PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - UtahPROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting 1:00 PM , Tuesday, February 20,...

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting 1:00 PM, Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Room 310, City Conference Room

351 West Center Street, Provo, UT 84601

Agenda

Roll Call

Prayer

Approval of Minutes

January 11, 2018 Legislative Breakfast

Business

1. A motion to reschedule the March 20th meetings.

2. A presentation and discussion on wastewater planning. (17-131)

3. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to fund the demolition and construction of

Block 90 (R.C. Willey Block). (17-106)

4. A presentation regarding a proposed appropriation to the Housing Consortium Fund to pay for

approved self-help projects. (18-025)

5. A discussion on revisions to the rental law ordinance. (17-104)

BREAK

Business

6. A discussion on the Storm Water Master Plan and Design. (18-026)

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

7. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to increase the number of residential

units needed for recreational amenities in the General Downtown (DT1) zone. Downtown

Neighborhood. (16-00023OA)

8. A discussion on an ordinance amending Provo City Code to allow Dental Laboratories as a

Permitted Use in the Community Shopping Center (SC2) Zone. Citywide impact. (18-0001OA)

Business

9. A presentation on the Redevelopment and Economic Development Departments and potential

budget requests. (18-005)

Closed Meeting

10. The Municipal Council or the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will consider a

motion to close the meeting for the purposes of holding a strategy session to discuss pending or

reasonably imminent litigation, and/or to discuss the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real

property, and/or the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an

individual in conformance with § 52-4-204 and 52-4-205 et. seq., Utah Code.

Adjournment

Informal discussion may be held in the Council Conference Room between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm.

Adjournment

Materials and Agenda: http://publicdocuments.provo.org/sirepub/meet.aspx

Council Blog: http://provocitycouncil.blogspot.com/

If you have a comment regarding items on the agenda, please email or write to Council

Members. Their contact information is listed on the Provo website at:

http://provo.org/government/city-council/meet-the-council

The next scheduled Regular Council Meeting will be held on 03/06/2018 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers,

351 West Center Street, Provo, unless otherwise noticed. The Work Session meeting start times is to be determined

and will be noticed at least 24 hours prior to the meeting time, but typically begins between 1:00 and 4:00pm.

Notice of Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including

auxiliary communicative aides and services) during this meeting are invited to notify the Provo Council Office at

351 W. Center, Provo, Utah 84601, phone: (801) 852-6120 or email [email protected] at least three

working days prior to the meeting. The meeting room in Provo City Center is fully accessible via the south parking

garage access to the elevator. The Council Meeting is also broadcast live Provo Channel 17 at

https://www.youtube.com/user/ProvoChannel17. The Work Meeting is broadcast live at

https://www.youtube.com/user/ProvoCityCouncil. For access to past Work and Council Meetings, go to playlists on

https://www.youtube.com/user/ProvoChannel17.

Notice of Telephonic Communications

One or more Council members may participate by telephone or Internet communication in this meeting. Telephone

or Internet communications will be amplified as needed so all Council members and others attending the meeting

will be able to hear the person(s) participating electronically as well as those participating in person. The meeting

will be conducted using the same procedures applicable to regular Municipal Council meetings.

Notice of Compliance with Public Noticing Regulations This meeting was noticed in compliance with Utah Code 52-4-202 and Provo City Code 14.02.010. Agendas and

minutes are accessible through the Provo City website at council.provo.gov. Council Meeting agendas are available

through the Utah Public Meeting Notice website at pmn.utah.gov. Email subscriptions to the Utah Public Meeting

Notice are available through their website. Network for public access is “Provo Guest”, password “provoguest”.

Pending minutes – awaiting approval

1

http://publicdocuments.provo.org/sirepub/docs.aspx

Elizabeth VanDerwerken – Executive Assistant

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Legislative Breakfast Minutes

7:00 AM, Thursday, January 11, 2018

Room 310, City Conference Room

351 West Center Street, Provo, UT 84601

Roll Call (0:00:00) The following elected officials of Provo and State Legislators were present:

Council Chair Gary Winterton, conducting

Council Vice-Chair David Harding

Council member David Sewell

Council member George Handley

Council member Kay Van Buren

Council member David Knecht

Mayor Michelle Kaufusi

Senator Curt Bramble

Senator Margaret Dayton

Senator Deidre Henderson

Representative Norm Thurston

Excused: Council member George Stewart, Representatives Keven Stratton and Keith Grover

Prayer The prayer was given by Isaac Paxman, Deputy Mayor.

