Representing District 5

Monday, October 7, 2019

Council Meetings - 8 October 2019

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

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

Business

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

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

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

Closed Meeting

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

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

A proclamation welcoming students from Provo's sister city Meissen, Germany
We enjoy a warm relationship with our sister city, and are enriched by the cultural exchange. Presentation only. It's fun to see all of the teachers and students from Meissen and their host families from Provo. It's also fun to see fellow councilors break out their rusty German.
A presentation on the Public Information Organization for Provo City and recognition of Nisha King as the recipient of the Communicator of the Year Award by the Utah Public Information Officers Association (19-106)
It's great to see the great work of our fine officers recognized by outside groups. Presentation only. Sargent King is a class act in whatever role she takes on in the Police Department.
A spotlight on the Downtown Neighborhood
The Downtown Neighborhood recently elected its first co-chair representing residents. Presentation only. This is an important step as the Downtown Neighborhood welcomes more and more residents into the mix.
Public Comment
- This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
- For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
- For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Action Agenda
An ordinance amending the General Plan designation of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Commercial (C) to Residential (R). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190251)
This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. Continued by Council rules to the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. It was obvious that the applicant and the neighborhood had long been in discussions. It felt like they were 95% of the way to an agreement, but the neighborhood objected to a couple of specifics in the development agreement. Hopefully, they can get everything ironed out over the next three weeks.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.34 acres of real property, generally located at 1900 North Canyon Road, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Pleasant View Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190227)
This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. See my preview for item 4 in the work meeting. Continued by Council rules to the Council Meeting on October 29, 2019. See the report for the previous item.
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding Accessory Apartments. Citywide application. (PLOTA20190120)
This item was heard and continued by the Council in the Council Meeting on June 18, 2019. Council staff recently published explanations of the proposed code changes. We've been working on this for a long time. My only remaining question is in regards to defining an accessory apartment as a separate unit. I think this makes sense with detached accessory apartments (which are being proposed) but I'm not so sure about attached accessories which are regulated to be easily convertible back into extra space in the primary unit. A motion to substitute a revised ordinance for the version referenced by the implied motion was approved, after which the item was approved 7:0. We had a couple of people express how excited they were to build an accessory apartment in their backyards. They were disappointed when they learned that this change only affects areas that are under the A and S overlays. I believe it would be healthy for more neighborhoods to opt into these overlays.
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to place over-occupancy on the list of Nuisances. (19-094)
Because of Council establishing zoning compliance as one of their top priorities, various ideas have been put forward for discussion. One idea is to possibly add over-occupancy to the listing in City Code for nuisances. If over occupancy is defined as a nuisance then it can be pursued in civil court rather than just criminal court. If we are going to have laws, then it is reasonable to expect people to follow them. This change will make it easier to enforce the laws we already have. Approved 7:0. This was described as a tool that will be effective against the few landlords who blatantly flaunt occupancy rules and serially over-occupy despite enforcement efforts.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 4 regarding personnel policies in Title 4. (19-082)
As the Administration was preparing for implementing changes to leave policies that were proposed with the annual budget this year, we noted a number of inconsistencies between current practices and some older provisions of the Municipal Code in Title 4. Many of the personnel provisions in Title 4 are no longer in alignment with standard personnel policies and administrative practices and are somewhat antiquated. I'm comfortable that this proposal gives the Administration the flexibility that they were looking for and preserves the Council oversight needed for effective checks and balances. Approved 7:0. This is a good update and a good compromise.
A resolution designating the Director of Community and Neighborhood Services Department of Provo City as the Certifying Officer as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (19-103)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that someone be appointed at Provo City’s Certifying Officer in regards to HUD programs. With the recent reorganization of departments it was necessary to make this designation clear. This is just part of the reorganization. Approved 7:0. Dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s.
***CONTINUED***An ordinance amending the General Plan regarding a designation change from Residential (R) to Commercial (C) for approximately 1.2 acres of real property, generally located at 1009 W 2000 N. Carterville Neighborhood. (PLGPA20190191)
This was not ready to be heard.
***CONTINUED*** An ordinance amending the Zone Map Classification of approximately 1.2 acres, generally located at 1009 West 2000 North, from Residential Conservation (RC) to General Commercial (CG). Carterville Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190192)
This was not ready to be heard.

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

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

Adjournment

Monday, September 23, 2019

Council Meetings - 24 September 2019

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

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

Business

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

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

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

Business

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

Closed Meeting

None requested.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

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

Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjournment

Monday, September 9, 2019

Council Meetings - 10 September 2019

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

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

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

Business

A discussion regarding sewer capacity west of I-15 and a consideration of options. (19-085)
For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.

With a number of forces at work, many land owners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.

Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and land owners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.

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

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

**CONTINUED** A discussion regarding an amendment to Provo City Code Section 14.34.295 to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
As Community Development has processed applications for new development in the zones to which the design standards apply, staff has identified multiple ways in which the Downtown Development Design Standards (the standards), could be improved to better facilitate quality development. The current design standards, while having served well since their inception, contain some elements that are unclear or have led to multiple conflicting interpretations. Also, some numerical standards have also been shown through experience to be too high or too low. Lastly, staff has found regulatory areas that needed to be addressed more thoroughly, added in whole to the standards. The proposed amendment completely replaces the entirety of Section 13.34.295. The revisions add significant clarity and new regulation in the areas of Ground Floor Treatment, Massing, Architectural Detail, Parking, Access and Site Design, and broader area wide design elements including open space and pedestrian linkages. Also added are special standards for the Startup District and Center Street areas.

