand why this regulation was originally put into place and why our thinking has changed. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
8. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. What are dental labs? Do they sell product or services from the lab? If not, why would we want them in a Community Shopping Center zone? (And why is dental labs and drug rehabilitation lumped into the same "land use" code?)
   
   Staff are recommending approval. No report of action for the Planning Commission was included, so I don't know their recommendation. (Video) Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. Dental labs are what they sound like, they make dental prostheses. They don't sell to the public. They would not add vibrancy to shopping centers, but compared to a vacancy, it could keep a shopping center viable. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
9. A presentation on the Redevelopment and Economic Development Departments and potential budget requests. (18-005)
   These presentations are in anticipation of the budget for the next fiscal year. At a Priorities Retreat in January, the Council identified retail in Provo as an area they would like to tackle. The Economic Development and Redevelopment Departments in Provo City will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals. We are receiving presentations for a number of departments (and offices and agencies). This presentation may be a little different because of our newly selected "Big Goal" of retail. (Video) Presentation only. They are not asking for additional money this year, but things may come up that they will ask for our support on. We did bring up the issue that we have been giving a lot of tax-increment incentives lately. The School District limits how much they will participate in property-tax-increment incentives to 5% of what they collect. We are pretty much at that limit. The last couple of deals have been sales-tax-increment in which only the City participates.



Closed Meeting

10. 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
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Approval of Minutes
Approved by unanimous consent.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. Presentation of the Employee of the Month for February 2018
(Video) Presentation only. Congrats to Karyn Walker of our Legal Department!


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.
(Video)



Consent Agenda

2. A resolution appropriating $284,295 in the New Development Fund for funding demolition and construction of Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block) and applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (17-106)
   Council, acting as the Redevelopment Governing Board, previously authorized funds for demolition of the former R.C. Willey building and others on Block 90 to facilitate construction of a temporary parking lot. This appropriation is to cover additional unexpected expenses. Depending on how the discussion goes in the earlier Work Meeting (item 3), I may be requesting that this item be removed from the consent agenda. See my preview for item 3 above. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 3 in the earlier meeting.
3. A resolution appropriating $228,670 in the Housing Consortium Fund for funding self-help projects applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. (18-025)
   In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request for reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.
   
   After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects. See my preview for item 4 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Approved 7:0. See the report for item 4 in the earlier meeting.



Action Agenda

4. A resolution authorizing the Mayor of Provo City Corporation to negotiate and execute a Sales Tax Increment Reimbursement Agreement between Provo City Corporation and Woodside Capital Partners, LLC. (18-021)
   This was presented at the Council’s work meeting on February 6, 2018.
   
   The Economic Development Department is proposing a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts.
   
   The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. We heard this in our Work Meeting on February 6th. Please read my preview and report on item four here. (Video) Approved 7:0. I chose to vote for this, but made it clear that I'm concerned about how much we are giving away and that we should be very judicious in what projects we incentivize.
5. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 6.18 (Fire Alarm Regulations) and Provo City Consolidated Fee Schedule to prevent over-frequency of false alarms. (17-133)
   This is the result of an in-depth review of Fire Department fees and it was recommended that a False Alarm Fee be added in order to strengthen enforcement of fire alarm regulations and prevent the frequent occurrence of false alarms. There is also a proposed amendment to Provo City Code regarding fire alarms that details the circumstances where a fee would be charged as well as the regulations regarding alarms. We last discussed this issue in the 5 December 2017 Work Meeting. Please read my preview on item three here. (Video) Continued by unanimous consent. The Fire Department was not ready to present.
6. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)
   This is a request to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that requires new developments that have more than five units to provide ten percent of the gross floor area as amenity space. This would change the minimum of five units to twenty units for this requirement to apply. See my preview for item 7 in the earlier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 7 in the earlier meeting.
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a permitted use in the Community Commercial (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)
   This is a request to add dental labs as a permitted use in this zone. The current code allows for dental offices are listed, but not dental labs. The Standard Land Use (SLU) code 6515 normally consists of dental labs and drug rehabilitation. Since drug rehabilitation is not one of the uses being requested, it will be listed as SLU 6515 - Dental Lab Only. See my report for item 8 in the ealier meeting. (Video) Continued due to Council Rules. Council rules say that we can only vote on a land use item during its first public Council meeting if the Planning Commission's Report of Action is published by 6pm on the previous Thursday. This didn't happen. See my report for item 8 in the earlier meeting.
8. A resolution to place approximately 12.33 acres of real property, generally located at 3278 North Timpview Drive on the surplus property list. Edgemont Neighborhood. (18-018)
   This resolution is to place the Timp-Kiwanis Park property on the surplus property list to allow it to be sold.
   
   Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) experts have indicated that this property is being increasingly used for Provo School District operations, which is inconsistent with LWCF requirements. Over the past year the Parks and Recreation Department has been working with Clegg Consult and the State to remove the LWCF designation on Timp-Kiwanis Park. Upon approval of this conversion, Parks and Recreation proposes that the property is surplussed and sold to Provo School District, who needs the property to meet Title IX requirements. A compromise has been negotiated which would allow for the change of ownership while working with the community to maintain the property as a community park. The proceeds of the purchase are required to be used to purchase land only. This one has been in the works for a while. Sometimes I wonder if everything that can be said has already been said. Here is my preview of the item from 364 days ago (21 Feb 2017): "Bounous Park is adjacent to Timpview High. The school would like to purchase it in order to build a softball field on campus. Many neighbors are concerned about losing access to a nearby park. The School District has worked with neighbors to try to address their concerns and to find a solution that works for both the school and the community. One complicating factor is that the park property was originally purchased with LWCF monies. This presents significant hurdles before it can be sold. The money generated by the sale must be used to create a new park." (Video) Approved 5:2, with Council members David Sewell and David Knecht opposed. This was a three-hour item. With the School District's commitment to maintain community access to the property, the acceleration of the development of a new park just a couple blocks to the north, and a completely new park that must be created as part of the conversion process, this deal has the potential to be a true "win-win" situation. The biggest concern of the residents is whether the School District will live up to their commitment. I live across the street from an elementary school and a block away from a middle school. I know that the District isn't always the best neighbor. I ascribe this to their primary focus of providing the best education they can to our students -- community relations is sometimes an afterthought. I understand the neighbors' concern. One difference is that there will be an interlocal agreement between the District and the City. I am hopeful that not only will this improve their performance at this location, but all across the City.



Adjournment

Council Meetings - 6 February 2018

The agenda for the Work Meeting seems pretty heavy, whereas the Council Meeting agenda is fairly light. Sometimes agenda items come with all of the material that will be presented already in the document packet, sometimes there are no associated documents. Most items being heard tomorrow only have a descriptive paragraph, which makes it harder to give a meaningful preview.

I'd say that the most interesting items are the two requests for less-common tax-increment incentives, the proposed apartment complex on South State Street, and the proposed changes to the major home occupation regulations.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

12:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 2018

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. An introduction of Karen Larsen, recommended Director of Customer Service (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. This will be voted on in the regular Council meeting. Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting She'll (continue to) do great.
2. A presentation on the Provo Library and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. I served on the Library Board last year so I'm more aware of their challenges and budgetary needs than I would be otherwise. If you haven't checked out the library and the many services and events that they offer, you are missing out. Presentation only. The Library is funded through a separate property tax levy that residents voted for decades ago. The tax rate has fallen ever since then, due to (basically) inflation. They are still making the budget work and are properly maintaining their assets. The Library is an important part of our community and serves us well.
3. A presentation on the Administrative Services Department and potential budget requests (18-005)
   The Council has asked to hear from various departments and have them share information on likely budget requests in advance of receiving the tentative Provo City budget in May. This is similar to the last item, except I am not as familiar with what is going on in this department. Presentation only. I was impressed by the breadth that this department covers: Information Services, Justice Court, Recorder's Office, Facilities, Human Resouces, and Finance. I hope I didn't miss anything.
4. A discussion on a post-performance sales tax increment agreement at East Bay Shopping Center (18-021)
   The Economic Development Department will present an overview and proposal for a potential sales tax increment agreement with the new owners of the East Bay Shopping Center in order to provide retail incentives to offset certain costs in attracting new tenants to the shopping center. The new owners will be present at the meeting to answer questions. The purpose is to work with the new property owners of the East Bay Shopping Center to create an incentive agreement to backfill historically vacant storefronts. The model for this incentive would be similar to that used at the Parkway Village located on University Parkway. The agreement would allow the owners to recoup up to half of their out-of-pocket expenses and then share additional tax revenue if additional time remains on the term of the agreement, up to actual costs. Development and commercial incentives can be powerful tools to create aspects of the community that wouldn't otherwise exist. The right incentive can create the right development or bring in the right anchor which draws in additional development or offerings. Done right, incentives return far more value than they cost. Done poorly, they simply increase the profit margin for a project that was going to happen anyway or displace another project that would have happened, that may have been more viable. The difficulty is in differentiating between the two. Savvy business leaders will make the case for why incentives are needed, whether they are or not.
   