Business 1. A discussion on shortening the window of time for use of fireworks. (0:03:51)

Council member David Sewell introduced this discussion. Many residents have expressed concerns about

fireworks and pollution from particulate matter associated with firework discharge. Senator Curt Bramble

shared details on House Bill 38, which limits the window for fireworks use to July 2-5, July 22-25, and

from 11 AM on December 31 to 1 AM on January 1. Discussion only.

2. A discussion on proposed changes regarding the Council Chair as Acting Mayor. (0:08:38)

Mr. Sewell introduced this topic, sharing his recent experience in which he served as both Council Chair

and Acting Mayor for a period of several weeks. In some situations, he felt a conflict between the two

roles, noting that by signing legislation twice in his respective capacities, it eliminated the check and

balance between the executive and legislative branches of the City government and created some

anomalies. Wayne Parker, CAO, shared additional insight on the recent circumstances and Brian Jones,

Council Attorney, noted a similar situation which occurred with the unexpected decease of a Council

member several years prior. Provo officials suggested that in these kinds of situations, where a sitting

elected official resigned following an election in which a new official were elected, that the statute dictate

that the newly elected mayor [or Council member] serve as the interim mayor, rather than mandating the

usual application and selection process for an interim appointment. Senator Deidre Henderson suggested

that this would be a potential interim issue for the political operations committee. Senator Bramble

recommended that the City work with the Utah League of Cities and Towns on this issue. Discussion only.

3. A discussion on the process for changing the form of government of a municipality or county. (0:13:55)

Cliff Strachan, Council Executive Director, introduced the discussion regarding the process to change the

form of government of a municipality/county. Utah County is the second largest county in the state, with


2



projections of significant growth, and it has been observed that a 3-member commission running a county

of this size is inadequate. Council members would encourage that the form of government be changed. The

City cannot initiate this, but the Council may bring forward a resolution encouraging the State legislature

to explore this change. Discussion only.

4. A discussion on legislation stipulating how an elected official may be removed from office. (0:15:09)

Mr. Strachan also introduced this item and several Council members shared comments. Senator Bramble

shared background information on Senate Bill 38, which specifically addresses removal of an elected

official in counties of the first class. He noted that currently that only Salt Lake County is part of this

classification level. Several legislators and staff shared comments on the inherent challenges:

Senator Deidre Henderson expressed that the legislators are interested to continue the dialogue on

this subject. It is difficult to tackle these issues while maintaining the proper checks and balances.

She invited any thoughts or ideas from Council members going forward about how to change this.

Senator Bramble relayed a recent situation in Arizona in which an elected official was recalled

over a policy decision. This introduces further complications: should someone be taken out of

office because someone doesn’t like a speech or a vote?

Mr. Strachan noted that certainly ethics and higher issues is something you try and narrow it to.

There are different implications for different types of political subdivisions (city vs. county, etc.).

Brian Jones, Council Attorney, noted that the Ethics Act stipulates that an official in violation shall

be removed from employment or elected office, but there is not a procedure by which to do that.

Senator Bramble said he could refer the issue to Senator Valentine of the Ethics Commission—

perhaps they could examine any changes which could be implemented that session.

Senator Margaret Dayton wished to speak with Commissioners Lee and Ivie on this. They are not

on the same page, but they both have good ideas and it would be important to have their input.

5. A discussion on concerns regarding a three-member commission governing body for UTA. (0:23:24)

Council member David Knecht introduced Council concerns with a three-member commission governing

body for the Utah Transit Authority. Representative Thurston asked for the Council’s feelings on bringing

UTA under the State legislature and executive branch. Mr. Knecht felt the independent nature of UTA was

helpful. Council member George Handley believed oversight would be helpful. Senators Bramble and

Henderson noted many examples of problems which are symptomatic of the lack of accountability at UTA.

There are concerns at the Legislature regarding UTA; the State takes seriously the responsibility to use tax-

payer dollars wisely in creating and abiding by budgets, but UTA has not exercised the same discretion.