Planning Commission continued this to their September 11 meeting.
A discussion regarding a request for a Provo City Code amendment to Section 15.03.035 to add clarification to grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
The Council Office has requested an amendment to Section 15.03.035 of the Provo City Code to require project plan approval when cutting is involved as part of a grading permit except for when the permits related to the development of detached one-family dwellings. Having a project plan application be required before this type of grading is permitted will help ensure that all necessary departments are aware of grading work and what the purpose is for the request.

Planning Commission recommended approval. It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago. A motion to substitute for the exhibit the version that included the word ‘cubic’ and the proposed language “other than a permit related only to the development of a single detached one-family dwelling” was approved 7:0. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was passed in the evening meeting. See my report there.
A discussion regarding an ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
Upon reviewing Provo City's Bicycle Master Plan, Parking and Sustainability Coordinator Austin Taylor found need to apply its suggestions regarding bicycle parking to Provo City code. The master plan calls for improving the design and increasing the amount of bike parking in Provo City by making a minimum amount required as is done with car parking. This proposed ordinance text amendment creates a standard for design and quantity of bicycle parking for new developments. The Planning Commission recommended approval. If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on September 10, 2019. This was continued in the evening meeting. See my report there.

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

A resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Energy Department to the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements related to the new Airport terminal. (19-088)
Public Works will need to install sewer improvements on the west side of the City in order to meet the requirements of a new Airport terminal. In order to meet the required timelines for terminal construction short term financial assistance is needed, which is available from the Energy Fund by means of an inter-fund loan. This short term $4 million loan would meet requirements of Utah State Code and would be repaid in full with interest. This is a short term (6-month likely, 12-month max) loan that allows a construction team that is already in West Provo to move directly into this project, rather than being sent home and asked to come back in 6 months when the new fiscal year begins. Approved 7:0. This was a smart move that reduces the cost of the project.
A resolution appropriating $4 million in the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements on the west side of Provo City, including at the airport, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. (19-096)
An Interfund Loan has been proposed where Energy is intending to loan Wastewater $4 million to accomplish necessary Wastewater infrastructure relative to the new Provo City Airport Terminal. This project has multiple stakeholders and because we have received both Utah State and Utah County funds to help with the expansion of the airport, this project has been placed as a priority for completion. Because the Council has opted for a pay-as-you-go funding source, the revenues need to first be collected so that Wastewater may pay Energy back. This is related to the first item which transfers the money. This item authorizes the expenditure of the money. Many entities are contributing to the building of the new terminal. This is part of Provo's share. Approved 7:0. This is related to the previous item.
An ordinance amending the zone map classification of the real property generally located at 800 North University Avenue and known as Amanda Knight Hall from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190244)
Amanda Knight Hall, built in 1938-1939, is a women’s dormitory formerly associated with Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The dormitory is located at the corner of 800 North and University Avenue, just two blocks north of the original campus of the university. Brigham Young University sold the property earlier this year to Mountain Classic Real Estate of Salt Lake City to facilitate its preservation through a return of the building to its original use as women’s housing. This application is not accompanied by a concept plan as no substantial changes are proposed for the site or building exterior. The requested rezone facilitates the preservation of a significant historic resource and a return of the building to women’s housing under private ownership.

Planning Commission recommended approval. This is what I wrote last time. I'm curious what the developer will come back with.

'After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.

'In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.' Approved 7:0. I have mixed feelings about this. This building is worth saving, but if we don't institute some manner of onstreet parking management then we are making the same mistake that previous councils have made that have made parking so bad in Joaquin to begin with.
**CONTINUED** The Provo City Community Development Department requests amendments to Section 14.34.295 Downtown Development Design Standards to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Central Business District, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, and Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda.
An ordinance amending Section 15.03.035 Provo City Code for clarification of grading permits. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190275)
This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'It has the support of City Staff and the Planning Commission. I haven't heard any opposition. I believe this could have avoided much of the problems with the Gravel Operation at the mouth of the Provo Canyon a couple years ago.' Approved 7:0. "I believe that this will go a long way to preventing problems like we had a couple years ago near the mouth of Provo Canyon with the ""Gravel Operation""."
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. (PLOTA20190217)
This was item 8 on the work meeting agenda. This is what I wrote for the earlier meeting, 'If we are considering the option for developers to reduce the number of parking stalls they have to provide by creating things like bicycle parking, then I think it is a good idea to establish bicycle parking standards.' This item was continued by Council Rule to the Council Meeting on September 24, 2019. We continued this item to allow the public more time to provide feedback and to fix some problematic language.