   We approved an incentive for Parkway Village a year ago to help offset the cost of moving a building that allowed for a reconfiguration of an intersection. I believe we were told that the Provo used last used a sales-tax increment incentive 20 years ago. Now we are considering one a year later. Is this really a tool that we should be using more often? Presentation only. This item will be heard at the February 20, 2018 Council Meeting. As I mentioned in the preview, I think tax increment incentives should not be over-used. We need to use them surgically to get the maximum impact at the lowest cost to the City coffers. When I tried to probe during the meeting I was reminded (rightly so because I had forgotten) that months ago the Council broadly signaled that we would be open to this kind of financing to attract the right kind of anchor to the area.
   During the discussion, an industry player stated that they operate up and down the Wasatch Front and estimated that 85% of localities are offering these types of incentives. He said this to assure the Council that we are not considering something that is unusual. But this is one of the main reasons that I struggle with the almost ubiquitous use of tax-increment incentives. If no one offers them then everyone is level in this regard. If 15% of cities offer them then those 15% really stand out and attract a lot of interest. If 85% offer them then it is the remaining 15% that stand out (and not in a good way) and are ignored by developers and brokers. If 100% of localities offer incentives then nobody stands out and everyone is level again. So what's the difference between 0% and 100%? Millions and millions of dollars are diverted away from the services cities provide.
   
   I absolutely believe that tax-increment financing is an important tool, when used correctly. I don't believe Provo is at fault in the over-use and zero-sum arms race with other communities. We are just starting to play catch up. Instead of trying to outcompete other cities by giving away more than they can, I hope we can be part of the solution in restoring some sanity in this area by cooperating with surrounding communities.
5. A discussion on aid to Construction Transfer Funding (18-024)
   An existing Provo Power customer is interested in expanding a data center in Provo, but requires a substantial amount of work to build up the electrical system for their needs. Because of the positive impact to the electrical system and the added economic benefit, the staff of the Energy Department has met with the City Administration to discuss options to encourage businesses such as this in the city but also address the possible budget risk. The solution recommended by the Energy Board is to fund upgrade costs for potential high load factor commercial customers by utilizing the 11% general fund revenue transfer. The contract would be for specific customers with a high load factor and paid under a specific term length. Speaking of obscure incentives, I've never heard of using a tax-increment incentive against the portion of our utility fees that are directed into our General Fund. The argument is that if this local business expands here, they will be using significantly more energy, which will help fund our General Fund, so it is in Provo's best interest to offer the incentive to ensure they expand here, rather than relocating somewhere else. On the flipside, if they are going to expand here with or without the incentive, then offering the incentive is just giving away future fees that would have helped fund the City. Presentation only. I feel better about this one because it targets a very particular type of customer who has a utilization rate over 90% (which means they cost the system little compared to the amount that they pay for their electricity). The incentive will be repaid in under two years.
6. A discussion on tools for implementing Westside Policies (17-129)
   At the November 14th Work Meeting, the Council discussed potential Westside policies (TDRs, open-space subdivisions, PDRs, etc.) The takeaway from that meeting was that Community Development staff would develop a land use map and survey farmland-owners on the west side, with the intent to return for a presentation at a Work Meeting in February. Gary McGinn and Bill Peperone have indicated that they are prepared to report their findings to the Council. I am looking forward to the findings, stay tuned for the report of what they actually are. Presentation only. The owners of the land marked in red have indicated that they would like to develop their land within the next five years. Land in green indicates that the owners plan to farm for another 10 years or more.
   
7. An update on affordable housing in Provo (18-023)
   Robert Vernon, Provo Housing Authority, will be proposing that the City and the Housing Authority develop a closer relationship/partnership to promote housing development for different market needs from starter homes to affordable housing. He will inform the Council about the Housing Authority’s current business and future plans and provide information on the state of the workforce housing market. I am looking forward to the presentation and the proposal, stay tuned to find out what will be proposed. Presentation only. Mr. Vernon proposed we develop a closer working relationship and consider some additional tools that the State has allowed cities to authorize housing authorities to use. I believe the City needs a clear articulable vision for what we are trying to achieve in our housing efforts.
8. A presentation on a project proposal for improvements on the south-side hill of Grandview South Neighborhood (18-022)
   The Grandview South Neighborhood is proposing a project to improve a hillside in their area. They are targeting some safety issues as well as appearance. They plan to apply for a matching grant through the Neighborhood Program but think additional funding might be needed. There is a good description of why the project is wanted, but without a map, I'm not exactly sure which hill is being discussed. One question to ask is whether the property is public or private. Presentation only. The hill of interest is north of the round-about on 820 North near Provo College. The land we are talking about is owned by Provo City.
   
   This project will cost a significant amount of money. This is an example of why I feel we need to implement a budgeting for priorities framework. There is no question that this is a good project. But how does it compare with other good projects competing for funding? What project gets cut to do this? Or do we raise taxes to do it?
9. A presentation on the Provo City Charitable Giving Campaign
   Presentation only. Karen Tapahe is leading the campaign for our office. The goal this year is 100% participation. I think we can do it.



Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission



10. Tim Soffe requests a General Plan Map Amendment from Commercial to Residential for 1.52 acres of land located at 490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood (17-0002GPA)
    This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
11. Tim Soffe requests a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) to High Density Residential (HDR) for 1.92 acres of land located at 422-490 South State Street. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
    This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting.
12. John & Lara Johnson request Zoning Ordinance amendments to Section 14.41 Major Home Occupations to increase the number of students from 6 to 16 and to extend the hours of operation from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Citywide Impact (17-0025OA)
    This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow. This item was already been scheduled at the February 6, 2018 Council Meeting. A motion to continue the evening discussion and return the item to the Planning Commission for review was Approved 7:0. The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation.



Closed Meeting



13. 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
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
• Neighborhood Spotlight: Joaquin Neighborhood
• Approval of Minutes

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.
1. A presentation on the Mayor's Award of Excellence
   Presentation only. Nedra Bell was recognized for decades of volunteer service improving mental health education in Provo. Read the Mayor's tweet.
2. A presentation of the 2017 Employee of the Year
   Presentation only. Officer Bushman, of the Provo City Police Department, was recognized as the Outstanding Employee of the Year.



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. We had a number of commenters this time. We were invited to the Provo Girls Summit (Marth 8th), lobbied to vote against some proposed apartments, and thanked for some recent sidewalk improvements.



Action Agenda

3. A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of Karen Larsen as the Director Of Customer Service for Provo City. (18-020)
   An ordinance was passed on January 23, 2018, creating the Department of Customer Service. It was previously a division under the Mayor’s office. Mayor Kaufusi is recommending the appointment of the current division head, Karen Larsen, as the department director. Consent of the Council is required for these appointments. From item 1 in the above meeting: "Ms. Larsen has worked for Provo City for almost 30 years and aptly lead the Customer Service Division through its transition to the point now where it is ready to become its own department. I have full confidence in her." Approved 7:0. As I said above, "She'll (continue to) do great."
4. An ordinance amending Provo City Code to clean up inconsistencies and correct references to the Residential Design Standards. City-Wide Impact. 17-0024OA
   Planning staff observed some inconsistencies in residential design standards and prepared this amendment to clarify design regulations. Council heard this amendment at the January 23, 2018, Council meeting and requested information on how this would affect organizations like NeighborWorks and Habitat for Humanity that build homes for low-income recipients. This was heard two weeks ago. Community Development should be returning with additional builder feedback. A motion to send this item back to the Planning Commission after staff revises the design standards in light of affordability concerns was Approved 6:1, with Council member Kay Van Buren opposed. I liked how the motion was first worded, for the Planning Commission to weigh in on the revised design standard proposal, particularly in regards to affordability and quality.
   
   I appreciate Community Development's efforts to reach out to builders for feedback and their willingness to listen and incorporate the feedback. I also hope that they balance the needs for quality and for affordability. I believe that standards that raise the cost of construction by $1 don't necessarily make the project $1 more expensive. Some of that $1 will come out of the cost of land. Land values are dynamic and are based on the profit that can be made from developing or redeveloping the land.
5. A resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation for property generally located at 490 South State Street from Commercial to Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0002GPA)
   This is a request to change the General Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential. The property previously had a greenhouse business and the applicant would like to build a 64-unit apartment complex in its place. From item 9 in the earlier meeting, "We have heard from the prospective neighbors who do not want this project to happen or who are asking for changes to the proposal. Community Development Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval, contingent on one of the neighborhood requested changes. Looking that the site plan, I don't like the giant parking lot fronting the neighborhood street with one of the buildings fronting the backyards of existing neighbors." CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
6. An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 1.92 acres of real property, generally located at 422-490 South State Street, from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Maeser Neighborhood. (17-0010R)
   This is a request to rezone a property to High Density Residential (HDR) to facilitate the construction of a 64-unit apartment complex. See the preview of the previous item. CONTINUED to the March 6, 2018 Work Meeting As I reported earlier, "The applicant requested the delay. It was not discussed in the meeting."
7. An ordinance amending Provo City Code Section 14.41.060 (Major Home Occupations). Citywide Impact. (17-0025OA)
   This is a request to change the limitations for Major Home Occupations, increasing the maximum allowed students from 6 to 16 and extending the business hours involving an outside employee from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. From item 11 in the earlier meeting, "It appears that this proposal has the support of the neighbors, which is really important. The difficulty is that the requested ordinance change would affect the whole city and doesn't have the support of the broader community because of what else it would potentially allow." During the February 6, 2018 Work Meeting, this item was continued. As I reported earlier, "The applicants made a significant change to the request after it had been reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission (and received a negative recommendation). Before deciding on the merits of the new request, we would like Staff and the Planning Commission to review it and update their recommendation."

Adjournment