Should UTA default on their budget, it [as does any political subdivision] would ultimately become the

responsibility of the Legislature and they do not take that lightly. Several of the State legislators noted that

UTA has not clearly defined their goals and their purpose has become lost in the process. Senator Bramble

indicated that Wayne Harper has a bill in process for transportation and governance amendments.

Mr. Sewell expressed that he liked the idea of UTA being more accountable to elected state officials. Mr.

Handley cautioned that with an agency of this nature, long-term planning should not constantly be

accountable to two-year or four-year elected official cycles. This was his only lingering concern—that of

granting UTA enough flexibility and ability to make the essential long-term plans.

6. A discussion on the zoning disclosure requirements of Provo City and possible adoption at the State

level. (0:36:09)

Mr. Knecht introduced this recent City policy and related discussions with the Utah Realtors Association.

Many Council members felt it advantageous to have this type of zoning disclosure requirement statewide,


3



as it provided additional protections to buyers and encouraged compliance with zoning ordinances. Peter

Christensen, Utah Realtors Association, felt that Provo’s requirement created a precedence for many cities

having different levels of requirements; his concern was that this opened realtors up for additional liability.

Mr. Sewell explained further comments from Mr. Christensen on the matter—the Association’s impression

is that they are generally regulated by the state, but this is an oddity where a municipality is regulating

them. Mr. Sewell wondered whether this requirement couldn’t be done at the state level; if not, perhaps

Provo should not have this requirement. Senator Bramble believed this was already covered in existing

legislation, as a lack of disclosure carries a material impact. Representative Thurston suggested bringing

this to ULCT, as they were a natural group to put forward this kind of proposal to the state.

7. A discussion on the problems arising out of using number of voters to draw precincts but using number

of residents to create districts [that must follow precinct lines].

8. A discussion on how city and state governments can work more effectively together to tackle air quality.

(0:44:44) Due to limited time, Mr. Winterton explained that items 7 and 8 would be deferred to ongoing

conversations with the legislators. Mr. Winterton invited comments from the legislators on the upcoming

legislative session.

Senator Bramble, Senator Henderson, and Representative Thurston shared concerns regarding the City’s

utility transportation fee. These centered on circumvention of the truth in taxation process, creating a

problematic precedent, and double-dipping in taxpayer pockets. Wayne Parker, CAO, said the City worked

with Representative Moss on a disclosure bill to address the City’s concerns. Council members shared

insight into the rationale for the UTF and the unique composition of Provo City—with a high proportion of

non-taxed property-owning entities, this is a critical way to fund a major utility in Provo. Brian Jones,

Council Attorney, offered further clarification, explaining how the City calculates other utilities, such as

power, and how industry standards have been applied in order to determine a fair calculation for the UTF.

Senator Bramble introduced a discussion about small cell deployment and similar wireless technology. He

will be working with the Utah League of Cities and Towns to explore how best to implement statewide

standards for wireless technology and Senator Bramble invited Provo’s involvement in this process. Mr.

Jones explained related legal concerns which arose at the American Public Power Association legal seminar.

Representative Thurston indicated that much of the time during a recent caucus meeting was spent

discussing the budget and some upcoming opportunities to get ahead by being proactive about several

major categories of spending and debt.

Senator Margaret Dayton shared her concerns regarding violations of the ADA service animals. Senator

Dayton reiterated her support of the blind or otherwise disabled citizens who rely on service animals.

Under the ADA, only trained dogs qualify as service animals. ‘Support animals’ are not protected under

the ADA. Grocery stores, restaurants, and many other public places experience many violations of this

provision of the ADA, which present health concerns and a public nuisance.

Mr. Strachan told legislators that Provo Council members would love to continue the conversations at

future opportunities, such as the ULCT Local Officials Day at the Legislature. Representative Thurston

said Council members were always welcome to sit with him on the floor of the House.

Adjournment Adjourned by unanimous consent.

Provo City Municipal Council

Staff Memorandum

Wastewater Planning

February 20, 2018

Presenter

Dave Decker Shane Jones

Time for Presentation

60 min

IssueFile #

17-131

Item Short Title

A discussion on Wastewater planning (17-131)

Intended Outcome of Discussion/Requested Action Inform Council members of upcoming decisions they’ll need to

make pertaining to the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Background

Discussions on Wastewater planning continue. The Public Works Department is coming to further educate Council Members regarding potential issues relative to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and development on the west side of Provo.