Adjournment

Monday, August 26, 2019

Council Meetings - 27 August 2019

There are some hefty items on the agenda, including discussions on sewer system expansion planning, funding the new Airport Terminal, Accessory Dwelling Units, Parking Permit Programs, and design standards.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

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

Business

A presentation on policy updates from the Utah League of Cities and Towns. (19-089)
Cameron Diehl, Executive Director of ULCT, will update the Council on the work of the Utah League of Cities and Towns over the past few months. ULCT is an important partner in advocating for local interests at the State Capitol and for helping local governments understand how to comply with state statutes. It's always good to hear from and collaborate with the League. Presentation only. State tax restructuring is far and away the biggest topic before the State Legislature right now. We talked about a few more topics, extraterritorial water authority and towing regulations for example. I brought up my concern that we should look at the way we create voting precincts and districts before it is time to redistrict for the 2020 Census results.
A discussion regarding sewer capacity west of I-15 and a consideration of options. (19-085)
For many years, City officials in Provo have known that sewer system capacity was a limiting force in further residential and commercial development in Provo west of Interstate 15. The wastewater collection system in west Provo was planned for many years based on most of west Provo remaining in agricultural use as identified in the general plan. However, in the last 10-15 years, there has been greater demand for additional residential development in this area. Within the last few years, the City has adopted a new Southwest Area Plan in the General Plan document that gives much more specificity as to planned development and density in the area. Additionally, Provo High School has moved to the northwest area in the city, consuming some sewer capacity and likely stimulating more growth in the future in this area of the city. Provo School District has also announced plans to relocate Dixon Middle School to southwest Provo in the next few years, which will also require added sewer capacity in this part of Provo.

With a number of forces at work, many landowners and developers in the area have argued that additional sewer capacity on the west side has become more critical and time-sensitive, and would like to approach the Council to consider strategies to accelerate capacity expansion.

Council leadership has asked that Public Works staff come to the work meeting on August 27 to provide some history and context and to talk specifically about the current CIP plan and how it relates to this increasing demand. They have also offered to some of the larger developers and landowners in this part of Provo to present their plans and perspectives on September 10. Our hope is that if the Council would like to see any alternatives to the current CIP plan and strategy, the Council would ask staff after the September 10 meeting to develop some scenarios that could be considered.

The Administration sees this as an important policy question that impacts the City budget, development pace on the west side, housing availability, agricultural preservation, transportation, and other important policy issues. The Council's consideration of any potential policy changes should be made carefully with good data and careful consideration, and these discussions are intended to begin a dialogue with the stakeholders to see if a change in current policy is warranted or advisable. A couple years ago I lead the effort to gather a broad group of residents and stakeholders to plan for development in West Provo. We ended up with a document of seven Development Policies to guide future development. At the time there was a lot of pressure to make some decisions about the direction development would go. One thing that was said over and over was, "We need to hurry and make a plan, but our plan won't be to hurry the development." Presentation only. A presentation was scheduled for the Work Meeting on September 10, 2019, in which several members of the development community would present to the Council on related west side sewer considerations. There really wasn't any time to discuss possible ways forward or if we wanted to change our policy regarding the timing of West Provo development. This item was all about understanding the current status of sewer capacity in the City, projects that are needed to increase the sewer collection system capacity, and the tens of millions of dollars that those projects will cost.
A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing City Administration to accept a State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund Loan for improvements related to the Provo Airport Terminal Project. (19-087)
The Public Works Department intends to apply for a $5 million State of Utah Infrastructure Bank Fund loan to front the costs of infrastructure for the new Airport Terminal. The application for the loan will be considered before the Utah Department of Transportation Commission in September. Prior to receiving funds, the Commission requires a resolution by the Council. It is anticipated that MAG funding to be programmed for 2023-2024 will be used to repay the loan. During the legislative session this spring, we made a successful bid to line up partners at the county, regional, and state level to go along with the federal money that we had access to, in order to position the airport to serve the community and region for decades of growth. Rather than bonding, the City would take out a State loan that would be repaid with Regional money. We'll be learning more about the details in the meeting. A motion to support both funding sources for the projects enumerated was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused.

Presentation only. Following a review by the State's Transportation Commission, Public Works staff may return after September 20, 2019 to a Council Meeting in October or November. We were basically asked to apply for the State Loan, as this is the type of project that it was created for. The terms are very favorable.
A discussion regarding an Interfund Loan from the Energy Fund to the Wastewater Fund for sewer improvements related to the new Airport terminal. (19-088)
Public Works will need to install sewer improvements on the west side of the City in order to meet the requirements of a new Airport terminal. In order to meet the required timelines for terminal construction short term financial assistance is needed, which is available from the Energy Fund by means of an inter-fund loan. This short term $4 million loan would meet requirements of Utah State Code and would be repaid in full with interest. This is related to the last item. As part of the new Terminal, the City needs to come up with our portion of the money. I'm wary of borrowing money from the Energy Fund, but this may be the best option available to us. I believe that that will be the crux of the discussion. [The motion for item 3 also applies to this item.] The interfund loan is for 6 months and allows us to start a project in this fiscal year rather than waiting for the scheduled funding in the next fiscal year. This move will save us a significant amount of money because a construction team is finishing up their work at Duncan Aviation and will now be able to just shift over and start working on the terminal, rather than disassembling for 6 months and reassembling later.

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

A discussion regarding the annexation of a property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue, partially in the East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
This item is an annexation request for property located at 1640 S. Colorado Avenue. The subject area is located on the south edge of the current Provo boundaries, on the north side of 1860 South, and on the east side of the Western Metals Recycling property. Although the total property includes 3.85 acres, part of the property is already within City boundaries, with the actual size of the proposed annexation being only 2.547 acres. The applicant is Thomas Hunt, the project engineer, but the petition signer is Spencer Wright, representing East Bay Self Storage, LLC.

By City Ordinance, and without a concurrent zoning application, an annexed property “shall be deemed to be classified in accordance with the lowest density zone allowed by the land use designation set forth for the subject property in the Provo City General Plan.” The lowest density, or least intensive industrial zone would be the M-1 “Manufacturing” Zone.

A project plan for the site is being reviewed by the City’s Coordinators Review Committee (CRC) and the concept plan is attached to this report. The proposed use for storage units would be permitted under SLU#6370 within either an M-1 or M-2 Zone. The actual project plan will be presented to the Planning Commission for approval subject to approval of the annexation by the Municipal Council.

Questions have been raised regarding the non-inclusion of other properties with this annexation request, especially as the applicant also owns one of the two adjacent properties to the east. At issue is the desire to extend the City’s boundary to eventually match that of shown in the Annexation Policy Map versus annexing only this one property at this time. In order to consider the larger area, there would be a need to contact and discuss the proposal with all property owners, and then a need to determine which properties could be included based on the number of owners who would actually sign the petition, and what percentage of the overall property value their lands would represent. Because that process would likely take several months if not longer, it would obviously cause a delay for this applicant in the approval and development of their property.

Planning Commission recommended approval. I like the idea of this agreement that tries to help the city move forward with the broader annexations but still helps the applicant by moving the first annexation forward in a timely manner. I do worry, though, that despite the agreement, moving forward with the first one without doing the whole group will make it harder to complete the annexations. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. It sounds like everyone is committed to working towards the annexation of the rest of this cluster of properties, but we will not hold up the current request in the meantime.
A discussion of an ordinance amending the zone map classification of the Amanda Knight Hall, located at 800 North University Avenue, from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood.(PLRZ20190244)
Amanda Knight Hall, built in 1938-1939, is a women’s dormitory formerly associated with Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The dormitory is located at the corner of 800 North and University Avenue, just two blocks north of the original campus of the university. Brigham Young University sold the property earlier this year to Mountain Classic Real Estate of Salt Lake City to facilitate its preservation through a return of the building to its original use as women’s housing. This application is not accompanied by a concept plan as no substantial changes are proposed for the site or building exterior. The requested rezone facilitates the preservation of a significant historic resource and a return of the building to women’s housing under private ownership.

Planning Commission recommended approval. This is a great example of the community advocating for something that was important to them and institutions listening to the feedback and carefully considering how the communities desires could be accommodated. I am interested to learn more about the parking situation. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.

In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.

Business

A discussion regarding an update on Council priority issues. (19-091)
In January 2019, the Council identified several priority issues that they wanted to address during 2019. This discussion will update the Council on the progress of each issue. How are we doing on our "new year's resolutions"? What are we going to get done this year? Presentation only. We are still pushing hard to wrap up several projects. We did decide push the Short Term Rental question off to the next Council, and to focus on collecting the information that they will need to make informed decisions.
A discussion regarding a request for an ordinance text amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S-Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A-Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone. City-wide application. (PLOTA20190120)
This item is an Ordinance Text Amendment to consolidate Chapter 14.30 S - Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone with Chapter 14.46 A - Accessory Apartment Overlay Zone, as well as adopt related amendments. The public was invited to submit comments over the past few weeks. I felt that this proposal could have a major impact on various parts of the City so I requested that we make a significant effort to bring it to the public's attention and solicit feedback. We've heard from several people and groups requesting modifications. I believe that we will be making tweaks and adjustments for at least a couple more weeks. A motion to send the item back to the Housing Committee for further review was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. The committee will meet Tuesday to see what public feedback we can incorporate into the proposal.
A discussion regarding a proposed parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive. Southeast Area. (18-084)
The Southeast Area Neighborhoods (Provost, Provost South, and Spring Creek) have worked since the summer of 2018 to gather neighborhood input on a proposed parking permit program on Slate Canyon Drive. During that summer, over 200 residents participated in a series of 10 meetings. Over half of the residents who live on Slate Canyon drive supported the program. The majority of the neighborhood as a whole also support it to regulate parking near the entrance to the canyon area. After the public hearing in the meeting this evening, the Council may vote to direct that a study of the proposed permit parking area be undertaken. Generally residential parking permit programs are used to protect local residents from an influx of outside cars being parked on the street. Generally, there is a large institution or another draw nearby. Standard permit parking programs don't work as well when the over demand for on-street parking is generated by the residents of the area themselves. The last couple of proposals for new parking permit programs have fizzled out when the residents come to understand the limitations, inconveniences, and costs of the permit program. I am on the Joaquin Parking Committee and the Downtown Parking Committee. We are actively looking at the best way to use current technology to craft an on-street parking management program that is flexible and provides better outcomes. I'll be interested to see how the applicants want to set up their program and if they are open to the ideas we are evaluating in other areas of the City. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2019. See my report for item #6 in the evening meeting.