Provo City Parking Administration

Staff Memorandum

Appropriation for Additional Costs Related to the Block

90 Parking Lot

February 20, 2018

Presenter David Walter

(801) 852 6167

Required Time for Presentation 10

Is This Time Sensitive Yes

Purpose of Proposal ● There were additional costs related to the asbestos abatement that

were not anticipated. The appropriation will allow the City to pay for that action.

Action Requested ● The item is on the agenda for the evening meeting to approve the

proposed appropriation

Budget Impact ● $284295– Redevelopment Agency Fund Balance

Redevelopment Agency FAX / MEMO TRANSMISSION Provo City Corporation TO: Dustin Grabau, Budget Officer

FROM: Dan González, CDBG & HOME Program Administrator

DATE: February 12, 2018

SUBJECT: Appropriations to HOME Consortium Fund (F278)

The request is to appropriate $228,670 in the HOME Consortium, Fund 278

1. In December of 2016, Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), dba Self-Help Homes returned $150,000 to the RDA as a refund from funds that had been disbursed for the purchase of land in Salem to begin the Nebo Gateway housing project. The receipted funds were processed as a loan repayment instead of a refund, thereby reducing the budgeted amount available to continue the project. On February 5th, RHDC submitted a request reimbursement of $150,000 for improvements costs which alerted us to the funds not being available in the budget. These funds will be appropriated from available revenue received in the current fiscal year.

2. After a reconciliation of department records with HUD systems, we identified $78,670 in HOME funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) that were allocated to RHDC and available in HUD systems, but have not been appropriated in the City budget. The funds were awarded for the construction of a new single-family housing project, which is now underway. These funds will be appropriated as budget authority against HUD’s line of credit for HOME projects.


Staff Memorandum

Rental Law Ordinance Updates

February 20, 2018

Presenter

Brian Jones

Issue File #

17-104

Item Short Title

A discussion on revisions to the rental law ordinance. (17-104)

Intended Outcome of Discussion/Requested Action Bring the updated version of the rental law ordinance to the

March 6th Council Meeting.

Background

In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance about rental law. In January 2018, the Council revisited the ordinance after several revisions were proposed. Since then, the Zoning Committee has considered the proposed revisions and would now like to recommend an updated version of the ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Some of the revisions include:

Changing the effective date from March 1st, 2018 to August 1st, 2018.

Changing the title from “Contract Required” to “Rental Disclosure Required.”

Adding “or lessor’s agent,” throughout in order to handle the property manager issue.

Adding an affirmative defense if the lessee has requested the disclosure in writing but has not been provided it.

Adding “acknowledging the lease of the property” to (4)(d).

Adding back language regarding “reasonable cause” to subsection (5).

1

ORDINANCE 2018-___. 2

3

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PREVIOUSLY ENACTED ORDINANCE 4

2017-51 REGARDING RENTAL CONTRACTS. (17-104) 5

6

WHEREAS, on November 11, 2017, the Municipal Council approved Ordinance 2017-51 7

enacting Provo City Code Section 6.26.150 (Contract Required) to establish requirements of 8

landlords in disclosing zoning rules for rental properties; and 9

10

WHEREAS, said ordinance contained an effective date of January 1, 2018, which was 11

amended to March 1, 2018 by Ordinance 2018-01 approved on January 9, 2018; and 12

13

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Municipal Council met in Work Session to discuss 14

additional proposed amendments to Ordinance 2017-51; and 15

16

WHEREAS, on March 6_______________, 2018, the Municipal Council held a duly noticed 17

public meeting to ascertain facts regarding this matter, which facts are found in the meeting record; 18

and 19

20

WHEREAS, after considering the facts and comments presented to the Municipal Council, 21

the Council finds (i) Ordinance 2017-51 and Provo City Code Section 6.26.150 should be amended 22

as proposed and (ii) this action, as set forth below, reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general 23

welfare of the citizens of Provo City. 24

25

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Municipal Council of Provo City, Utah, as 26

follows: 27

28

PART I: 29

30

The previously approved Ordinance 2017-51, as amended by Ordinance 2018-01, and Provo 31

City Code Section 6.26.150 enacted thereby, is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. 32

33

PART II: 34

35

A. If a provision of this ordinance conflicts with a provision of a previously adopted 36

ordinance, this ordinance shall prevail. 37

38

B. This ordinance and its various sections, clauses and paragraphs are hereby declared to be 39

severable. If any part, sentence, clause or phrase is adjudged to be unconstitutional or 40

invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 41

42

C. The Municipal Council hereby directs that the official copy of the Provo City Code be 43

updated to reflect the provisions enacted by this ordinance. 44

45

D. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been posted or published in 46

accordance with Utah Code 10-3-711, presented to the Mayor in accordance with Utah 47

Code 10-3b-204, and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 10-3-713and Provo City 48

Code Section 6.26.150 in its entirety shall take effect on August 1, 2018. 49

50

END OF ORDINANCE. 51

EXHIBIT A

6.26.150. Rental DisclosureContract Required.

(1) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “LessorOwner” means any person leasing to another person a rental dwelling or any

interest thereinincludes any duly authorized agent of a property owner, including an authorized

property manager, but does not include any tenant or sublessor except on-site property managers

of multi-family dwellings.

(b) “LesseeTenant” means any person leasing from another a person a rental dwelling or

any interest thereinincludes any lessee and/or sublessee.

(c) “Provo City Rental DisclosureContract” means , at a minimum, a document provided

by the Provo City Community Development Department in accordance with this

Section.executed by both the owner and one or more tenants that meets the requirements in

subsection (4). It need not contain any additional terms to meet the requirements of this section.

(d) “Rental dwelling” has the meaning defined in Provo City Code Section 6.02.010, but

also includes a mobile home rental dwelling as defined in that section.

(2) Every lessor, or the lessor’s agent, shall provide to each lessee of the lessor’s property a

Provo City Rental Disclosure signed by the lessor, or lessor’s agent, and shall obtain the lessee’s

signature thereonowner of a rental dwelling shall have a written contract with each adult tenant.

(3) Every adult tenantlessee shall obtain a Provo City Rental Disclosure from the lessor, or

lessor’s agent, of the leased property and shall sign the samehave a written contract with the

owner of any rental dwelling. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this subsection if the

lessee requests in writing the Provo City Rental Disclosure from the lessor, or lessor’s agent, and

the lessor, or lessor’s agent, fails to provide it.

(4) The Provo City Rental Disclosurecontract shall contain the following:

(a) a copy of the rental dwelling license for the lease propertycopy of the rental dwelling

license application approval letter for that property;

(b) a statement advising the lessee that if the lessee subleases or assigns any portion of

the leased property to another, then, as a sublessor, the lessee is obligated to meet a

lessor’s obligations under this Section with regard to his or her sublessee;

(c) a statement of copy of the Tenants’the Rrights and Rresponsibilities of lessees

document provided by Provo City; and

(cd) a place for the signature of both the lessor and lessee acknowledging the lease of the

propertyan acknowledgment by both owner and tenant of tenant’s lease of the premises.

(5) A lessor, lessor’s agent, or lesseeThe owner shall make the Provo City Rental

Disclosurecontract available to Provo City officials upon request when reasonable cause exists to

believe that there is a violation of this section or of occupancy limits provided in Provo City

Code Title 14 when reasonable cause exists to believe that there is a violation of this section.

(6) It shall be unlawful for any lessorowner, lessor’s agent, lesseetenant, or other individual to

violate the requirements of this section.

(7) Any lessorowner, lessor’s agent, lesseetenant, or other individual who intentionally,

knowingly, or recklessly violates this section shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

(a) No person shall be in violation of this section unless he intends a violation, is aware

that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause a violation of this section, or is aware of,

but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will result

in a violation of this section.

(b) A person shall not be held liable if a violation of this section results from his criminal

or simple negligence.

(c) A second or subsequent conviction under this ssection shall be a Class B

misdemeanor.

(bd) For purposes of this section, a plea of guilty or no contest to a violation of this

ssection, which plea is held in abeyance under Utah Code Title 77, Chapter 2a, Pleas in

Abeyance, is the equivalent of a conviction, even if the charge has been subsequently

reduced or dismissed in accordance with the plea in abeyance agreement.

Planning Commission Staff Report

Ordinance Amendment

Hearing Date: February 14, 2018

ITEM 1* Greg Soter requests an amendment to Section 14.21A.160 to increase number of

residential units needed for recreational amenities from five to twenty in the General

Downtown (DT1) Zone. Downtown Neighborhood. 16-0023OA, Dustin Wright, 801-

852-6414

OVERVIEW

The applicant is requesting to change the ordinance in 14.21A.160 that currently

requires new developments that have more than 5 units to provide ten percent of the

gross floor area (GFA) as amenity space. The applicant has a project plan that has 14

proposed units. Other zones that require a percentage of GFA to be used as amenity

space have a minimum requirement of 20 units for this requirement to apply.

Applicant: Greg Soter

Staff Coordinator: Dustin Wright

Property Owner: City Wide

Parcel ID#: City Wide

Current Zone: General Downtown (DT1)

General Plan Des.: Downtown (D)

Acreage: N/A

Council Action Required: Yes

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue to a future date to obtain additional information or to further consider information presented. The next available meeting date is February 28, 6:00 p.m. 2. Deny the requested Project Plan. This action would not be consistent with the recommendations of the Staff Report. The Planning Commission should state new findings.

Current Legal Use: N/A Relevant History: N/A Neighborhood Issues: No issues have been made known to staff. Summary of Key Issues:

Consistency with other zones that require amenity space.

Staff Recommendation: Move to recommend approval to the Municipal Council for the proposed ordinance amendment in Attachment 1.

Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 February 14, 2018 Page 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

The LDR, MDR, HDR, and CMU zones require projects with 20 units to provide

amenity space.

The DT1 and DT2 zones require projects with 5 units to provide amenity space.

STAFF ANALYSIS

1. Provo City Code Section 14.02.020(2) sets forth the following guidelines for

consideration of ordinance text amendments:

Before recommending an amendment to this Title, the Planning Commission

shall determine whether such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is

consistent with the goals and policies of the Provo City General Plan. The

following guidelines shall be used to determine consistency with the General

Plan:

(a) Public purpose for the amendment in question. Allowing this change

could help increase infill development feasibility in the Downtown on

smaller lots and provide more residential units to help support

Downtown growth. This is a goal in the Downtown Planning area.

(b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in

question. The amendment would still require larger developments to

provide amenity space, while providing more flexibility for smaller

developments to be financially feasible.

(c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies,

goals, and objectives. Goals in the General Plan for the Downtown

include promoting residential development and redevelopment.

(d) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan’s “timing

and sequencing” provisions on changes of use, insofar as they are

articulated. No issues with timing and sequencing.

(e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of

the General Plan’s articulated policies. No potential issues are seen that

would hinder articulated policies.

(f) Adverse impacts on adjacent land owners. There are no foreseen

impacts by this amendment.


(g) Verification of correctness in the original zoning or General Plan for the

area in question. N/A

(h) In cases where a conflict arises between the General Plan Map and

General Plan Policies, precedence shall be given to the Plan Policies. No

conflicts.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff finds that the proposed amendment would allow for greater flexibility for infill

development in the Downtown. Smaller sites that are not providing a large number of

units (over 20) see less of a need or demand to provide an amenity space that would

see as much use as developments that have over 20 units. Other residential zones that

require amenity space, only require it for developments that have 20 or more units.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Move to recommend approval to the Municipal Council for the proposed ordinance

amendment in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment


Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance Amendment

14.21A.160. Landscaping and Recreational Amenities.

(1) Landscaping meeting the guidelines of Ch. 15.20 – Landscaping shall be required for all yards and

open areas not used for vehicular parking or access.

(2) In any new project consisting of five twenty (20) or more residential units, an area equivalent to ten per cent

(10%) of the residential gross floor area shall be developed in recreational amenities, such as a common

clubhouse, gym, pool, roof-top garden, or other amenity. Landscaping in front and street side yards, the 15 foot

minimum facade set back, and other required areas (such as distance provisions required by the

International Building Code) shall not be calculated towards meeting this provision. Only 50% of the required

recreational amenity space may be located outdoors at the ground floor level.

Planning Commission Staff Report

Ordinance Amendment

Hearing Date: February 14, 2018

ITEM 3* Peter Evans requests a Code Amendment to Section 14.19.020 to allow Dental

Laboratories (SLU# 6515) as a Permitted Use in the Community Commercial (SC2)

Zones. City-Wide Impact. 18-0001OA, Dustin Wright, 801-852-6414

Applicant: Peter Evans

Staff Coordinator: Dustin Wright

Property Owner: N/A

Parcel ID#: N/A

Current Zone: Community Commercial (SC2)

Acreage: N/A

Number of Properties: N/A

*Council Action Required: Yes Related Application(s): ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Continue to a future date to obtain additional information or to further consider information presented. The next available meeting date is February 28, at 6:00 p.m. 2. Recommend Denial of the proposed ordinance amendment. This would be a change from the Staff recommendation; the Planning Commission should state new findings.

Current Legal Use: N/A Relevant History: N/A Neighborhood Issues: No issues have been made known to staff. Summary of Key Issues: Existing permitted uses in the SC2 zone does not allow this Standard Land Use (SLU) code. Staff Recommendation: Move to recommend approval to the Municipal Council for the proposed ordinance amendment in Attachment 1 of this report.


OVERVIEW

The applicant is requesting to add SLU code 6515 – Dental Lab Only to the list of

permitted uses found in 14.19.020 of the Provo City Code. Currently, this use is not

listed, but dental offices are a permitted use. SLU 6515 consists of dental labs and drug

rehabilitation. It is not intended or requested to add drug rehabilitation to the permitted

uses of this zone. To resolve this, the amendment would list SLU 6515 – Dental Lab

Only.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The SC2 zone currently does not list dental labs as a permitted use.

SLU 6515 is for Dental Lab and Drug Rehabilitation.

The applicant is requesting Dental Lab Only.

STAFF ANALYSIS

1. Provo City Code Section 14.02.020(2) sets forth the following guidelines for

consideration of ordinance text amendments:

Before recommending an amendment to this Title, the Planning Commission

shall determine whether such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is

consistent with the goals and policies of the Provo City General Plan. The

following guidelines shall be used to determine consistency with the General

Plan:

(a) Public purpose for the amendment in question. The proposed use would

not negatively impact the public purpose.

(b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in

question. Allowing the use would provide greater flexibility for land

uses in a zone where it would be compatible.

(c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies,

goals, and objectives. The proposed amendment would be compatible

with the General Plan, and have similar impacts as other permitted

uses in the zone.

(d) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan’s “timing

and sequencing” provisions on changes of use, insofar as they are

articulated. No issues with timing and sequencing.


(e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of

the General Plan’s articulated policies. No potential issues are seen that

would hinder articulated policies.

(f) Adverse impacts on adjacent land owners. There are no foreseen

impacts by this amendment.

(g) Verification of correctness in the original zoning or General Plan for the

area in question. N/A

(h) In cases where a conflict arises between the General Plan Map and

General Plan Policies, precedence shall be given to the Plan Policies. No

conflicts.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff finds that the proposed amendment to add dental labs to this zone would not have

any greater impact than other permitted uses in the zone already. Allowing this use

would provide greater flexibility to the permitted land uses.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Move to recommend approval to the Municipal Council for the proposed ordinance

amendment in Attachment 1 of this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment

Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance Amendment

14.19.020. Permitted Uses.

(4) Permitted Principal Uses. The following principal uses and structures, and no others, are permitted in the

SC2 zone:

Use No. Use Classification

6515 Dental Lab Only


Staff Memorandum

Economic Development and Redevelopment

Departments: Potential Budget Requests

February 20, 2018

Presenter

Dixon Holmes David Walters

Issue File #

18-005

Item Short Title

A presentation on the Economic Development and Redevelopment and potential budget requests (18-005)

Intended Outcome of Discussion/Requested Action Presentation in preparation for budget season

Background

At a Priorities Retreat in January, the Council identified retail in Provo as an area they would like to tackle. The Economic Development and Redevelopment Departments in Provo City will report on how they’re performing with their budgets and what they may need to accomplish their goals.

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - UtahPROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting 1:00 PM , Tuesday, February 20,...

Documents

Transcript of PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - UtahPROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Work Meeting 1:00 PM , Tuesday, February 20,...