Closed Meeting

A closed meeting was not held.

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

A resolution of the Provo City Municipal Council and Mayor sitting as The Board of Canvassers accepting the election returns and declaring and certifying the results of the municipal primary elections held in Provo, Utah on August 13, 2019. (19-086)
This is a presentation of the final vote tallies in the municipal primary election.Congrats to everyone who advanced. Thank you to everyone who ran but will not continue to the general election. We can't have a representative government without people being willing to stand for election. I hope everyone will take the next two months to understand your ballot options and become an informed voter.A motion to approve the resolution was made by Mayor Michelle Kaufusi, seconded by George Stewart, and approved 7:0, with David Sewell excused.Congrats to everyone who made it on to the primary election and a big THANK YOU to everyone who ran.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

A presentation regarding an update on the improvements to 500 West and Bulldog Boulevard. (19-026)
The Bulldog project is nearing completion. We still have another year to go on 500 West. But at least the intersection at Center is now back open, and will remain open for the rest of the project. Presentation only. Both projects are on schedule, though the Bulldog schedule was extended one month in order to bury the electrical lines. Both projects still retain all of the features that were proposed. The Bulldog project is nearing completion. The 500 W project is only about a third of the way done.
Public Comment
- This public comment period is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda. Each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. Fifteen minutes has been set aside for this comment period.
- For items on the agenda requiring a public hearing, time to comment will be provided, after the item is presented, for all those who wish to speak.
- For items not requiring a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item, but will be limited to a ten minute total comment period.
Action Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Approved by unanimous consent.
A resolution consenting to the Mayor's appointment of William Peperone as the Director of Development Services for Provo City. (19-090)
The Department of Community and Neighborhood Services and the Department of Development Services were established on July 9, 2019. After national recruitment, screening, and interviews, Mayor Kaufusi has appointed Bill Peperone, the current Assistant Director of Community Development, to serve as the first Director of Development Services. Bill will begin work in his new position on September 3, 2019. It's been a pleasure to work with Mr. Peperone over the years. He has impressed me with his understanding of the fundamentals of a healthy community and how our built environment impacts these fundamentals. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused Each Councilor present spoke to our confidence in Mr. Peperone gained over the years.
A resolution appointing Brittany Hyde to the Parks and Recreation Board. (19-003)
Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Brittany Hyde serve on the Parks and Recreation Board. This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. We previously vetted and met with Ms. Hyde, but she was inadvertently left off the list for appointment. We will remedy this. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused Oversight corrected.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
This item was discussed previously in the Work Sessions on July 9 and July 23, 2019. In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. I have previously described this ordinance this way: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.'

This item was sent back to committee to resolve whether proposals should be vetted by either the Planning Commission or the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. The committee decided not to include a mandatory step, but instruct that the report be created in consultation with pertinent groups and names both boards. I think this is a good compromise. A substitute implied motion was made to spell out TMAC as the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, and the resolution was approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused. I can't think of a parking permit program that I wouldn't want TMACs input on. I hope that each report is written in consultation with TMAC. I worry a bit that permit proposals are infrequent enough that this might get forgotten at some point in the future. This is a compromise, but with TMAC "spelled out" in the ordinance, I am hopeful that it will work out.
A resolution of intent to study the creation of a permit parking area on Slate Canyon Drive in the Provost and Provost South Neighborhoods. (18-084)
This was item 9 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 9: 'Generally residential parking permit programs are used to protect local residents from an influx of outside cars being parked on the street. Generally, there is a large institution or another draw nearby. Standard permit parking programs don't work as well when the over demand for on-street parking is generated by the residents of the area themselves. The last couple of proposals for new parking permit programs have fizzled out when the residents come to understand the limitations, inconveniences, and costs of the permit program. I am on the Joaquin Parking Committee and the Downtown Parking Committee. We are actively looking at the best way to use current technology to craft an on-street parking management program that is flexible and provides better outcomes. I'll be interested to see how the applicants want to set up their program and if they are open to the ideas we are evaluating in other areas of the City.' Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused The applicants realize that this will be a painful and controversial process. The City has struggled to enforce our occupancy limits and over-occupancy has created on-street parking congestion in the area. The thought is that the permit parking program will make it harder to have too many cars for one property and that this will lead to more voluntary compliance on occupancy. I'm thinking about how the permit program will work with our new license-plate scanners and if we can pattern the program after what we are discussing for Downtown and Joaquin.
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. City-wide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments.

The amendments under consideration include the following.
- A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing façade. In the downtown this is 30’.
- A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
- A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.
- Any commercial included in the site, whether required or voluntary, to be sited along a street frontage.
- Site design regulations to ensure parking is located interior to a building or site and that vehicle access is consolidated.
- Additional articulation of building material controls.
Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
There was broad support when we heard this in our last meeting, but we continued the approval to provide more time for stakeholders to become aware and provide feedback before we make the decision. Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused The one developer how expressed some concern met with Community Development and the concern was resolved. No other concerned stakeholder came forward between the meetings.
An ordinance approving the annexation of approximately 2.547 acres of property generally located at 1860 South and Colorado Avenue, Provo. East Bay Neighborhood. (PLANEX20190140)
This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 5: 'I like the idea of this agreement that tries to help the city move forward with the broader annexations but still helps the applicant by moving the first annexation forward in a timely manner. I do worry, though, that despite the agreement, moving forward with the first one without doing the whole group will make it harder to complete the annexations.' Approved 6:0, with David Sewell excused See my report for item #5 in the earlier meeting.
An ordinance amending the zone map classification of the real property generally located at 800 North University Avenue and known as Amanda Knight Hall from Public Facilities (PF) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU). Joaquin Neighborhood. (PLRZ20190244)
This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. My preview for work meeting item 6: 'This is a great example of the community advocating for something that was important to them and institutions listening to the feedback and carefully considering how the communities desires could be accommodated. I am interested to learn more about the parking situation.' Continued to the September 10, 2019 Council Meeting. After all the work by so many passionate individuals, BYU, and other partners to find a way to preserve this landmark, we need to find a way to approve the proposal. At the same time, there is far less parking onsite than normally required. The applicant/future landlord says that they will rent to fewer people with cars. That is similar to what we've been told by other applicants. Joaquin Village is a pertinent example of something that was approved with lower off-street parking because the Council at the time expected to be putting in a parking permit program. Unfortunately, the program didn't happen but the apartment complex did. It has been a cause for even scarcer on-street parking. We are revisiting the question of a parking permit program, and if we implement it then I won't worry about the parking impact of approving the Amanda Knight Hall proposal, but we can really count on it until it is done.

In the end we continued it and asked the applicant to come back with a plan to show how they will ensure that they don't rent to people with more cars than can be parked off-street.
***CONTINUED*** The Community Development Department requests an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 14.37 of the Provo City Code to establish minimum bicycle parking standards. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190217)
This was not ready to be heard.
***CONTINUED*** An ordinance to amend Provo City Code 14.34.295 (Downtown Development Design Standards) to clarify architectural requirements in the Downtown Zones. Downtown, Joaquin, Maeser, Franklin, Timp Neighborhoods. (16-0005OA)
This was not ready to be heard.

Adjournment

Monday, July 22, 2019

Council Meetings - 23 July 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

2:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

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

Business

A discussion regarding the creation of a Downtown Parking Committee. (19-002)
Discussions about parking downtown have come up frequently in Council and committee discussions. The anticipated business and population growth as well as the relocation of the City Center building have made the need for a proactive approach to parking downtown more pressing. One option to address this need is to create a Downtown Parking Committee. I love Downtown Provo. One of the things I like about living where I do is that I can easily walk or bike to Downtown and avoiding the hassle and uncertainty of parking. Downtown parking is not a simple issue, but I think everyone can agree that there is plenty of room for improvement and that we are not utilizing our public resources as well as we should. A motion to create a Downtown Parking Committee, with the mission statement "To review the current state of and demand for public on-street and off-street parking in Downtown Provo, as well as the Strategic Parking Management Plan, in order to propose a vision for a functional, convenient, productive, and sustainable parking ecosystem and a high-level plan to bring about that vision.", with David Harding as chair, Gary Winterton as vice-chair, and with David Knecht as a committee member, was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. Downtown parking is not functioning optimally. This is a complex problem that we have been trying to address for a long time. I think we have done much of the background work. Consultants have created a "Strategic Downtown Parking Plan" which is more of a handbook which lays out many possible options. We have worked with the downtown business alliance. We have improved the consistency of parking enforcement. We have improved signage and communication. I feel that we are now in the position to create a master plan to guide our decisions and so we can proactively manage parking downtown. The difficulty in answering the request by the Blue Sky developers highlights the need for such a plan. With some effort, I believe that parking downtown can be a pleasant, convenient experience which will welcome rather than discourage visitors so that parking is no longer a hindrance to the economic vitality of downtown.
A discussion of proposed amendments to Provo City Code Section 15.03.035 (Grading) to clarify and change requirements related to grading and grading permits. (19-002)
The Foothills Protection Committee has met for the last several months to discuss areas they can assist in the preservation and protection of the Provo City Foothills. This particular ordinance amendment stems from the discussion that Council had during the April 23, 2019, Work Meeting. This is the proposed legislation relating to the initial step that was discussed by the Committee to prevent grading issues in the future. The three things which are being discussed are:

(1) Require a Project Plan Proposal with each grading permit. Currently, Provo City Code Section § 15.03.035(2) (Grading) indicates that grading permits can be “obtained at the office of the Provo City Engineer after completion of an application for permit complying with any and all permit requirements.” There are 12 requirements from in PCC § 15.03.035(2) for developers to fulfill. However, if developers were required to provide a plan to fulfill these requirements at the project proposal stage, they will be less likely to abandon grading projects. The additional effort on the part of those seeking a grading permit and gives additional information to Engineering in order to help them as they review projects.

(2) Increase bonding requirements for grading permit projects. The grading permit requirements found in PCC § 15.03.035(4) currently require that:
- the work is completed by a licensed qualified contractor,
- payment of all required permit fees and bonds are received prior to commencement of any work, and
- the project complies with any special conditions required by the City Engineer.
The Foothills Protection Committee believes that the bonding requirements for grading permits should be increased. Any permit which requires cutting should be given special scrutiny to ensure that the projects are completed to the expected standards.

(3) Require a landscaping plan as part of the project proposal. If each project has a landscaping plan, this would show the City the contractor intends to beautify the project upon completion and leave the project in better condition than when they began. This would also provide the Engineering Division additional information on how the contractor intends to beautify the area upon completion of the project. The landscaping component of the project proposal would also likely result in an increase of the bonding requirement. The City and nearby residents had a very bad experience a couple years ago with a grading project that turned into gravel operation. We had difficulties all along the way. This experience has led us to review the process that is in place that allowed the problems to occur. This committee is submitting these recommendations for changing the process. The discussion in the meeting will help me to better assess if these recommendations strike the right balance between ensuring that grading occurs responsibly and being too onerous. A motion to forward this for review by the Planning Commission was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This looks good. I'm interested to see if the Planning Commission finds anything that causes concern. Good work, FPC!
A discussion of possible legislative efforts to be undertaken by the Foothills Committee of the Municipal Council. (19-002)
Councilor Handley will review Provo City's current hillside code and the Salt Lake County ordinance on foothill protection to highlight what gaps the Foothills Protection Committee might address next. I really like the principles and balance struck in the Salt Lake County ordinance. I was a bit wary of how far this effort might try to go. Presentation only. The committee will continue to prepare policies and legislation, after which they will bring back future recommendations to the Council. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this committee's efforts on broader foothill issues.
A discussion regarding a proposed Permit Parking Plan ordinance amendment. (19-002)
In mid- to late-2018, the Policy Governance Committee began discussions to clean up and make amendments to certain elements of the Permit Parking code (see Provo City Code Chapter 9.80). The Permit Parking Areas currently in code have been subject to certain code language that has been outdated since the Parking Enforcement has gone 21st Century. There is no longer a need for actual permits due to the electronic system that Parking Enforcement has put in place. Then there were some procedural elements that the Policy Governance Committee chose to amend certain elements to tighten up the process and add a step for the Planning Commission to review the Permit Parking Area plans. This step is thought to help the Council obtain a land use perspective on these Permit Parking Area plans. Also, there is a fee added to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' A motion to refer this item back to the Policy Governance Committee and continue the item at the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019 was approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. The Planning Commission indicated that they don't think they are in the best entity to review the applications. I agree, I think that this is more in the scope of the TMAC. The committee will take this back and will have these conversations before returning to the Council with an updated recommendation.
A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
The City utilizes A shared water conveyance pipe with other agencies in Provo Canyon. This agreement formalizes how the City will pay for its portion of related costs. We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

A discussion regarding a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC for a project located between 500 S and 600 S, 100 W and University Avenue. (19-084)
The Community Redevelopment Agency of Provo City Corporation (RDA) purchased the property at 54 West 500 South in December of 2017 from Intermountain Farmer’s Association (IFA) in order to help IFA acquire their current location in the former OfficeMax building. This led to an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the entire block and the RDA can now leverage their ownership of the existing IFA building into a larger development.

RDA staff began to meet with the remaining property owners on the block to gauge their interest in participating with the RDA in the redevelopment of the block. Unbeknownst to staff, Mr. Justin Earl had begun negotiations to acquire the largest piece of property on the block. Once the transaction was finished, we had the opportunity to meet with him and ascertain that he would be interested in the redevelopment of the entire block of property.

Mr. Earl met with his development team and presented a plan that will include an office tower, condominiums for sale and apartments for lease on the property. The development will also include meeting space and structured parking. Mr. Earl intends to offer some workforce housing as part of the office space. Should a firm lease space in the office tower, they would be able to contract for an apartment that would be available to their employees who make 60% of the area median income. Mr. Earl and his company have worked with the City’s Community Development department to provide both a Development Agreement and PRO Zone for this block and are now looking to have the attached Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in order to begin the construction process.

The OPA provides for the transfer of property to Mr. Earl’s company with the requirement that the development could pay the RDA back after 10 years at the market value of $1,600,000 or pay the RDA back at a later date by appraising the development and paying the RDA one-fourth of the land value of the project, one-fourth being the RDA’s approximate holding in the block. The developer is also asking the RDA to consider providing tax increment to the project in exchange for public parking in the parking structure. I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. This agreement governs how the RDA property will be contributed in the project. The details of any TIF for the project will be worked out at a later date.
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
Community Development has identified deficiencies in the Campus Mixed Use Zone pertaining to design regulation. The zone currently only requires one door on each street frontage, has no habitable first floor requirement or any regulation of windows and visual permeability at the first floor. Staff is studying amendments to the zone to provide sufficient regulation of these design elements. Staff has also integrated previously proposed amendments to the materials standards into these proposed amendments. The amendments under consideration include the following.
A minimum habitable first floor depth as measured from the street facing façade. In the downtown this is 30’.
A minimum number of pedestrian building entrances. For residential in the downtown an exterior entrance is required for each street facing unit.
A minimum requirement for first floor windows and openings.

Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements. Presentation only. This item was already scheduled for the Council Meeting on July 23, 2019. The presentation only reinforced my impression from before. This is the direction that our zoning code needs to pursue.

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Items in this category do not involve legislative action.

Public Comment

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

Action Agenda

A resolution consenting to the appointment of individuals to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. (19-003)
Mayor Kaufusi has recommended that Stephen Mongie and James Hamula serve on the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Their appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Municipal Council and have been submitted to the Council for review. I served on the TMAC before I joined the Council, so it is near and dear to my heart. I served with fewer and fewer of the current committee members, but I'm grateful to the new members who are aptly stepping into our shoes. Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. They will serve the City well.
An ordinance to amend Provo City Code regarding design standards in various Higher Density Residential and Campus Mixed Use zones. Citywide impact. (PLOTA20190025)
This was item 7 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I support this effort to better define our design standards. I feel that we should be moving towards more form-based zoning requirements.' Continued by Council Rules to the Council Meeting on August 6, 2019. These are good changes, but we wanted to give people who will be affected to have more time to learn and submit feedback before we make the decision.
An ordinance amending Provo City Code Chapter 9.80 to update language and amend procedures regarding permit parking areas. (19-002)
This was item 4 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'This item was heard last time, but was continued to gather more information. Here is what I wrote last time: 'Overall this proposal modernizes and clarifies our code regarding parking permit programs. There were a few separate impetuses that spurred this effort and were rolled together. The process to get a parking permit program considered is clarified. In this proposal, parking programs will now be digital, not paper-based.' Continued during the Work Meeting on July 23, 2019. See the report of agenda item #4 from the earlier meeting.
A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a water carriage agreement with Central Utah Water and the US Department of the Interior. (19-083)
This was item 5 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'We need to pay our share of the maintenance costs.' Approved 6:0, with George Stewart excused. This is what I wrote after hearing this item in the earlier meeting, 'This is a forty-year agreement. It is a great example of the boring, yet important work and collaboration between public entities that enables our reliable infrastructure.'

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

A resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with Mill Race Development, LLC to transfer Agency-owned property for a project located between 500 S and 600 S and 100 W and University Ave. (19-084)
This was item 6 on the work meeting agenda. Here is what I wrote for this item earlier, 'I am comfortable in the delay of paying for the land. We purchased the land to spur development and that is exactly what is happening. I will feel more comfortable with the TIF request knowing that Provo will be better managing our public parking assets. Still, we need to make sure that the value that the public parking is providing the community is worth the taxes that will be offset.' Approved 6:0, with David Harding excused. This item was actually heard last in the meeting, after the lengthy discussion on item #6. I stepped out to talk with the applicant of item #6 and missed this vote. I support their decision.
A resolution approving a lease agreement with Blue Sky Development to allow them to utilize parking spaces for a pending mixed-use project at 105 East Center Street. (19-070)
Staff has been working with McKay Christensen on a proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Center Street and 100 East. The ground floor will be commercial and the remaining floors will be residential with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Christensen intends to provide all the necessary parking for his project in a parking structure at the center of the complex. However, the cost to provide parking onsite for his commercial uses is proving to be cost prohibitive. Mr. Christensen is requesting he be allowed to utilize a portion of the 204 parking spaces allocated to the Redevelopment Agency in the Wells Fargo parking structure. The Redevelopment Agency previously approved 63 East using 40 of those spaces for the residents of 63 East. We last considered this request in a formal meeting about a month ago. This was the direct impetus for creating the Downtown Parking Committee. Here is what I reported after we heard the item last time, 'Parking is not well managed downtown. Provo's RDA has invested in parking projects, but others are managing the resources. I think that the city needs to rethink our approach to downtown parking. I fear that if we grant this request we'll be doubling down on the old, broken model, tying up these resources for a quarter-century for far, far below the value of the stalls. Also, the request for dedicated stalls is problematic and very inefficient.' A motion to amend the exhibit to the resolution was approved, after which a vote on a motion to approve the resolution as amended failed 3:4, with George Handley, David Sewell, and David Knecht in favor; and with George Stewart, Kay Van Buren, Gary Winterton, and David Harding opposed. This is as narrow of a decision as they come. A new day is dawning for parking in Downtown Provo. By turning down this proposal, this development and all of Downtown will have an even better parking situation.

Pages

Monday, October 7, 2019

Council Meetings - 8 October 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

Adjournment

Monday, September 23, 2019

Council Meetings - 24 September 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

2:00 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, September 9, 2019

Council Meetings - 10 September 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, August 26, 2019

Council Meetings - 27 August 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

1:00 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

Business

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Board of Canvassers

5:30 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:45 PM, Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Adjournment

Monday, July 22, 2019

Council Meetings - 23 July 2019

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting Agenda

2:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Business

Policy Items Referred From the Planning Commission

Closed Meeting

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Regular Meeting Agenda

5:30 PM, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Opening Ceremony

Public Comment

Action Agenda

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

Adjournment

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Board of Canvassers

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda