[0:00] Good evening. We apologize for the

[0:02] slight delay in our start this evening.

[0:05] We welcome you to the Provo City Council

[0:07] meeting. [clears throat]

[0:09] It's 5:33 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11th.

[0:14] We'll begin with a roll call. Councelor

[0:17] Bogden,

[0:21] » Becky Bogden,

[0:22] >> Travis Hoben,

[0:23] >> Gary Garrett, Jeff Whitlock.

[0:27] Was it wasn't on. And are the other

[0:30] counselors online yet, Kevin?

[0:32] >> Yes, Craig Christensen is online.

[0:39] » Okay. And we expect um Katrice shortly.

[0:44] >> Can you hear me, Gary?

[0:46] >> Yes. Thank you, Craig. Rachel, are you

[0:48] online now?

[0:49] >> Yes, I was. They just barely made me the

[0:51] panelist. I couldn't talk before.

[0:53] >> Okay. Thank you.

[0:58] Our opening prayer this evening will be

[1:01] offered by Lynn Sorenson, one of our

[1:03] neighborhood chairs from the Pleasant

[1:05] View neighborhood after which

[1:09] councelor Whitlock will lead us in the

[1:10] pledge of allegiance. Len.

[1:19] » Eternal Father,

[1:21] we thank thee for this opportunity to

[1:23] gather as community members,

[1:27] citizens, and residents.

[1:30] We are grateful for our forebears who

[1:33] helped us to have this opportunity, and

[1:35] we're grateful for our current leaders

[1:38] in the community, the state, and the

[1:40] country.

[1:41] who work to preserve those freedoms.

[1:46] We ask you to be with us in this meeting

[1:48] that we might have clear minds, that we

[1:51] might be respectful of one another.

[1:54] We pray most humbly for our neighbors in

[1:57] the state who are costed by fires and

[2:00] those across the continent.

[2:04] We pray that those fires might be

[2:06] abaded.

[2:07] Again, we thank thee for this

[2:09] opportunity and do so in thy holy name.

[2:12] Amen.

[2:13] >> Amen. Please stand and join me in the

[2:15] pledge of

[2:15] >> allegiance

[2:19] to the flag of the United States of

[2:22] America and to the rep for it stands

[2:26] nation

[2:30] and justice for all.

[2:35] Thank you, Councelor Whitlock, and thank

[2:37] you, Lynn.

[2:41] To begin our meeting, we have a period

[2:43] of of recognition. We're going to be

[2:45] recognizing a um one of Provo City's

[2:50] employees of the month. Before we do

[2:51] that, we have uh ALS another recognition

[2:54] that we're going to do. Um

[2:58] Erin, did you make your way in here yet?

[2:59] I know you're presenting later.

[3:04] Okay. Well, we'll surprise him at a

[3:06] later time in the meeting. Then

[3:07] [clears throat] Erin, as you'll see,

[3:09] he's presenting later on one of our

[3:11] items. He's been one of our planners

[3:13] here in the city for 18 years, and this

[3:15] is his last meeting. So, um, we'll come

[3:19] back to that with that. Then, Chief BBE,

[3:22] we'll turn the time over to you for the,

[3:24] uh, employee recognition.

[3:30] Council, thank you for the opportunities

[3:32] to recognize one one of our awesome

[3:36] employees.

[3:38] Denise Hernandez, would you please come

[3:39] forward?

[3:51] I gota say she thinks that she

[3:55] uh victim advocate Denise Hernandez is a

[3:58] champion for the citizens of Provo and

[4:00] for everyone who needs support during

[4:03] her two and a half years with Provo

[4:06] City. She first served as a a part-time

[4:09] court advocate before transitioning to a

[4:11] full-time victim advocate. Her strong

[4:14] work ethic, organizational skills, and

[4:16] compassion allow her to provide

[4:18] exceptional service to every client

[4:20] regardless of their circumstances.

[4:23] As an affluent Spanish speaker, she also

[4:27] provides valuable interpretation and

[4:29] translation assistance throughout the police department and other

[4:33] departments within the city. Her

[4:35] language and cultural knowledge help

[4:39] serve many Provo residents in an

[4:42] authentic and meaningful way. Denise has

[4:46] uh played an important role in

[4:48] strengthening the victim services

[4:50] department. When she recognizes a need,

[4:53] she takes initiative and addresses it.

[4:56] She continually seeks training and

[4:58] opportunities to improve her skills,

[5:00] then generously shares what she learns

[5:03] with clients and colleagues.

[5:05] As a lifelong Provo resident,

[5:09] Denise is an outstanding example of the

[5:12] values Provo represents and of the

[5:15] dedicated service our city and police

[5:18] department provide to our community.

[5:20] Please, thank you very much.

[5:23] >> Congratulations,

[5:32] We'd like to do a council photo if we

[5:34] could with you, Denise. Just right down

[5:36] here in front. We'll join you down

[5:37] there.

[6:12] It is a piece, right?

[6:17] » [clears throat]

[6:20] » All right.

[6:28] It's not

[6:59] Aaron, we we saw you walk in. Could you

[7:02] come up here as well, Aaron? This is

[7:03] Aaron Ardmore, who, as I mentioned, has

[7:06] been our planning supervisor and worked

[7:07] in the planning department for uh 18

[7:10] years. He's likely worked with many of

[7:12] you as you've brought projects forward

[7:14] to our city. Uh Erin, we just want to we

[7:18] will miss you greatly. You've been such

[7:20] a resource to the council and helpful in

[7:23] so many ways. We appreciate what you've

[7:25] done. We wish you well in your new

[7:27] venture and uh but I appreciate we'll I

[7:30] know we'll hear from you later um this

[7:32] evening as you present a project, but we

[7:34] just have this small token of

[7:35] appreciation for you, Erin. Thank you

[7:37] very much.

[7:39] >> Erin, where are you going? Where are you

[7:42] headed?

[7:44] Where are you going? So, I'm going to be

[7:46] the planning manager for Murray.

[7:48] >> Oh, congratulations. All right. Thank

[7:50] you.

[7:50] >> Thanks.

[7:56] » Well, now we've set aside some time now

[7:59] for open public comment. As

[8:02] [clears throat] indicated on the screen,

[8:03] a republic a required public hearing

[8:06] will be held for certain agenda items

[8:08] prior to council action. After each such

[8:11] item has been presented, time to comment

[8:14] will be provided for all who wish to

[8:16] speak. For items that do not require a

[8:19] public hearing, public comment will

[8:21] still be taken following presentation of

[8:23] the item. At this time, 15 minutes have

[8:27] been set aside for open public comment

[8:29] period, which is intended to allow

[8:32] comment on matters that do not appear on

[8:34] the agenda, but are limited to topics

[8:37] regarding municipal business or within

[8:40] council purview. Persons who wish to

[8:42] speak during this time

[8:46] will

[8:48] um can can approach the podium. During

[8:50] the period, each speaker will generally

[8:52] be limited to two minutes that will

[8:55] indicate on the screen.

[8:57] Due to noticing requirements, no formal

[8:59] action will be taken on matters that do

[9:02] not appear on the agenda. So, any who

[9:05] would like to make po u public comment

[9:07] can come forward at this time. We'll

[9:09] take comments on Zoom as well if anyone

[9:11] is watching online. And just begin your

[9:14] comment by stating your name and your

[9:16] city of residence.

[9:22] And we we've been joined by our seventh

[9:24] council member, Katrice, um online as

[9:27] well. Katrice Mccay, any public comment?

[9:33] Yes. Come to the microphone. And if

[9:35] you're [clears throat] going if you're

[9:36] just feel free to come up in front here

[9:38] if you'd like to make public comment as

[9:40] well and you can just uh form a line.

[9:46] » My name is Brooklyn Lawrence. I live a

[9:48] two-minute bike ride from here. I have

[9:50] geared up for some time to address

[9:52] concerns about housing and rent in

[9:54] Provo, but I've tabled those comments

[9:56] after an experience on July 2nd, showing

[9:59] me something far more imminent to my

[10:01] life. On Thursday, July 2nd, I had a fun

[10:03] evening planned biking to Bridalville

[10:05] Falls with my mom, brother, and daughter

[10:07] in her bike seat. On this trail, much

[10:10] like bike lanes throughout Provo, rogue

[10:13] right turners want perfect visibility,

[10:15] wanting perfect visibility, pummel

[10:17] through crosswalks at high speeds, which

[10:19] turns every intersection into a complete

[10:22] stop for bikers who can't perfectly

[10:24] trust that white walking man sign. On

[10:26] July 2nd at the office at Riverwood's

[10:29] intersection, I had such a white walking

[10:32] man sign, and uniquely a large black

[10:34] pickup truck, the kind with tires waist

[10:37] high and a hood shoulder height, was

[10:39] already parked there respectfully behind

[10:41] the crosswalk lines. Though his windows

[10:43] were tinted darkly, and I couldn't see

[10:45] if we had made eye contact, I stopped to

[10:48] ensure he saw us and also to allow my

[10:50] family to catch up so we could all cross

[10:52] together. The white walking man's sign

[10:54] was still boldly white, and traffic the

[10:56] other direction had a green light when I

[10:57] entered the crosswalk. My front tire had

[11:00] almost cleared his car when he was

[11:02] suddenly lurching forward. Could he have

[11:04] lifted his foot off the brake

[11:05] accidentally? Surely, he saw me directly

[11:08] in front of him. The truck slammed into

[11:10] my front tire, forcing my handlebars the

[11:12] wrong direction, making the whole thing

[11:14] lean until his tire was in my left

[11:16] ankle. I heard myself yell, and he

[11:18] stopped and backed up. Four or five feet

[11:21] from his head, I could make out his look

[11:22] of surprise and embarrassment and what

[11:24] appeared to be his phone in hand. But

[11:26] what if we had been a little further?

[11:28] What if Brier, my daughter, in the back

[11:29] seat, had been what made contact with

[11:32] him? Or my stomach carrying my unborn

[11:34] 20week second child had made contact. As

[11:37] an adolescent, biking safety is

[11:40] different, and I implore Provo City

[11:43] Council to help us achieve platinum so

[11:45] that we can protect our younger Provo

[11:48] resident.

[11:49] Thank you, Brooklyn.

[11:52] Thank you. Please do. Sorry about the

[11:54] experience that you had. Glad that we

[11:56] have public safety officers here who

[11:59] have made a note as well.

[12:03] » Hello, my name is Cullen Stockdale and

[12:05] I'm a constituent from Provo. I'm here

[12:07] asking that Provo creates a formal

[12:09] policy that prohibits the Provo Police

[12:11] Department from entering into a 287g

[12:14] agreement with ICE. I believe that the

[12:16] county police and the Riverton police

[12:18] have set a dangerous precedent by

[12:20] entering into this type of agreement and

[12:22] that we should not follow suit. ICE

[12:24] tears apart families and acts in ways

[12:26] that are a disgrace to law enforcement

[12:28] and democracy. And if we were to enter

[12:30] into this agreement, our own officers

[12:32] would be seen in the same way. I ask

[12:34] that you please create this policy for

[12:36] the safety of the people living in

[12:37] Provo. Thank you for your time.

[12:39] >> You're welcome. Thank you.

[12:45] Does it matter? Okay. Uh, good

[12:48] afternoon. My name is Isaac Low. I'm a

[12:50] resident of Provo and I also want to

[12:52] speak about ICE today. Um, I firmly

[12:55] believe that the presence of ICE in our

[12:56] neighborhoods weakens our community and

[12:58] undermines trust in the government,

[13:00] including at the local level. Um, and on

[13:02] the topic of trust, I want to propose

[13:04] some ways that we as a city can

[13:05] proactively help all of our residents to

[13:07] feel safer. Um, I recently emailed the

[13:10] council and the mayor about some

[13:11] specific suggestions uh on how we as a

[13:14] city can build that trust and limit

[13:15] local entanglement with federal

[13:16] immigration enforcement. And a full list

[13:18] of those suggestions can be found at no

[13:20] iceinutah county.com which has been put

[13:23] together by a loose coalition of

[13:25] concerned citizens and and volunteers

[13:27] including myself. And I would urge you

[13:29] to um look over that. Um, I'm grateful

[13:32] for the reply I received to my email

[13:34] from councelor Bogdan, um, which linked

[13:36] to a Facebook post from the Provo Police

[13:38] Department that listed the ways in which

[13:40] they do not collaborate with ICE. I do,

[13:42] however, feel that this is insufficient

[13:43] without any official law or policy

[13:45] behind it, especially when it comes to

[13:47] that trust that I keep mentioning. Um,

[13:50] items two and three from the previously

[13:52] mentioned website feel particularly

[13:54] relevant and they're also not without

[13:56] legal precedent according to my research

[13:58] and I just want to read those. Um, one

[14:01] has already been mentioned. It is to

[14:02] pass a formal resolution prohibiting

[14:04] local law enforcement from entering any

[14:06] 287g agreement with ICE either now or in

[14:08] the future. And two is to pass a formal

[14:11] policy directing local law enforcement

[14:13] not to honor ICE civil immigration

[14:14] detainers without a judicial warrant

[14:16] signed by a judge rather than an

[14:18] administrative warrant signed by ICE

[14:19] alone. Um, I know that the council can't

[14:23] respond to public comment directly in

[14:24] the moment, but I would love the

[14:26] opportunity um for me or one of my

[14:28] fellow volunteers to discuss this

[14:29] further maybe in a future council

[14:31] meeting or work meeting. Um, and you can

[14:34] reach out on that same website. And I'll

[14:35] just say it again, no ice

[14:37] inutahount.com. Thank you for your time.

[14:39] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Isaac.

[14:47] Um, in I think I believe it was 2016.

[14:50] >> Your your name and city of residence

[14:53] >> and city of residence. Yeah. Josh Provo,

[14:55] Utah.

[14:55] >> Great. Thank you.

[14:56] >> Um, so I believe in 2017 there was a

[14:58] company called Flock that was

[15:00] established. Um, and from my most recent

[15:04] research, I came to the conclusion

[15:05] there's about 100,000

[15:08] Flock cameras throughout the United

[15:09] States. And what these cameras do, I'm

[15:12] sure a lot of you guys are are aware, is

[15:14] they are mainly used to track license

[15:16] plates and cars um for traffic reasons,

[15:20] also for for supposed security reasons.

[15:24] And so I have the I wanted to pose the

[15:26] question of I guess what um

[15:33] implementations are set in place that

[15:37] will restrict the use of these cameras

[15:39] throughout the United States. I'm not as

[15:42] much worried about or concerned about

[15:43] the camera itself. We've had cameras

[15:45] through throughout the United States in

[15:47] Utah for the longest time at traffic,

[15:48] stop lightss, whatever. Um, the problem

[15:51] I have is with the data centers, the

[15:53] data that the cameras collect

[15:56] and I just haven't seen any

[16:00] about I came here just to find out if

[16:02] there was any thing put in place to kind

[16:04] of um restrict the use of those cameras.

[16:07] In fact, I don't think they should be

[16:08] used at all personally um especially

[16:10] with the type of data that they record

[16:13] um including facial recognition.

[16:16] um further updates that will be used to

[16:18] track Bluetooth connections when walking

[16:20] by the cameras.

[16:22] Um I've read enough books to to know

[16:25] that this isn't the type of thing I want

[16:27] to have in the United States. Um

[16:30] so that is my one concern I wanted to

[16:33] address today. I don't know if any

[16:35] people in the government in the United

[16:37] States are concerned about this and if

[16:40] they are I would like to know what is

[16:44] going to be put in place to stop the

[16:46] progression of these cameras.

[16:48] >> Thank you Josh.

[16:52] » Any other public comment?

[16:57] » Great. Thank you. We will close public

[16:59] comment and and any of those who uh have

[17:01] offered public comment if they'd like to

[17:03] get our email address from our staff,

[17:06] we're happy to follow up via email as

[17:08] well. Um, thank you again, Chair

[17:10] Garrett.

[17:11] >> Yes, if I could just make one, I guess

[17:13] public service announcement regarding

[17:14] the very last comment on the Provo City

[17:17] website at provo.gov, gov. There's a

[17:19] page that's called the transparency

[17:21] portal and on that page under trending

[17:23] issues is a link to the Provo City

[17:25] Transparency Portal page about flock

[17:28] cameras has a bunch of information that

[17:31] I think would answer many of your

[17:32] questions.

[17:33] >> Great. Thank you, Brian. Councelor

[17:34] Bogden,

[17:35] >> I'll follow up with that. Also, March

[17:37] 10th, because we have had these and I've

[17:38] been replying. March 10th, if you go to

[17:41] agenda, no, if you go to Provo City

[17:43] Council's YouTube page, March 10th,

[17:46] 2026, we did have a work meeting session

[17:48] about this. It's the first item on the

[17:50] agenda. So, if you go to that YouTube

[17:52] page for March 10th, 2026, you should be

[17:55] able to see the presentation, but that's

[17:57] as far as council can go.

[18:00] >> Thank you, councelor Bogdan.

[18:04] [clears throat]

[18:08] Items

[18:10] two and three, this item and the next

[18:13] one, two and three have been continued

[18:15] >> and four

[18:18] uh have been continued to another

[18:20] meeting. I don't need to read them in,

[18:22] do I, Brian? No. Okay. So, um with that,

[18:25] they're all related to the Lake View

[18:28] Parkway development. We'll continue with item five. [clears throat]

[18:38] Item five is an implied motion on an

[18:40] ordinance regarding parking requirement

[18:42] reductions. This will be presented by

[18:45] one of our council policy analyst,

[18:47] Tanner Taguchi. Tanner, welcome.

[18:50] >> Yes, thank you, councel. So, this item

[18:53] is an amendment to a proposal that's

[18:56] been through the legislative process

[18:57] thus far. It's been amended

[18:59] significantly and then I can explain the

[19:03] uh proposal that will be that's in the

[19:06] draft ordinance associated or that's

[19:07] included in your packet.

[19:13] » No, it's not.

[19:16] There we go. There we go.

[19:18] So right now I could explain there are

[19:21] two different ways that someone who's

[19:23] proposing a development can receive a

[19:25] reduction in the required number of

[19:26] parking spaces that they need to

[19:28] construct as part of that development.

[19:30] So in each zone there's a required

[19:31] amount uh based on it uh its needs and

[19:34] that's laid out in code. If they would

[19:36] like to reduce that amount they approach

[19:37] the planning commission and they can

[19:39] either go one of two routes. the parking

[19:41] impact study and traffic demand

[19:42] management plan which is essentially

[19:45] evidence that the traffic demand will be

[19:47] less and that they can mitigate it

[19:48] through increasing things like bike

[19:50] parking and ride share uh access to

[19:52] transit and things like that or to have

[19:55] an adequate number of uh long-term and

[19:57] short-term bike parking stalls and then

[19:59] the parking the planning commission can

[20:01] grant a percent reduction in the amount

[20:04] of stalls that's required for that

[20:06] development. What this proposal would do

[20:09] as it's current presently uh written is

[20:12] to eliminate both of those avenues to

[20:14] receive a reduction effectively making

[20:16] it there's no more administrative means

[20:18] for a developer to request such a

[20:20] reduction. Now, in the previous work

[20:23] meeting, we talked about how this

[20:24] basically puts the power to grant a

[20:26] reduction in the council's hand, not

[20:29] explicitly, but by default, because the

[20:32] only way a developer could um get such a

[20:35] reduction is to ask the council for code

[20:38] amendment, a zoning change or amendment

[20:40] to a zone, uh an overlay or some type of

[20:44] negotiate some type of agreement with a

[20:46] deed restriction to ensure that those

[20:48] parking desires are met by the council.

[20:50] those council desires are met. Also to

[20:53] address a concern from the work meeting

[20:55] where this was presented, um I read

[20:57] through the TDM agreements, so the

[20:59] traffic demand management agreements

[21:01] that have been fully executed and are

[21:03] listed in uh our software at the

[21:06] development services department and they

[21:08] this would allow it would still allow

[21:10] the department to follow up and enforce

[21:13] on those agreements that are currently

[21:15] in effect.

[21:18] And this is just an illustration for

[21:19] your benefit of what the process would

[21:21] look like if this were to pass. So they

[21:24] would come up with legislative solution,

[21:26] present it to the council, and then they

[21:27] would take one of those avenues to help

[21:29] the developer meet their goals.

[21:33] I have them open to any questions. Any

[21:36] questions for Tanner?

[21:40] Thank you, Tanner.

[21:42] This item is available for public

[21:44] comment. We'll we'll open public comment

[21:46] at this time for this item. If any of

[21:48] you would like to speak to this item,

[21:50] you can come to the podium.

[21:54] Seeing none, we'll close public comment

[21:56] and bring the item to council for

[21:58] discussion. Councilor, any discussion

[22:00] that you'd like to have on this item?

[22:07] [clears throat] Rachel, go ahead.

[22:08] Council,

[22:09] >> thank you. Thank you. I as probably will

[22:13] not surprise you based on the work

[22:14] meeting am completely opposed to this.

[22:17] Um we had as well a previous iteration

[22:21] of the council carefully thought out

[22:23] what the qualification should be for

[22:26] parking requirement reductions with the

[22:29] advice of our excellent staff. This was

[22:32] a well-developed plan and

[22:35] I don't see the benefit for removing

[22:39] this administrative tool which we

[22:42] defined and gave to them to put it back

[22:46] on the the burden of the council to do

[22:50] this. I believe that the result will be

[22:53] less innovation, less development or you

[22:57] know, frankly less housing because you

[23:00] wouldn't it would be very difficult for

[23:02] this council to approve a request for

[23:05] parking reduction. That's why we're

[23:06] taking out this administrative route

[23:09] right now. And if you are spending more

[23:13] money and more of your square footage on

[23:15] parking, you're spending it less on

[23:18] places where people can actually live.

[23:20] Um, I believe I'm in the minority on

[23:23] this as far as the council goes, but I

[23:26] did want to voice my objection to it.

[23:29] And I did also want to thank our staff

[23:31] for excellent work on this.

[23:33] >> Thank you, councelor Whipple. Any other

[23:36] council discussion?

[23:40] Councelor Whitlock.

[23:43] >> Yeah, we had a really good discussion

[23:45] about this in our work meeting. One of

[23:48] the reasons why this came up is because

[23:52] parking continues to become become a

[23:56] continues to be a major driver of costs

[23:59] in development. A parking spot on the

[24:02] land costs about 12 to $15,000. A above

[24:06] ground per stall and above ground uh

[24:09] stall costs 25 to 35,000 and an

[24:12] underground stall costs 40 to 50,000. So

[24:15] it's a very dramatic cost. And when we

[24:17] have a an environment where people are

[24:20] struggling to find places to live,

[24:22] housing costs so much. It is something

[24:23] that I think

[24:25] uh we're I am and I think other

[24:28] counselors are interested in trying to

[24:29] find opportunities to find creative

[24:31] solutions. At the same time, parking is

[24:35] a consistent concern we hear from

[24:36] residents of people wanting to make sure

[24:38] that uh they're able to park when they

[24:40] go about their daily lives. And that's

[24:42] something we really understand. So, I I

[24:45] personally am interested in this change

[24:47] because I think it'll help us as a

[24:48] council grapple with this issue a bit

[24:50] more and try to understand how we can um

[24:54] maybe revise those criteria that

[24:56] councelor Whipple mentioned. Um if this

[24:59] ends up becoming something where as as

[25:03] councelor Whipple suggested, maybe we

[25:04] never see any of these proposals. I

[25:06] think that would be unfortunate. I hope

[25:07] we do. I hope we get to see them and we

[25:09] get to review them and try to understand

[25:10] the scenarios and get better data about

[25:13] who owns cars in which circumstances. I

[25:15] think there's a lot of times where we

[25:16] have these conversations. We bring

[25:18] anecdotes to the table and we say,

[25:19] "Well, you know, I didn't have a car

[25:20] when I was at BYU." And then someone

[25:22] says, "I had a car when I was at BYU."

[25:23] And then that's the conversation I

[25:25] really want to understand. What

[25:26] percentage of BYU students actually own

[25:28] cars? What percent would not like to own

[25:30] a car but feel like they have to because

[25:31] they can't get around reasonably uh

[25:33] without it? Um, I think better data

[25:36] would help us make better decisions and

[25:37] I think as we have better data and good

[25:39] discussion, we can potentially come with

[25:40] a come up with a better long-term

[25:42] framework.

[25:43] >> Thank you, Councelor Whit Whitlock. Uh,

[25:45] Councelor Christensen, I see you unmuted

[25:48] your uh mic. Do you have a comment?

[25:53] » No, I I'm actually good to go. I I uh I

[25:56] do support this because I think the this

[25:58] the council owes a good response to the

[26:02] city and instead of just an

[26:03] administrative approach where we dwindle

[26:05] down the parking and make parking a

[26:07] nightmare for everyone. Um I think the I

[26:10] think the city deserves better and I

[26:11] think we need to take that

[26:13] responsibility on and uh improve. So I'm

[26:17] I am supportive of this.

[26:19] >> Thank you, Councelor Christensen. Anyone

[26:22] else?

[26:23] I'm en encouraged knowing that the

[26:26] administration is looking to

[26:29] connect with BYU proactively and get

[26:32] some data relative to uh how many

[26:36] students are bringing cars and how we

[26:38] can address this important issue for our

[26:40] city. It's not to say the council

[26:42] wouldn't grant at least certainly at

[26:44] least consider a parking reduction for

[26:47] projects that maybe are near campus, but

[26:50] um our our hope is to maintain that

[26:53] control um at the at the council level.

[26:57] So if there's no other comment, I'll

[26:59] call for a vote.

[27:05] Councelor McCay,

[27:07] >> yes. Councelor Councelor Christensen.

[27:11] >> Yes.

[27:12] >> Councelor Whitlock.

[27:13] >> Yes.

[27:14] >> Councelor Bogdan,

[27:15] >> yes.

[27:15] >> Councelor Hoben,

[27:16] >> yes.

[27:17] >> Councelor Whipple,

[27:18] >> no.

[27:19] >> And councelor Garrett, yes. So that

[27:22] motion passes by a vote of 61. Thank

[27:24] you.

[27:28] » [clears throat]

[27:29] >> Next, we have an ordinance amending the

[27:31] zone map classification of real

[27:33] property, generally located at 313 East

[27:37] 200 North from the residential

[27:39] conservation or RC zone to the

[27:42] highdensity residential or HDR zone.

[27:46] This will this is in the Waqin

[27:47] neighborhood and it will be presented to

[27:49] us by one of our planners, Dustin

[27:51] Wright. Welcome, Dustin. Right. Thank

[27:53] you very much. Good evening. Yeah. So

[27:56] there here's the property that the

[27:57] applicant is looking to have reszoned.

[28:00] It's uh just under a half acre of land

[28:03] in the Walke neighborhood. Uh currently

[28:06] on the property there's a single family

[28:08] home and also on the property on the the

[28:12] parcel on the north there's a triplex.

[28:15] Uh the proposal is to build a 12-unit

[28:17] town home project.

[28:23] And here is uh a look at the the zoning.

[28:26] So the residential conservation zone for

[28:28] this property, um it doesn't allow for

[28:31] uh lots to be created or um or new

[28:35] units. And so that's why they're

[28:37] requesting a a reszone at this time so

[28:40] that they can move forward with that um

[28:43] project. Um

[28:46] the HDR zone is what they're requesting.

[28:48] And that's the highdensity residential

[28:50] that allows up to 50 units per acre. Uh

[28:53] their project would be well under that

[28:56] at 27 units per acre is what they're

[28:58] proposing.

[29:01] Uh our city's adopted a a neighborhood

[29:05] plan back in 2014. Uh here's a look at a

[29:10] land use a future land use map within

[29:12] that document. Uh and the intent and

[29:16] goal of this uh document is to help um

[29:19] when reszones come in to take a look at

[29:21] this to see if what's being proposed uh

[29:24] fits with what the the future land use

[29:26] map was um the plan was designed to to

[29:31] help implement. So as you can see here

[29:35] um the property is located down in the

[29:37] in this yellow area which is the

[29:39] residential conservation

[29:41] um indicating that uh

[29:45] the existing zone matches with what uh

[29:48] is proposed to to continue uh there. So,

[29:52] higher density type developments. The

[29:54] walking plan identified uh the northern

[29:57] portion of the neighborhood to uh locate

[30:00] those type of uh higher density

[30:02] developments closer to campus uh to

[30:05] allow for walkability and and things

[30:07] like that there. So, you can see at 500

[30:10] north, that's kind of where um below 500

[30:14] north is where the conservation of the

[30:17] single family residential pioneer

[30:19] neighborhood is kind of focused. And

[30:21] then the higher density kind of

[30:23] increases as you go closer to campus to

[30:26] the north.

[30:30] Here's a look at the concept plan that

[30:32] the applicants proposing to uh develop

[30:36] these 12 unit uh town homes.

[30:40] And then there's some elevations as well

[30:42] of of that project.

[30:44] um as part of this

[30:48] because they're asking for the

[30:49] highdensity residential zone uh which

[30:52] like I showed earlier has a higher um

[30:55] allowed density. They're proposing or

[30:58] profering a development agreement that

[30:59] would cap the density at 27 units an

[31:03] acre and not the 50 as allowed in the

[31:06] zone as well as the height uh to be

[31:10] um [clears throat] capped at what

[31:12] they're proposing here at 42 feet

[31:14] instead of 55 ft. Uh they've also

[31:17] profered a

[31:19] um to do a deed restriction for owner

[31:22] occupancy within these units for the I

[31:24] believe the first year or possibly two

[31:26] years. Um and so that was another thing

[31:29] that uh was profered there. So it's kind

[31:33] of an overview of this one. I'd be happy

[31:34] to answer any questions that you might

[31:36] have. Thank you, Dustin. Any questions

[31:38] for Dustin?

[31:43] Okay. Thank you, Dustin. If the

[31:45] developer is here, we are happy to hear

[31:48] from him at this at this time.

[31:52] >> Perfect. And him and or her.

[31:55] >> Him and or her.

[31:56] >> I'll take either.

[31:57] >> Remind us of your name. I'm sorry.

[31:59] >> Taran Melissa Elkins. Terara. Thank you.

[32:00] >> Yes. Thank you. And good evening,

[32:02] council members and city staff. Uh,

[32:05] Mayor Judkins, lovely to see you here as

[32:07] well. Again, my name is Taran Melissa

[32:09] Elkins. I'm the owner of the property on

[32:10] 313 East 200 North there here in Provo.

[32:14] Thank you, Dustin, for the introduction.

[32:16] Um, before I begin, I'd actually like to

[32:18] ask the council's permission to use a

[32:19] slightly updated version of our

[32:21] presentation. The updates simply reflect

[32:23] a few items we were recently able to

[32:25] confirm and do not change the substance

[32:27] of the application. So, wonder if that

[32:29] would be okay.

[32:30] >> Yes. Uh,

[32:30] >> and Kevin, if you wouldn't mind. Thank

[32:32] you.

[32:34] >> Okay. Thank you all for your patience,

[32:35] your guidance, and collaboration

[32:37] throughout this process. We truly

[32:38] appreciate your service and the many

[32:40] evenings you devoted to our community. I

[32:42] came into this process wanting to build

[32:44] something beautiful and I didn't realize

[32:46] I'd also become strangely passionate

[32:48] about sewer infrastructure. [laughter]

[32:51] So, with that said, let's dive in. This

[32:54] property has been home to my

[32:56] grandfather, my father, my sister,

[32:58] myself, and now my children. It's been

[33:00] part of our family story for over 50

[33:02] years.

[33:04] This corner property is bordered on two

[33:06] sides by more than 30 existing apartment

[33:09] units over 40 feet in height with direct

[33:11] views into the site. We explored

[33:14] preserving and reinvesting in the

[33:15] existing improvements, but the costs

[33:17] were substantial and the site's

[33:19] challenges still remained. Ultimately,

[33:22] we saw an opportunity to create

[33:23] highquality owner occupied housing that

[33:26] better serves both the neighborhood and

[33:28] the community.

[33:30] This project represents nearly four

[33:32] years of collaboration. We've worked

[33:34] closely with the city staff, neighboring

[33:36] property owners, planning commission

[33:38] members, elected officials, and the

[33:40] community through multiple project

[33:42] refinements. With the city engineering

[33:44] staff, we've secured additional property

[33:46] necessary for that HDR eligibility. And

[33:49] to achieve a better overall site design,

[33:52] we've partnered with public works to

[33:54] improve the sidewalks and upgrade that

[33:56] six-inch sewer line into a 10-in line,

[33:59] delivering a long planned infrastructure

[34:01] improvement that benefits the entire

[34:03] block. Most importantly, we're proposing

[34:06] to formalize these commitments through a

[34:08] development agreement that in includes a

[34:12] perpetual owner occupancy deed

[34:14] restriction and corresponding HOA

[34:17] management, helping preserve long-term

[34:20] home ownership for generations to come.

[34:22] >> Tara, could could you that last

[34:24] sentence, did you say perpetual?

[34:26] >> Perpetual, I did. Okay. And that was one

[34:28] of the um the things that we were able

[34:30] to confirm. Um, I know Dustin said that

[34:32] we were just going to do that year. We

[34:34] felt like at the city planning

[34:35] commission that that was a concern that

[34:37] they didn't think that that might be

[34:39] long enough for people to establish

[34:41] those roots. And so we really looked

[34:43] into that and we were able to find out

[34:45] that through establishing our own HOA

[34:48] before these are sold that we can

[34:50] accomplish that very goal and then hand

[34:52] that off to the owners.

[34:55] >> Thank you. Keep going.

[34:56] >> Yeah, of course.

[34:58] >> Okay. The HDR is being requested

[35:01] primarily for setback flexibility,

[35:04] allowing improved landscaping,

[35:06] circulation, and more functional homes.

[35:08] As most of you are aware, those MDR

[35:10] setbacks are 2020 and 10. HDR is the

[35:14] opposite, 10, 10, and 20, which

[35:16] significantly improves the footprint of

[35:18] this project. So while the requested

[35:20] zoning is HDR, the project itself

[35:22] remains consistent with MDR in its

[35:25] scale, height, density, parking, and

[35:28] overall character. We are not suggesting

[35:31] HDR belongs everywhere, only that in

[35:33] this established context, the project

[35:35] provides thoughtful infill, a logical

[35:38] transition between existing land uses,

[35:40] and something the neighborhood has

[35:42] little very, very little of today, which

[35:44] is the permanent home ownership.

[35:48] Every residence includes a parking

[35:49] garage with off- streetet access,

[35:51] helping preserve an attractive

[35:53] pedestrian streetscape. The twocar

[35:55] garages are 15 to 20% larger than

[35:58] required, and the single ones are 48%

[36:01] larger than required. Guest parking and

[36:03] bicycle parking are also provided. When

[36:06] the project did come up, that five that

[36:08] one half parking shall stall short. City

[36:11] planning advised us that we could could

[36:13] incorporate a transportation demand

[36:15] management strategy that TDM to address

[36:18] that deficiency. So based on those

[36:20] discussions, we understood the TDM would

[36:22] satisfy that requirement and eliminate

[36:24] the need for an additional parking stall

[36:26] encouraging walking, bicycling, and

[36:29] other alternatives to driving.

[36:32] This is one of Provo's most walkable

[36:34] neighborhoods. Within just a few

[36:36] minutes, residents can walk to BYU

[36:38] parks, transit, schools, shopping, and

[36:41] the library. And the surrounding

[36:43] neighborhood reflects a range of

[36:44] architectural styles, including the

[36:46] bungalow/craftsman,

[36:48] midcentury ranch, neocclassical, and

[36:50] Victorian. So, because no one style

[36:52] predominates, a structure that

[36:54] complements this variety would

[36:55] strengthen the distinctive character and

[36:57] architectural diversity.

[37:00] What excites us most about this project

[37:02] is who it is designed for. These homes

[37:04] are intended for households looking to

[37:06] establish roots and invest in the

[37:08] neighborhood. And we want our project to

[37:11] complement the existing surroundings

[37:12] while adding something it currently

[37:14] lacks, that permanent home ownership. So

[37:17] this is the community we spent four

[37:19] years creating.

[37:21] Vanna White, if you will, Vanna Brown.

[37:26] Uh this is the Tuscanel town homes

[37:29] centered around home ownership,

[37:31] thoughtful architecture, quality

[37:32] landscaping, walkability, and

[37:34] neighborhood compatibility. And although

[37:37] that although that application requires

[37:39] that HDR zoning, the project itself

[37:41] remains contextually consistent with the

[37:44] surrounding neighborhood in its height,

[37:46] massing, and residential feel, creating

[37:49] that lasting value for both the

[37:50] neighborhood and the city of Provo. So

[37:53] in summation, 12 owner occupied town

[37:56] homes, perpetual owner occupancy

[37:58] formalized through the development

[38:00] agreement, deed restrict restriction and

[38:02] HOA regulations, a project significant

[38:06] significantly below HDR height and

[38:09] density allowances and designed to

[38:11] strengthen long-term home ownership in

[38:13] Provo and the Walke neighborhood. So

[38:16] four years ago, we came to you with an

[38:17] idea. Today, we return with something

[38:19] much better. a project shaped by your

[38:22] guidance, strengthened through

[38:24] collaboration, and designed to to serve

[38:27] Provo for generations. We appreciate

[38:29] this opportunity to continue partnering

[38:31] with you to create a project that

[38:32] reflects the character, the value, and

[38:34] the long-term future of Provo. Thank you

[38:37] for your time, your service, and your

[38:38] thoughtful consideration.

[38:40] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Tara. Thank

[38:42] you for your presentation. Any questions

[38:44] for the developer for Terra? Yes,

[38:46] please.

[38:47] Um,

[38:48] >> we'll do public comment in just a

[38:49] second.

[38:51] Uh yes, councelor Whitlock.

[38:54] >> So, one [clears throat] of the things

[38:55] that we talked about during our work

[38:56] meeting was the fact that uh you were

[38:59] profering two-year deed restrictions,

[39:00] but this says otherwise. Is that a

[39:02] change? And can you explain that?

[39:03] >> It is a change and that is why we had

[39:05] Kevin upgrade the slides is because we

[39:07] were able to look in that a little bit

[39:09] further. um as I mentioned. So what we

[39:12] want to do so that that is not a concern

[39:14] at all is make sure to get that HOA in

[39:17] place before these are sold then once

[39:20] they are sold then we can hand those

[39:22] over to the property owners and they can

[39:24] maintain that HOA that deed restriction

[39:26] the development agreement everything is

[39:28] going to support that and it's going to

[39:31] regulate the uh the home ownership for

[39:34] as hopefully as long as it can.

[39:36] >> Yes. exponentially.

[39:40] >> Yes. C. Any other questions for the

[39:42] developer? Councelor Bogden.

[39:44] >> So, the deed restriction, what will it

[39:46] state on it?

[39:47] >> What will it I'm sorry.

[39:48] >> What will it state on the deed

[39:50] restriction?

[39:50] >> So, the deed restriction will state the

[39:52] perpetual uh long-term home ownership.

[39:56] Um, we want to put that in the

[39:58] development agreement.

[40:00] The deed restriction will go in the

[40:02] development agreement and so will the

[40:04] HOA regulations if that makes sense.

[40:06] >> Okay.

[40:06] >> Yeah. Councelor Bug and I was just going

[40:08] to weigh in and say that I I can

[40:09] probably actually answer that better in

[40:10] the sense that because this has now been

[40:12] something that the council's asked for

[40:14] so many times, we actually have a form

[40:16] for that. So, we have a a template deed

[40:18] restriction that based on the

[40:21] representations in the meeting, we would

[40:22] anticipate attaching that template to

[40:24] the development agreement and the

[40:26] development agreement would say that

[40:28] they would have to record with the

[40:29] county something that matches that

[40:30] template.

[40:32] >> And is the other idea is that it would

[40:34] also be in the CCNRs. Is that why you

[40:36] were mentioning the HOA?

[40:37] >> Yes,

[40:38] >> exactly. Yes.

[40:41] >> And would I know that sometimes is Bill

[40:45] here? Is Bill here? Bill in the back?

[40:48] Yes. Okay. So, what is that thing that's

[40:51] recorded with the county that if we do

[40:54] an upzone like an HDR zone that

[40:58] whatever is in that development

[41:00] agreement is going to hold fast and

[41:02] strong there instead of disappearing

[41:04] with the certificate of occupancy?

[41:06] >> I believe that would need to be in the

[41:07] deed restriction.

[41:10] >> What exactly is that? Can you explain

[41:11] it?

[41:13] >> So, a deed restriction regarding the

[41:15] occupancy. Well, no. Regarding the HDR

[41:18] zone and having it not not go to 50

[41:22] units an acre or whatever that is. So,

[41:24] it would just stay that 12 units unless

[41:26] it was reszoned or a development

[41:28] agreement was

[41:29] >> it'll

[41:30] >> I'd have to defer to Brian.

[41:31] >> Yeah, I was going to say it's similar to

[41:32] the to the deed restriction we've

[41:33] discussed in the Vesper property. be a

[41:35] deed restriction recorded on the county

[41:37] records that says notwithstanding the

[41:39] uses permitted in the HDR zone that the

[41:42] density is limited to X units and then

[41:46] that that's recorded on the property

[41:48] perpetually. So that remains the the

[41:50] restricted use

[41:51] >> and then they would have to come back to

[41:52] council to get that off the day

[41:54] restriction,

[41:54] >> right? They'd have to come back and ask

[41:56] for our permission in order for it to be

[41:58] taken off. And and Becky, we're only at

[42:00] barely under a half acre and so we can't

[42:03] you can't build more than that. Only by

[42:05] that restriction alone, just the acreage

[42:07] alone.

[42:07] >> But if it's 50 units to an acre and

[42:09] you're at a half acre at an HDR zone,

[42:12] you could build 25 units. So I would

[42:14] push back and say no.

[42:18] >> You're saying that that that somebody

[42:19] would build something bigger eventually

[42:20] or that we would build something bigger

[42:22] or

[42:22] >> Yeah. I mean, as long as you have that zone in place, right?

[42:27] >> Yeah.

[42:27] >> By right. HDR zone,

[42:29] >> someone can just come in and do that

[42:30] without coming into council because

[42:32] you'd have that and those deed

[42:34] restrictions, well, that development

[42:37] agreement is going to expire the minute

[42:39] that you have your certificate of

[42:40] occupancy, right? Unless it's recorded

[42:42] on the deed plot. And then from what I

[42:44] understand,

[42:46] those 12 will be in place until it comes

[42:50] to council. If like in 20 years you want

[42:52] to build something more, you'd have to

[42:54] come and do the process again. in 20

[42:56] years if you want to like rip down the

[42:58] whole thing and build whatever's in that

[43:01] zone that's allowable without having it

[43:03] come to council. So that to me that's

[43:05] another concern.

[43:06] >> Yeah. No, and I think you bring up a

[43:07] really good point. I think we are trying

[43:08] to safeguard in every way possible so

[43:11] that that doesn't happen through

[43:13] recording and deed restrictions and

[43:14] everything that we have possible and at

[43:16] our disposal. Right now

[43:20] » it's is it 12 uh three-bedroom units?

[43:24] So, there are two three-bedroom units.

[43:26] >> Two three three bedroom

[43:27] >> two onebedroom units and the rest are uh

[43:30] two-bedroom units.

[43:31] >> The remaining 13.

[43:32] >> Yeah.

[43:32] >> Okay.

[43:33] >> Not 13, but Yeah.

[43:35] >> 12

[43:35] >> because there's only 12 in total.

[43:36] >> And two parking stalls per unit.

[43:38] >> Two parking stalls per unit

[43:39] >> plus five or six guests.

[43:41] >> Yes. And our architect can speak to all

[43:44] the lovely um advantages. Each room will

[43:47] have uh each bedroom will have its own

[43:49] bathroom, walk-in closets. There's some

[43:51] really really beautiful things that he's

[43:53] been able to do. The parking is is above

[43:56] and beyond. The uh the infrastructure is based so that that you can really get

[44:02] in and out. It's uh beyond what the

[44:04] restrictions are, beyond what the code

[44:06] is. And so we're hoping that we've we've

[44:09] made something beautiful with what we

[44:11] have there.

[44:14] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[44:15] >> do you have a sense on what these will

[44:17] cost? We're going to hit market value

[44:19] and go from there.

[44:21] >> No estimates.

[44:22] as of right now.

[44:23] >> Okay. Thank you.

[44:24] >> Probably a little too hard to tell

[44:25] students.

[44:27] >> Any other questions?

[44:31] » Okay. Thank you, Tara.

[44:33] >> Thank you so much.

[44:34] >> We'll now open this item for public

[44:36] comment. If there are residents here who

[44:38] would like to address this, please come

[44:40] to the microphone, state your name and

[44:42] city of residence.

[44:43] >> Richard Wilson. I live in Oram. However,

[44:46] I own a business in Provo with 51

[44:48] employees and also own several of these

[44:51] old houses that were built in the 50s uh

[44:56] with multiple remodeling problems. Uh

[44:59] I've worked on these houses for more

[45:02] than a decade with Terren's father and

[45:05] now with Taran all for free by the way.

[45:09] Uh and the infrastructure is just

[45:13] unworkable.

[45:15] It's it's got the old plumbing. Every

[45:18] time you go to do something, something

[45:20] else is dependent on that and you just

[45:22] go, "Ah, [gasps]

[45:23] we've poured money into them trying to

[45:25] preserve them. It just will not be

[45:29] preserved. They're just crumbling.

[45:31] They're over a hundred years old.

[45:33] They're And so I think this project

[45:36] would be a really improvement to the

[45:38] neighborhood right now. They're just old

[45:40] buildings and and almost impossible to restore.

[45:47] It would the only way you could do it, I

[45:49] think, is tear the whole thing down and

[45:51] rebuild and then it's not historical.

[45:52] It's a it's a new place, you know, but

[45:56] uh so my vote would be to do this

[45:58] resoning. I think it would be much

[46:00] better looking in the neighborhood and

[46:03] than it is now. And so there you have

[46:07] it.

[46:07] >> Thank you, Richard. as an example, you

[46:10] know, we we had to replace a boiler. It

[46:12] cost us 20 grand. Uh cost Scott 20

[46:15] grand. And then five years later, we had

[46:17] to replace it again. The parts are just

[46:19] so old and everything is uh Okay.

[46:22] >> Thank you. Thank you, Richard.

[46:26] >> Hi, I'm Reagan, resident of Provo and a

[46:30] young mother and have just a little

[46:33] family here. Um, and as a young couple

[46:35] who's wanting to build a family in

[46:37] Provo, the housing market's extremely

[46:39] disheartening. It's very hard to find

[46:42] rentals, let alone something that you

[46:44] could buy to set down roots here in

[46:46] Provo. Um, there's just simply not very

[46:49] many options. And we believe that

[46:51] projects like this will give us the

[46:52] opportunity to stay in Provo, build a

[46:55] life here, and become part of the

[46:57] community, especially at such an

[46:59] affordable rate. I think that we would

[47:00] be able to bring more young families who

[47:03] can help support the community, help

[47:05] grow it and become outstanding citizens

[47:08] of Provo and help improve just the

[47:11] quality of life here. Um, so we'd love

[47:13] to see more opportunities like this and

[47:15] we think that this project would be just

[47:18] the thing that Provo needs. Thank you.

[47:20] >> Thank you, Reagan.

[47:23] >> Hi, I'm Reagan's mom. My name is Jenny.

[47:26] I live on the just the um border of

[47:28] Orman Provo. My dad grew up just a

[47:31] couple blocks from here. And so we have

[47:33] deep roots in Orman Provo and I get

[47:36] emotional. I don't know why.

[47:38] As a mom, I want my kids and my

[47:40] grandkids to stay.

[47:45] I have a son getting married this week.

[47:48] That's why I'm being emotional. Anyway,

[47:50] three kids getting married in five years

[47:53] and I just they they love the community,

[47:55] but there's no way they can afford a

[47:56] house and just give them the chance

[48:01] to stay and

[48:04] I would have chance to be near my

[48:06] grandkids. [snorts] So, thanks for your

[48:08] time.

[48:10] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Jenny.

[48:12] did you say you live in ORM?

[48:15] Thank you.

[48:17] >> Um, good evening. My name is Jeremy

[48:19] Brown and I'm the general contractor for

[48:22] this project. Um, I've spent my career

[48:24] building homes and neighborhoods and

[48:26] >> Jeremy, are you also from Provo?

[48:28] >> I live in ORM right on Yeah, literally

[48:31] that I can throw a rock into Provo where

[48:33] one

[48:34] >> it's on the other side of the fence. So,

[48:36] >> um, I've spent my career building homes

[48:38] and neighborhoods and I've learned that

[48:40] you can tell a lot about a project by

[48:41] the questions that people ask. Some

[48:44] projects ask, "How do we save money?"

[48:46] And others ask, "How do we build more?"

[48:48] But over the last four years, this team

[48:50] has kept asking, "How do we make this

[48:52] better for the neighborhood?" I've known

[48:54] Taran for a long time, and she doesn't

[48:56] settle for good enough. Her property has

[48:58] been reviewed in three neighborhood

[49:00] meetings, countless meetings with

[49:02] designers, engineers, and Provo City

[49:04] staff, and input from neighbors. She

[49:06] listens, takes feedback seriously, and

[49:09] keeps improving until she believes she's

[49:11] found the best solution. That commitment

[49:13] shows up in decisions most people will

[49:15] never see. Upgrading sewer

[49:17] infrastructure, which I understand she's

[49:19] very passionate about now,

[49:21] and purchasing additional property to

[49:23] make the site function better, aren't

[49:25] inexpensive decisions. But they're

[49:27] investments that will benefit this

[49:29] neighborhood for years to come. As the

[49:31] general contractor, that tells me this

[49:33] team isn't just building homes, they're

[49:35] investing in the future of this

[49:36] neighborhood and in the city of Provo.

[49:39] What has impressed me the most is that

[49:40] she genuinely believes communities

[49:42] become stronger when people know their

[49:44] neighbors, gather together, and create

[49:46] memories. And if you still have doubts

[49:49] about her commitment to community, drive

[49:51] by her house this Halloween. Rumor has

[49:53] it there may even be some dementors

[49:55] flying over Hogwarts. So, thank you for

[49:58] your time and consideration on this

[49:59] project.

[50:00] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Jeremy.

[50:07] » Good evening. My name is David Hawinson

[50:10] and I am a resident of Provo and the

[50:12] walking neighborhood. And my iPad just

[50:15] went off.

[50:17] Trust.

[50:19] I think this issue comes down to trust.

[50:22] Do you as city council members have

[50:25] trust in the city planning commission

[50:28] when they recommended denial this

[50:30] project?

[50:32] Can we as residents in the Walke

[50:34] neighborhood trust the zoning process

[50:36] and ordinance that was established in

[50:39] conjunction with the city and neighbors

[50:42] that has been in place for many years

[50:44] for our neighborhood? High density

[50:46] allowed above 500 north and residential

[50:49] conservation south of that. Can we trust

[50:53] that you believe the residential

[50:55] conservation zone is really, and I quote

[50:58] from the city ordinance,

[51:00] designed to encourage conservation and

[51:03] preservation of existing housing,"

[51:05] unquote?

[51:07] Or are those just words in a zoning

[51:09] ordinance and on a zoning map until

[51:12] somebody wants an exception?

[51:15] Can we as residents trust you, our

[51:18] elected officials, to support and follow

[51:21] what the city and the citizens in this

[51:24] neighborhood have agreed upon as far as

[51:27] zoning and protecting the existing

[51:29] housing in our neighborhood

[51:32] trust.

[51:34] And as a side note,

[51:36] the idea of having this being a place

[51:39] for families with no yards, no green

[51:43] space, no gathering for barbecues, no

[51:46] porches, you're not going to have

[51:49] neighborhood. Thank you.

[51:51] >> Thank you, David.

[51:55] » Um I'm Julia Black. I'm a resident of

[51:57] Provo. Um, to me, I'm about to graduate

[52:00] um, BYU in about a year, and I'm not

[52:04] going to lie, the future freaks me out.

[52:06] I mean, and my friends joke every single

[52:08] day that we're going to be moving to

[52:09] Kansas cuz it's the only place that we

[52:12] can afford a house. And so watching

[52:15] Taran and the and as an owner that she's

[52:17] willing to take a property that's been

[52:19] in her family for 50 years and make it

[52:22] into something that's going to benefit

[52:24] my family's future is so impactful and

[52:27] touching to me. And I'm so grateful that

[52:30] there's people like Taran willing to put

[52:32] a project underway so that I don't have

[52:35] to move to Kansas. Um, I've been I've

[52:39] lived in Provo and was born here my

[52:41] entire life and I love the community.

[52:43] It's been like who and I am and I want

[52:46] my kids to have the same opportunity,

[52:48] but buying a starter home feels

[52:50] impossible and feels some like something

[52:52] I won't be able to complete like 2020

[52:54] years down the road. And so, and it's

[52:56] nice to know that I'm not just going to

[52:58] have to buy anundyear-old house that has

[53:01] a bunch of problems that are unforeseen

[53:03] that I'm going to just have to be

[53:04] pouring money into my entire life. And

[53:07] so I just am so grateful for the

[53:08] opportunity to buy a newer home that's

[53:11] been redone and is almost um catered to

[53:14] my needs. And so yeah, thank you.

[53:17] >> Thank you, Julia. And there's probably

[53:19] somebody here from Kansas, by the way.

[53:21] [laughter]

[53:30] » Dorothy in Kansas. Um, I grew up here in

[53:33] Provo, just blocks from this project

[53:36] right by the BYU stadium. I have been

[53:38] outside of Utah for 15 years. I

[53:40] [clears throat] have watched the

[53:41] transitioning of my Provo during the

[53:43] hard times and the good times. We used

[53:46] to go to Foxfield and the Fox theaters.

[53:48] We went through to the not hole through

[53:50] to BYU stadium. I've watched prover

[53:52] center businesses struggle and the pros

[53:55] and [clears throat] the and the

[53:57] businesses and things look pretty broken

[53:59] down and things struggle for so many

[54:00] years. I'm so grateful for projects like

[54:03] this that are well thought out, provide

[54:05] housing for our kids to raise their kids

[54:07] here and for even more thoughtful,

[54:09] beautiful additions that make the city

[54:11] feel revived, cultured, and beautiful.

[54:14] city planning commission and denial of

[54:16] this project's not really fair to a real

[54:18] estate owner that has cared and weeded

[54:21] and restored and replaced pro um

[54:24] projects and processes over and over

[54:26] again on this on different properties. I

[54:29] have several of my family members own um

[54:32] business own properties in this

[54:34] community and it is very very difficult

[54:36] to keep everything up but um we have

[54:38] spent our whole lives here and um but

[54:42] I've moved and come back and after I've

[54:43] moved back I just feel like such a

[54:46] gratitude for the beauty and everything

[54:48] that you have all done what other people

[54:50] are doing to make Provo look like a

[54:52] whole new place and I think it's really

[54:56] um productive and honor for me to see

[54:59] that change. And I think this project is

[55:01] exactly what we need where it's not just

[55:04] one big giant home that looks beautiful.

[55:06] It's it's a very beautiful structure.

[55:08] And I loved what Taran said about the

[55:10] different types of buildings that come

[55:13] for the architectural nuances. I think

[55:15] that's very powerful.

[55:17] >> Thank you.

[55:17] Dorothy.

[55:24] » Hi, my name is Daniel Winch. I am a

[55:26] current Provo resident. Um, I've been at

[55:28] BYU for the last three years and I was

[55:30] recently accepted into law school and I plan to be here for the foreseeable

[55:34] future. I love Provo. I feel I feel at

[55:37] home. It is my home and and truth be

[55:40] told, I wish that there was options like

[55:42] this for me to purchase. I was also

[55:45] recently married and my wife and I, we

[55:47] went through the the painful process of

[55:49] trying to find a rental or even just a

[55:51] house just to even just a space to live

[55:53] in that's close enough to campus where

[55:55] we can both commute where both of our

[55:58] schedules can make it work. She's also

[55:59] studying at BYU and our our schedules

[56:02] are very different and quite frankly

[56:04] there's just no options

[56:07] and we just got married and I would love

[56:10] and we're starting a new life and I

[56:11] would love to be able to move into a new

[56:13] space to call my own to start that new

[56:16] identity fully but there's just there's

[56:18] just no options and and I would love to

[56:20] be able to purchase something like this

[56:22] and I I honestly think it's an excellent

[56:24] idea that that you should go forward

[56:26] with this. Thank you.

[56:29] Daniel.

[56:33] » Leah Dair. I'm a resident of Provo. In

[56:35] fact, I live Kitty Corner from this

[56:36] development right off where the map was.

[56:39] Uh, what I'd like to address is the

[56:40] vital integrity of the residential

[56:42] conservancy zone in the walking

[56:44] neighborhood. Um, I was involved in the

[56:47] development of that clear back when it

[56:48] was called Scan, if that rings some

[56:51] bells. The RC zone was probably the most

[56:53] democratically developed piece of

[56:55] legislation ever put into place here in

[56:57] Provo. Hundreds of residents and council

[57:00] members and neighborhood chairs and

[57:03] landlords got together, hammered it out,

[57:06] worked through it, discussed, debated,

[57:08] argued with each other every so often to

[57:11] finally come up with a plan that really

[57:12] made sense. Higher development north of

[57:15] 500 North, closer to BYU, walkable,

[57:18] usable in that way, while preserving the

[57:21] heart of Provo architecture right

[57:23] downtown. And this falls right in the

[57:24] heart of that heart. Um, it was designed

[57:29] to preserve old homes just like mine. My

[57:32] home was built in 1905 by Arthur Sutton.

[57:34] It's half as old as this country. It was

[57:37] a rental that was in the kind of shape

[57:39] that these rentals have been allowed to

[57:42] drop into. And over the past 30 years,

[57:44] we've rebuilt it. We've replaced walls.

[57:47] We've done plumbing. We've done

[57:49] electrical. We've done everything we

[57:50] could to turn this old house into a

[57:52] home. And it's a home my kids love to

[57:55] come back to. And I've watched as my

[57:57] neighbors around my block and around my

[57:59] area have done exactly the same thing. I

[58:03] know we're talking about affordable

[58:04] housing. I heard the term market rate. I

[58:06] don't know if that makes these things

[58:08] affordable. I know it makes them a cash

[58:10] cow when you can throw 12 of them onto a

[58:13] space where four are. Maybe they should

[58:15] sell them to a family like mine was who

[58:17] wants to put the time in to redevelop

[58:20] these things and love them. Maybe they

[58:21] could take that money and go develop

[58:23] their thing in their neighborhood. I'm

[58:25] sure that their neighbors wouldn't mind.

[58:28] Thanks. Thank you, Lee.

[58:33] » Hi, my name is Jessica Sanger and I'm in

[58:35] the Oram uh city of ORM. Um I'll just

[58:38] echo some things that have already been

[58:40] said, so I'll keep it brief. Um but my

[58:42] husband and I have been married for

[58:44] almost two years and have been thinking

[58:46] about housing for a while. And kind of

[58:48] echoing some previous sentiments, it's

[58:50] really hard to find anything and and

[58:53] everything is so expensive, especially

[58:56] like larger properties. And so we've

[58:58] also joked a lot like we're not going to

[58:59] be able to stay in the state by our

[59:01] families. Well, kind of joking, kind of

[59:03] not. Um, but would love to be able to.

[59:05] And so hearing about projects like this

[59:07] that also look really beautiful where we

[59:09] wouldn't have to move into some really

[59:11] ugly, crappy place that we'd be ashamed

[59:13] of, um, sounds really awesome. So, we're

[59:17] in favor of the development. Thank you.

[59:19] >> Thank you.

[59:23] » Good evening. My name is Paul Washburn.

[59:26] I'm also a resident of ORM. I've been in

[59:29] the development business for the last 35

[59:31] years and I've looked at the two homes

[59:34] on the on the existing property. One was

[59:37] built in the late 1800s. The other one

[59:40] was built in the early 1900s. I've been

[59:43] involved in developments where we have

[59:44] been forced or uh required to uh try and

[59:50] refurbish older homes. It's not just

[59:53] paint and a carpet. You go in, you find

[59:56] out that the plaster all needs to be

[59:58] removed because that's how you get to

[1:00:00] replace the electrical that is uh nearly

[1:00:03] a century old and needs to be upgraded.

[1:00:06] Um, when you get to taking the plaster

[1:00:09] off, you find out the plaster and all

[1:00:11] the insulation behind it has got

[1:00:13] aspestus in it. Got to replace all the

[1:00:16] plumbing,

[1:00:17] all of the other parts of the structure.

[1:00:19] By the time you get done, you can easily

[1:00:21] spend several hundreds of thousands of

[1:00:24] dollars per structure and you still have

[1:00:27] a 150 year old house. It doesn't make

[1:00:30] sense. Uh, I don't know what the answer

[1:00:33] is. I like the project they're

[1:00:34] presenting. a zone that says you can't

[1:00:38] replace anything, you can't uh build

[1:00:41] anything is no way to keep the city

[1:00:43] moving forward. People need to have a

[1:00:45] place to live. So, thank you.

[1:00:47] >> Thank you, Paul.

[1:00:51] » Hi, I'm Janie Johnson and I'm in Provo

[1:00:53] and I'm one of the three speakers that

[1:00:55] happen to live like right there that

[1:00:57] would be involved with this. I too was

[1:01:00] around and helped participate in this

[1:01:02] camp and am very concerned of what this

[1:01:06] change in zoning would open up in terms

[1:01:11] of what other buildings could be. It is

[1:01:14] a lovely project. I don't I think it's

[1:01:17] lovely. I um but the issue is is does it

[1:01:21] match the real architecture of the

[1:01:23] neighborhood? Does it keep that downtown

[1:01:25] atmosphere? The other thing too, folks,

[1:01:28] is we have never controlled the parking.

[1:01:30] So, they say that they might be able to

[1:01:32] control the parking, but the parking is

[1:01:34] not controlled down there. I would

[1:01:36] invite any one of you to come stay with

[1:01:39] me for a week once September hits

[1:01:42] because you can't control the parking.

[1:01:45] They may have an they may have a garage

[1:01:47] that may do one or two cars, but there's

[1:01:49] no room for guests. I don't have enough

[1:01:52] room for guests that come to my house to

[1:01:55] visit me after school starts. And not

[1:01:59] only do we have BYU, we have UVU, we

[1:02:01] have Rocky Mountain College, we have all

[1:02:03] these folks living down here. I just

[1:02:05] would like you to consider to continue

[1:02:09] to protect these homes in this area down

[1:02:12] there down where I live in South Walke.

[1:02:16] The other thing too is we've had a lot

[1:02:18] of construction with the asphalt and

[1:02:21] everything going. This would put the

[1:02:23] whole neighborhood out and having to

[1:02:26] figure out reroutes when if if it were

[1:02:30] allowed to be built, it would put out us

[1:02:33] for a while while it was built. So, if

[1:02:36] you'll just consider that. Thank you.

[1:02:39] >> Thank you, Jenny.

[1:02:42] >> Hi, council. My name is Will Stanganger

[1:02:44] and I live in Provo. I live at 318

[1:02:49] East, 300 North, so one block north of

[1:02:51] this and I live there with my wife and

[1:02:54] we have two cars. Um, back in the day uh

[1:02:57] when I moved to Provo, uh, I lived in a

[1:03:00] little house uh, with a front door and a

[1:03:02] back door and this was in like 2018 when

[1:03:04] I was starting school. We kept the front

[1:03:06] door unlocked and we kept the back door

[1:03:08] unlocked and we still do sometimes. So,

[1:03:12] it's still a beautiful and safe

[1:03:13] community. Um, but eventually thinking

[1:03:17] 10, 20, 30, or 40 years from now is what

[1:03:20] I want to consider when my children are

[1:03:22] coming to BYU. Um, or my children are

[1:03:25] going to UVU, wherever they choose to

[1:03:27] go. Um, I don't know what the future is

[1:03:29] going to look like, but I know what it

[1:03:31] looks like now. Um, right now in Provo,

[1:03:34] I have an alarm on one door and I have

[1:03:36] alarm on the other door. Uh, I have to

[1:03:39] lock both doors at night. Um, my friend

[1:03:42] who lives one block away from me, one

[1:03:44] block east and one block north of this

[1:03:46] site, uh, they've had their bike stolen

[1:03:49] twice. I passed six flock cameras on the

[1:03:52] way to get here. Flock cameras are

[1:03:55] automated license plate readers used for

[1:03:57] crime and surveillance. Provo is

[1:04:00] evolving and changing. I want to

[1:04:02] consider what Provo is going to look

[1:04:03] like a 100 years from now. So, if we can

[1:04:05] make certain restrictions and set

[1:04:07] precedents that this doesn't

[1:04:09] automatically open the door to other

[1:04:11] developers just taking advantage of our occupancy crisis. I study economics

[1:04:17] of BYU. I've studied it for a long time.

[1:04:20] There's a buyer market and there's a

[1:04:21] sellers market. I would love to take the

[1:04:23] watch that my dad gave me uh as a kid

[1:04:26] and sell that for a lot more, but it

[1:04:28] doesn't necessarily mean that it's going

[1:04:30] to make everybody else's life better.

[1:04:32] just means it's going to make cars more

[1:04:34] expensive. It just means it's going to

[1:04:35] drive the price of these properties up.

[1:04:37] So buyers and sellers don't always make

[1:04:40] better conditions.

[1:04:42] >> Thank you, Will.

[1:04:45] >> Hi, my name is M. McIntyre. I'm I live

[1:04:48] between Second and Third North on on uh

[1:04:51] Second East. My wife and I bought the

[1:04:53] house that we're in. He used to be the

[1:04:55] Fitzroyce. He was the first um one of

[1:04:58] the first music professors at BYU back

[1:05:00] in 1915 when it was built. We became

[1:05:03] when we bought this, we became

[1:05:05] developers. We I renovated I have

[1:05:08] replaced the electrical, the plumbing,

[1:05:11] and uh a lot of the rooms uh upgraded

[1:05:14] them and uh so it's been a a joy to do

[1:05:17] that because the people that lived there

[1:05:20] before put some effort into it and and

[1:05:23] made Provo. And so what I'd like to do

[1:05:25] is keep Provo here and not lose the

[1:05:28] spirit of Provo. A new developments are

[1:05:30] great. Um but I think that in this case

[1:05:33] it sort of feels like I was a school

[1:05:35] teacher Centennial Middle School

[1:05:37] Gentview. Uh when I had a class of 50

[1:05:40] students um when I should have had a

[1:05:43] class of 25. When you compact more

[1:05:45] students in there, it makes things more

[1:05:47] difficult. Always has been. And I I

[1:05:49] dealt with that and it was a lot more

[1:05:51] difficult. In fact, we had some things

[1:05:52] that we could not uh figure out. So, um

[1:05:55] I'd like to say that um market value

[1:05:58] right now it looks like on town homes

[1:06:00] twobedroom 285,000

[1:06:03] 3bedroom 399,000.

[1:06:05] Is that enough to make it affordable to

[1:06:07] people? It depends on on who's talking.

[1:06:10] One last thing. Um, when I go every day,

[1:06:13] which I did today, with my granddaughter

[1:06:15] Luna, who's 10 months old, and I go

[1:06:17] through the neighborhood, trying to get

[1:06:19] her to sleep when she's really uh upset,

[1:06:22] it makes it difficult to do it when

[1:06:24] there's an increased amount of traffic.

[1:06:27] We go on Northeast, uh, Second North,

[1:06:29] those are collector streets. I

[1:06:31] understand. I try to avoid those, but

[1:06:32] more traffic means more difficulty for a

[1:06:34] little kid as well as families. So,

[1:06:38] that's one of the things that I think is

[1:06:40] what the um this zone is for and I'd

[1:06:43] like to keep it. Thank you.

[1:06:45] >> Thank you, Matt.

[1:06:47] >> How you doing? My name is John Keller.

[1:06:49] Um I actually live in Park City right

[1:06:50] now, but I grew up in ORM and I actually

[1:06:52] lived in the triplex that we're talking

[1:06:53] about here. And back when I was in

[1:06:56] college in the late 90s, I lived there

[1:06:57] and I managed the the triplex. And I can

[1:07:00] tell you that it was falling apart back

[1:07:01] then. like about every month we had to

[1:07:04] bring in a company to, you know, snake

[1:07:06] out the sewer lines. The electrical is

[1:07:08] knob and tube and it's like a hazard.

[1:07:10] It's like asbestous. It's just a a

[1:07:13] complete disaster there. So, I can only

[1:07:15] imagine how it is now all these years

[1:07:16] later. Um, it's an eyesore and I think

[1:07:19] this project is perfect. It's a like

[1:07:22] when I was watching the presentation, I

[1:07:23] was getting the chills. It was like

[1:07:24] beautiful. It was like couldn't imagine

[1:07:26] anything more beautiful than that. And I

[1:07:28] just think as city council, even though

[1:07:31] these these zone restrictions are in

[1:07:32] place, I feel like it's your

[1:07:33] responsibility as a council to make

[1:07:35] adjustments when they're necessary. A

[1:07:37] lot has changed in the world since 2014.

[1:07:39] We've had COVID, we've had accelerated

[1:07:42] pricing, and you know, it's out of

[1:07:43] control. I think that it's in your it's

[1:07:45] your responsibility at this point to

[1:07:47] make adjustments when it's necessary,

[1:07:48] and I feel like this is necessary. So, I

[1:07:50] encourage you to approve the project.

[1:07:52] Thank you.

[1:07:53] >> Thank you, John.

[1:07:56] >> Good evening. My name is Tanya. Um, I'm

[1:07:58] also I reside in Park City. Um, but I

[1:08:00] lived at this property for uh for three

[1:08:02] years as a college student and then I

[1:08:04] lived at the triplex also for three

[1:08:06] years as a newlywed. So, I'm I've

[1:08:08] experienced this neighborhood firsthand

[1:08:10] and I truly loved it. It is an awesome

[1:08:12] neighborhood. One challenge that always

[1:08:15] stood out to me about this property was

[1:08:16] the lack of privacy. Like they said,

[1:08:18] it's surrounded on all sides by the

[1:08:20] Apollo apartments, but there was a

[1:08:21] little backyard behind the triplex, and

[1:08:23] we'd always want to go do a little

[1:08:24] barbecue back there or have some fun

[1:08:26] outside, but um there was just dozens of

[1:08:29] the unit, the Apollo units overlooking

[1:08:31] the backyard, and it just felt like you

[1:08:33] were in a fishbowl back there. Um

[1:08:36] [clears throat]

[1:08:36] our windows and outdoor space were in

[1:08:38] direct view of so many neighboring

[1:08:40] apartments that we just felt like we

[1:08:42] were so exposed. The lack of privacy is

[1:08:44] a real problem in that area. if you want

[1:08:46] to have a house um or even in a triplex

[1:08:50] area. But even with that, we did love

[1:08:52] the neighborhood. We eventually outgrew

[1:08:53] the triplex and um but there weren't a

[1:08:56] lot of opportunities in that

[1:08:57] neighborhood for homeowners and so we

[1:08:59] ended up leaving. Um but that's one of

[1:09:02] the main reasons why I support this

[1:09:03] Tuscanel Town Homes project. I think it

[1:09:05] provides a housing opportunity for those

[1:09:07] people just ready to take that next step

[1:09:09] from renting to owning. And it's just

[1:09:12] the perfect um step to do that. and then

[1:09:15] they don't have to leave the

[1:09:16] neighborhood and the community that they

[1:09:18] already know and love. It's they're

[1:09:19] there. So, I totally support this

[1:09:22] project and I ask you to do the same.

[1:09:23] Thank you so much, council.

[1:09:26] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Tanya.

[1:09:29] >> Hello. Good evening. Thank you everybody

[1:09:30] for um sharing this time with us. My

[1:09:33] name is Jenna. My family lives in um

[1:09:35] Provo. I also lived at this residence in

[1:09:38] my first years of college and loved it.

[1:09:41] Loved the neighborhood, loved the area.

[1:09:43] Uh but I also believe that of course

[1:09:46] growth is inevitable but how we choose

[1:09:48] to grow is something that we should have

[1:09:50] a say in. We have an opportunity to be

[1:09:53] proactive about what we want this

[1:09:55] community to look like and to support

[1:09:58] development that is thoughtful, that is

[1:10:00] beautiful and respectful to both the

[1:10:03] land and the character of the community

[1:10:06] that we love. Wouldn't we rather see a

[1:10:08] property owner who cares deeply about

[1:10:11] this neighborhood thoughtly develop

[1:10:13] their land and create something that

[1:10:15] truly adds value to this community

[1:10:19] rather than waiting for a large outside

[1:10:21] developer to come in someday which would

[1:10:23] probably happen down the road. Uh they

[1:10:26] would have very little vision for this

[1:10:28] property. I believe Tuscanel Town Homes

[1:10:31] gives us an opportunity to embrace this

[1:10:34] growth while still preserving the

[1:10:36] character and the sense of community

[1:10:39] that makes this neighborhood so special.

[1:10:41] Thank you.

[1:10:43] >> Thank you, Jenna.

[1:10:47] » My name is Jaden and I'm a graduate

[1:10:50] student at BYU right now, but um when I

[1:10:52] graduate, I probably will not be living

[1:10:54] in Utah because I'll be priced out. For

[1:10:56] me, it's a mostly a question of

[1:10:58] essentially dignity. The the price of a

[1:11:01] home being more than half of my current

[1:11:05] income. Um is in some ways the community

[1:11:08] telling me to get out. Uh the current

[1:11:11] price of housing that was mentioned

[1:11:12] before, you know, the market pricing

[1:11:13] really represents the voice of people

[1:11:15] that want to live here but that are

[1:11:16] being pushed away.

[1:11:18] A lot of references were previously made

[1:11:20] to, you know, previous zoning plans and

[1:11:22] how democratic of a process it might

[1:11:24] have been, but you know, a large group

[1:11:27] of the people that actually are going to

[1:11:28] end up living here were not represented

[1:11:31] in that sort of process. People that

[1:11:33] actually want to be here, right? And so

[1:11:35] the basic economics of the issue really

[1:11:37] turn it into unfortunately pitting the

[1:11:40] young against the old. Um no matter your

[1:11:44] intentions, it's just the facts of it.

[1:11:45] If you don't um increase the supply of

[1:11:48] housing, then that's just going to be

[1:11:49] what happens. You're telling young

[1:11:52] people that want to come and stay and

[1:11:54] live in Provo to leave. That's what I'll

[1:11:56] have to be doing, unfortunately. Um and

[1:12:01] I would rather not. Um and it's projects

[1:12:05] like these, it's zoning for higher

[1:12:07] density that's going to make that

[1:12:09] happen. even if it's high income um

[1:12:11] housing, if it's costs a lot, just one

[1:12:14] way or another, the economics of it work

[1:12:16] out that increasing supply will lower

[1:12:18] the cost of housing for people that are

[1:12:19] actually trying to enter.

[1:12:21] >> Thank you.

[1:12:22] Jagen.

[1:12:25] >> I liked his comments, by the way. Uh Cam

[1:12:28] Harris, um live in American Fork, but uh

[1:12:31] my occupation, we we finance um

[1:12:34] residential homes across the country.

[1:12:37] Um, I'm a data guy. Councilman Whitlock

[1:12:40] mentioned data. As I think about data,

[1:12:42] I'm sure you guys are well aware of a

[1:12:44] lot of Provos data. I think home

[1:12:47] ownership as a whole is 39%.

[1:12:50] Roughly. Uh, if you look at surrounding

[1:12:52] cities, it's it's closer to 60%. Um, as

[1:12:56] I hear the proposal and the fact that

[1:12:59] they're providing more housing, I like

[1:13:02] the economics lesson that we got. more

[1:13:05] housing, you know, means more families

[1:13:07] can move in. They're offering to have

[1:13:09] that be owner occupied, which means you

[1:13:11] get more residents. You know, as you

[1:13:13] look at the census since 2014,

[1:13:17] we've actually seen a decline in in

[1:13:19] population in Provo. Um, and I think

[1:13:22] it's because there's a lack of supply. I

[1:13:24] don't think it's a lack of demand. You

[1:13:26] have one of the greatest universities

[1:13:28] right here in the in the city. Um, and

[1:13:30] so providing a way for a lot of these

[1:13:32] kids that want to stay here, want to

[1:13:34] stay close to families, sure makes a

[1:13:36] heck of a lot of sense to me. Um, you

[1:13:38] know, day in day out, we're trying to

[1:13:40] find ways to to finance more affordable

[1:13:42] housing. And unfortunately, a lot of

[1:13:45] that has to be unit, you know, count.

[1:13:48] Um, you know, I would love to have a

[1:13:51] backyard and all of these, you know,

[1:13:53] great amenities that I think Provo was

[1:13:55] used to, you know, years and years ago,

[1:13:57] but for these kids to be able to stay

[1:13:59] here and for these families to be able

[1:14:00] to grow, uh, you know, you have to have

[1:14:02] supply. It would be great to see that 39% bump up, to see that, you know,

[1:14:07] population growth bump up. And I think

[1:14:09] you could do it by reinvesting and and

[1:14:12] having people interested in in

[1:14:13] reinvesting in the community. So, thank

[1:14:15] you guys.

[1:14:17] You're welcome. Thank you. Cam

[1:14:19] >> Brooklyn Lawrence. I live on 200 South.

[1:14:22] Um I started attending these meetings

[1:14:25] occasionally back in January because I

[1:14:27] was curious to know what the council is

[1:14:28] doing to solve what feels to me like a

[1:14:31] very overwhelming housing crisis. I

[1:14:34] experienced a 14% rent increase um the

[1:14:38] last time I renewed my contract. And um

[1:14:40] my the price I pay for rent is almost

[1:14:42] the same as what my my parents pay for

[1:14:44] their mortgage. Um, and I can only

[1:14:48] sustain that maybe one more time before

[1:14:50] I'm out of Provo. And um, I have a very

[1:14:53] difficult time searching for other

[1:14:55] places to live. This feels like one of

[1:14:57] the more pressing things that the

[1:14:58] council should be putting attention to.

[1:15:00] I was confused at the start of this

[1:15:02] agenda item because I thought that the

[1:15:04] council was saying 12 homes, that's

[1:15:06] barely a dent. But um, you could fit 25

[1:15:09] there. And I thought that's awesome.

[1:15:10] Yes, let's put 25. I would way rather

[1:15:12] live somewhere in Provo than not than somewhere far away and have a

[1:15:18] backyard. I would way rather be here and

[1:15:21] have something than somewhere else and

[1:15:23] have nothing. Um and so I am um I see

[1:15:28] the proposal of highdensity housing and

[1:15:30] 12 more houses and think yes that is

[1:15:32] barely a dent in the problem that we

[1:15:33] have right now. But to me it seems like

[1:15:35] a beacon of hope. It seems like a way of

[1:15:38] changing the culture towards something

[1:15:40] that is going to make a a dent

[1:15:42] eventually. So, thank you.

[1:15:44] >> Thank you, Brooklyn.

[1:15:47] [clears throat]

[1:15:49] >> Wow. I should have let her be last. Um,

[1:15:52] my name is Terry Bishop. I live in

[1:15:54] American Fork, but I own a property just

[1:15:57] in that block just uh to the east of of

[1:16:00] where this is happening. I came tonight

[1:16:02] ma basically to find out what really was

[1:16:05] going on. I have no idea or no uh

[1:16:07] intention to get up here and say

[1:16:10] anything, but I I also have a little

[1:16:13] property in another place that's going

[1:16:14] through the same scenario almost. Um I

[1:16:19] believe this is a really good project. I

[1:16:21] think it improves the neighborhood and I

[1:16:24] think it will uh improve the value of

[1:16:27] the older homes as well as the new

[1:16:29] homes. Um the concerns over the

[1:16:33] development agreement I think is a

[1:16:36] non-issue in my own own opinion. I think

[1:16:39] that we have great uh city attorneys

[1:16:43] that are taking care of the business.

[1:16:45] They're making sure that our our uh uh

[1:16:49] everything is in order and that they

[1:16:52] we're the city's going to be covered for

[1:16:54] the with that development agreement. um

[1:16:58] providing and limiting the amount of

[1:17:00] homes that are there and are and units

[1:17:02] and I think that'll be ongoing. Very few

[1:17:05] people will uh 20 years down the road

[1:17:07] tear down a really beautiful home or to try to improve it by a few units. So,

[1:17:14] um thank you for your your time and I

[1:17:16] appreciate the the time and effort that

[1:17:18] they've put in to to try and improve

[1:17:20] that neighborhood.

[1:17:21] >> Thank you, Terry.

[1:17:26] Hi, my I get so nervous when I come up

[1:17:29] here. [laughter]

[1:17:31] Breathe. Okay. My name is Joanie

[1:17:33] McIntyre. I'm a member of the walking

[1:17:36] neighborhood. Um, and I've lived there

[1:17:39] for 37 years. I came as a student and we

[1:17:43] did not plan on staying, but we found a

[1:17:45] home that we loved and we bought it and improved on it. And so, um, I think the number one thing is that we

[1:17:56] need to follow the residential

[1:17:58] conservation zone that was put in place.

[1:18:02] Um, and to to me that's that's what we

[1:18:06] need to follow. [snorts] Yes. Does it

[1:18:08] need to be improved? Obviously, to make

[1:18:11] some some changes, right? Because there

[1:18:14] are some things that um that people want

[1:18:17] to change in the neighborhood. Um but as

[1:18:20] of right now I think we need to follow

[1:18:22] it. Um and then also I had some

[1:18:25] clarifications on what had been said

[1:18:27] earlier. Um you had asked about parking

[1:18:30] [clears throat]

[1:18:31] in the Tuscanol town homes. Um there's

[1:18:34] actually only three guest parking spaces

[1:18:36] for 12 units. Um, and every and there's

[1:18:41] the twobedroom I'm sorry, the two

[1:18:44] one-bedroom town homes, they only have

[1:18:47] one

[1:18:49] parking space. So, you can see that on

[1:18:51] there. Um, I think it is a beautiful

[1:18:55] project. It's lovely. Um, I would love

[1:18:59] to see it be brick instead of stone. I

[1:19:02] don't see any stone in our neighborhood

[1:19:04] and I don't think it would fit in. Um,

[1:19:07] and then, um, lastly, and I don't have

[1:19:10] much time, um, the the idea of not

[1:19:13] having yards or porches, I think, is

[1:19:16] really important. That's what brings us

[1:19:18] together. That's what the old homes

[1:19:20] have. That's what we have. We have a

[1:19:22] porch. You sit out on the porch, you see

[1:19:24] your neighbors walk by. These homes,

[1:19:27] these town homes don't have porches.

[1:19:29] They don't have yards. And that's

[1:19:32] [clears throat]

[1:19:32] >> Thank you, Johnny.

[1:19:38] Hi. Hi again. Uh Isaac Low, resident of

[1:19:40] Provo. I actually live about five blocks

[1:19:42] from this. I did not come here for this

[1:19:44] today. I was confused why there are so

[1:19:45] many people at city council and now I

[1:19:46] know why. Um but having listened um and living close by, I do feel like I'm

[1:19:53] seeing a pattern of it feels like a lot

[1:19:56] of the people who are for this seem to

[1:19:57] live far away but own property nearby.

[1:20:01] um as opposed to the people who live

[1:20:03] there seem to be opposed um in majority

[1:20:07] is what I'm noticing and I I feel like

[1:20:10] there is a clue there of another

[1:20:12] solution to the housing problem that we

[1:20:15] have right of um not enough affordable

[1:20:18] housing which is um people who who

[1:20:22] perhaps own property but do not live

[1:20:24] there um and that does tend to also make

[1:20:28] housing really unaffordable and there

[1:20:30] are solutions solutions to that that do

[1:20:32] not involve really expensive new homes

[1:20:35] um being built in locations that the

[1:20:38] residents do not want them. Um so that

[1:20:40] that's all.

[1:20:42] >> Thank you, Isaac.

[1:20:51] » David Keller. I'm usually known as a

[1:20:53] longtime resident of Waqin. Um, and yes,

[1:20:57] we bought our house when one of the

[1:21:00] neighbors died and the family needed to

[1:21:02] sell the house. So, just keep waiting

[1:21:04] for somebody to die and you'll

[1:21:06] eventually [clears throat] find

[1:21:08] the house of your dreams. Um, we love

[1:21:12] walking because it's a historic

[1:21:16] neighborhood and those three those three

[1:21:20] row houses from the Victorian era are

[1:21:24] one of only two remaining sets of rowous

[1:21:28] in Provo

[1:21:30] and I hate to see them go. I also hate

[1:21:33] to see a project that's taller than the than all the other things in the

[1:21:44] neighborhood except for a couple of

[1:21:46] buildings that got built um after a

[1:21:49] mistake that a previous council made.

[1:21:52] So, I've been trying to find stuff

[1:21:55] which is no longer on the Provo web

[1:21:58] website, but I found in the 2020 uh 20

[1:22:02] 2002 2004 update to the general plan,

[1:22:06] they talked about the history of it and

[1:22:09] they said in 1977,

[1:22:12] the original 68 general plan, city

[1:22:16] leaders sought to increase the retail

[1:22:17] base, establish new industrial centers,

[1:22:19] and revitalize older older

[1:22:21] neighborhoods. neighborhoods through

[1:22:23] highdensity development.

[1:22:25] Well, um we saw what happened by the

[1:22:29] 1980s.

[1:22:31] The city council was trying to walk that

[1:22:33] back. So, um this is a beautiful

[1:22:37] project. It does not match any style

[1:22:42] and the stall guidelines have

[1:22:45] disappeared.

[1:22:46] But I wish Karen well, but I still say

[1:22:52] it doesn't belong.

[1:22:55] Thank you,

[1:22:58] Alberto Polo. And I live in Pro for

[1:23:02] about 40 years. I came to school like

[1:23:05] many of you and met a wonderful lady in

[1:23:08] there, got married and never left. Uh we

[1:23:11] were in house like about 10 years after

[1:23:13] we we got married.

[1:23:16] wasn't easy. It's not like we came out

[1:23:18] from college and went to have a house.

[1:23:21] You know, we wanted to or we couldn't.

[1:23:23] So, we had to wait. And well, I live on

[1:23:28] the house for over 30 years and I

[1:23:32] witnessed many things that really

[1:23:34] overwhelm me. You know, when I move over

[1:23:37] there, you can hardly see many cars over

[1:23:39] there. Now

[1:23:42] I see four times more cars than I've

[1:23:46] seen before. So we are getting extinct from there. And that really made

[1:23:52] me sad because I raised my family in

[1:23:54] there, my kids. And I don't think that I

[1:23:57] will raise a family if it were to be

[1:23:59] like is becoming.

[1:24:02] Okay. Um,

[1:24:06] I like to say, you know, I I did buy an

[1:24:08] old house and sometimes feel offense and

[1:24:10] I'm also a landlord, okay? And I I work

[1:24:14] very hard in my house. I repl,

[1:24:18] you know, I did it totally. He looks

[1:24:21] nice if you want to see him by any

[1:24:23] chance. One for you know, 200 is. And

[1:24:25] I'm just an engineer. So, uh, I did have

[1:24:28] fun doing that. I did have a lot of fun

[1:24:30] and kind of resent to you know to people

[1:24:34] when they said you know it's an old

[1:24:35] house you spend so much money no that's incorrect and also as a landlord

[1:24:41] I learned that if you don't put money on

[1:24:43] your house that you are renting then

[1:24:46] you're going to add up a bunch of money

[1:24:48] many years after so that's I don't think

[1:24:51] any excuse and I think that this

[1:24:54] apartment is going to be will be nice

[1:24:57] but it's going to be attached Mahalan is

[1:24:59] not going to be a far afford.

[1:25:02] >> Thank you.

[1:25:06] » Be quick, I promise. My name is Jacob

[1:25:08] Wixom. I live here in Provo about five

[1:25:11] blocks south of us. Um I actually wanted

[1:25:14] to share a couple of thoughts um that

[1:25:16] are more about the RC zone than this

[1:25:19] specific project. Um,

[1:25:22] I went to the planning commission

[1:25:23] meeting and noticed some patterns in the

[1:25:26] conversation there as well that that I

[1:25:28] think are worth taking seriously. I I I

[1:25:31] get the sense I've only lived in Provo

[1:25:33] for like eight months, so I definitely

[1:25:34] wasn't here when the RC zone was

[1:25:36] created, but I get the sense that um

[1:25:38] people that are lucky enough to live in

[1:25:40] a place like downtown Provo can tell

[1:25:43] that they have something special and

[1:25:44] that's disappearing and um that we don't

[1:25:47] yet have the language around what that

[1:25:50] is and how to preserve it, how to create

[1:25:52] more of it rather than letting it slip

[1:25:54] away. and that that our seone was kind

[1:25:56] of built to like preserve what we have

[1:25:59] while we figure that out so that we can

[1:26:02] be thoughtful about that going forward.

[1:26:04] And so I would just throw out there that

[1:26:06] maybe it's a job half done. Um but that

[1:26:11] I I would hate for the result of

[1:26:14] whatever direction you go on this

[1:26:16] specific question to be uh to one

[1:26:18] extreme or the other, right? That like

[1:26:20] nothing is ever going to be done. the

[1:26:23] community is not going to be allowed to

[1:26:24] evolve, right? Or that this is just

[1:26:27] untenable and we have to let anything

[1:26:29] go. I I am lucky enough to live in like

[1:26:33] a really really beautiful part of the

[1:26:35] city and I love the walkability in the

[1:26:36] community and the block parties and all

[1:26:38] those things. Um, but I I also would

[1:26:40] love for more people to have that

[1:26:42] opportunity and would just encourage you

[1:26:44] to um I guess maybe whatever direction

[1:26:48] this goes, push toward finishing that

[1:26:50] job so that we can make more of Provo

[1:26:52] feel the way uh Waheen and Mer and the

[1:26:55] surrounding area feels.

[1:26:57] >> Thank you, Jake.

[1:26:59] [clears throat and cough]

[1:27:00] Is there any other public comment?

[1:27:04] It was wonderful to hear from so many of

[1:27:06] you and and helpful as well as council

[1:27:09] members. We value your input and your

[1:27:12] comments. Thank you to all of you. We'll

[1:27:13] close public comment at this time then

[1:27:16] and bring the item to the council for

[1:27:18] discussion.

[1:27:24] Councelor Bogdan,

[1:27:26] [clears throat]

[1:27:26] >> I do

[1:27:27] >> excuse excuse me, Becky. I actually

[1:27:29] meant to make one other comment. Uh

[1:27:32] Taran, thank you for your work as well.

[1:27:35] We've heard from u many people here. Was

[1:27:39] there anything that was said that you

[1:27:40] felt like you would like to correct? I

[1:27:42] we we value everyone's opinions, but was

[1:27:44] there anything that was misstated that

[1:27:46] you would like to correct?

[1:27:48] >> No misstatements. I love everyone's

[1:27:50] thoughts and opinions. I just did want

[1:27:52] to add two things. uh 24% of walking

[1:27:55] neighborhood uh members actually own a

[1:27:58] home and and so um wanted to make sure

[1:28:01] to make that uh addition and then along

[1:28:04] with the fact that that this development

[1:28:06] I have have decided I want it to be a

[1:28:09] safety hub. We talked with the police of

[1:28:11] chief uh quite a few months ago and he

[1:28:14] there was a a mention of bike theft in

[1:28:16] that neighborhood. It is the highest

[1:28:18] bike theft in Walke neighborhood

[1:28:20] actually um in in all of Provo City. And

[1:28:23] so we have talked to the police chief

[1:28:26] about setting up a little hub there

[1:28:28] where there's cameras that link directly

[1:28:30] to the station where they can watch that

[1:28:33] uh neighborhood more closely and how

[1:28:35] nice would that be to just feel a little

[1:28:37] bit more protected. So thank you.

[1:28:39] >> Thank you. Taran Council Bogdan.

[1:28:42] >> Okay, Bill. Where's Bill? Right there.

[1:28:46] Okay. Okay. So, from what I understand,

[1:28:47] the Walke neighborhood has the highest

[1:28:51] amount of people in the state within

[1:28:53] that neighborhood. Is that correct?

[1:28:57] >> Yes. The highest population density.

[1:28:59] Yes.

[1:29:01] >> And from what I understand,

[1:29:04] um, when you guys did this neighborhood

[1:29:06] plan, the neighbors are not necessarily

[1:29:10] against highdensity housing. They were

[1:29:13] very firm and they they came up with a

[1:29:16] really good compromise that below fifth

[1:29:20] north, am I correct? Correct me if I'm

[1:29:22] wrong. Below fifth north would be

[1:29:25] preserved

[1:29:27] and above fifth north that's where the

[1:29:29] density would be.

[1:29:32] And um

[1:29:38] even with that, this is the highest

[1:29:41] population in the entire state.

[1:29:45] So

[1:29:47] to me,

[1:29:49] when you say we need more housing, we need more housing,

[1:29:52] we are putting more units here than

[1:29:56] anywhere in the entire state.

[1:30:00] So,

[1:30:02] I am very appreciative of the time that

[1:30:05] the Walke neighborhood has spent on this

[1:30:07] plan.

[1:30:09] I also know that we need to draw a line

[1:30:11] in the sand somewhere.

[1:30:14] We love students. We love

[1:30:18] where they're at, but we also love our

[1:30:21] people. And the one thing that I did

[1:30:22] learn from this whole thing, I did not

[1:30:25] realize that the walking neighborhood

[1:30:26] was really historical preservationists.

[1:30:31] That's that's amazing. I think that's

[1:30:34] amazing. Um I do realize that if we

[1:30:38] don't keep up on our housing that our

[1:30:40] housing does diminish. And it's

[1:30:43] important, especially in those those

[1:30:45] neighborhoods, that we keep up on the

[1:30:47] housing, whether it's rental stock or

[1:30:48] whether it's home ownership, that we do

[1:30:51] keep that housing up because once that's

[1:30:54] gone in that neighborhood, it is the

[1:30:56] highest population in the state, right?

[1:31:01] And it's gone. And I don't blame them

[1:31:04] for wanting to preserve what's there.

[1:31:08] I don't want them I I don't blame them

[1:31:10] for wanting to preserve

[1:31:14] those connections that they have.

[1:31:17] So, um I just wanted to bring that up

[1:31:19] that we can't really judge them too

[1:31:22] harshly in my opinion because they have

[1:31:25] compromised very very well and said this

[1:31:28] is the line in the sand. This is where

[1:31:30] you can build as far as I remember that

[1:31:33] campus housing right there bill can go

[1:31:35] as high as they want to. We don't have

[1:31:36] limits on how high it can go.

[1:31:41] » There's no cap on density. I believe the

[1:31:44] building height is 75 ft. You remember

[1:31:46] D. I believe the building height in the

[1:31:48] campus, excuse our campus, residential

[1:31:50] zone is 75 ft.

[1:31:52] >> Okay. So, see they you can go pretty

[1:31:54] high and tall. They've allowed for a lot

[1:31:56] in that neighborhood. Thanks, Bill.

[1:32:00] >> Thank you, councelor Bogdan. others.

[1:32:10] Councelor Whitlock,

[1:32:12] [clears throat] I have some questions

[1:32:13] that came up while uh that while

[1:32:16] listening to public comments. One

[1:32:19] question perhaps this is for um Brian

[1:32:22] Jones. Um how do we how does enforcement

[1:32:25] on deed restrictions work in practice?

[1:32:29] Well, it's an excellent question because

[1:32:30] so far we haven't had to do one because

[1:32:32] it's such a new concept. But what uh but

[1:32:35] the template that we've employed, what

[1:32:36] it actually does is it um because one of

[1:32:40] the thing one of the issues, one of the

[1:32:42] concerns about this idea of uh not the

[1:32:46] deed restriction itself, but the CCNRs,

[1:32:48] right, is that the HOA can always get

[1:32:51] together and vote later to change the

[1:32:52] rules. So that's only as good as placing

[1:32:55] the rules for when the HOA first starts.

[1:32:58] So, one of the things that we've done

[1:33:00] with our template is actually uh require

[1:33:03] that that can't happen and granting

[1:33:08] Provo City an enforcement right so that

[1:33:11] Provo City itself can enforce the

[1:33:14] non-owner occupancy uh violations

[1:33:19] uh by

[1:33:21] um not granting

[1:33:24] uh rental licenses. So the deed

[1:33:27] restriction gives us the right to not

[1:33:29] grant a rental license to someone who

[1:33:32] shouldn't have one under the deed

[1:33:33] restriction and then we can criminally

[1:33:35] prosecute them for renting without a

[1:33:37] license. So that's the that's the

[1:33:40] enforcement mechanism that we've devised

[1:33:42] for this situation. We have not yet

[1:33:44] employed it. I feel pretty confident

[1:33:47] that it's pretty sound in the sense that

[1:33:48] we we do already enforce against people

[1:33:52] for renting without a license. So that's

[1:33:54] an established tool that we already know

[1:33:56] how to use. This just gives us a

[1:33:57] mechanism down the road for how we would

[1:33:59] use it.

[1:33:59] >> Do you feel like, again, I'm asking you

[1:34:01] to make somewhat of a judgment call, so

[1:34:03] if you don't feel comfortable, that's

[1:34:04] fine. But do you feel that this

[1:34:06] mechanism will be materially more

[1:34:08] successful than

[1:34:10] enforcing against illegal ADUs, for

[1:34:13] example? Is it is there something about

[1:34:14] the nature of it that makes it easier to

[1:34:16] enforce?

[1:34:21] Generally speaking,

[1:34:23] yes. Um I I mean there are still some

[1:34:26] challenges against both, right? I mean

[1:34:28] uh the problem with enforcing against

[1:34:31] the eagle the illegal ADUs is we

[1:34:34] actually have to prove that there are

[1:34:36] two family units in the in the home.

[1:34:39] Right? So it's less about that becomes

[1:34:42] an issue less of um proving that there

[1:34:46] is a rental situation happening and more

[1:34:48] of a situation of having to prove the

[1:34:51] occupancy which based on the city's

[1:34:53] family but definition of a family means

[1:34:55] sometimes trying to prove that

[1:34:57] statements made to us about

[1:34:59] relationships are false

[1:35:00] >> not accurate

[1:35:01] >> right so so just proving that something

[1:35:04] is being rented when it shouldn't be is

[1:35:07] easier than that

[1:35:08] >> okay thank Thank you. And then uh

[1:35:11] Director Pepperon, you have a question.

[1:35:12] That's okay. Uh just I think this might

[1:35:15] have been asked previously in the

[1:35:16] planning commission meeting, but I don't

[1:35:17] really have my head around it. Why are

[1:35:19] these called town homes and not condos?

[1:35:22] >> So, first to just uh add to what Brian

[1:35:24] just said. So, I think um ease of

[1:35:27] enforcement isn't so much the issue

[1:35:30] because either case it's going to

[1:35:31] require going through a court action,

[1:35:33] but our likelihood of success is

[1:35:35] probably going to be better under this

[1:35:38] new idea.

[1:35:39] >> That makes sense.

[1:35:40] >> Um these are town homes, not

[1:35:41] condominiums, because there's no one

[1:35:43] living above anybody else is my

[1:35:45] understanding. Correct. One unit goes

[1:35:47] from floor to ceiling.

[1:35:48] >> So, they all have a plat.

[1:35:50] >> They all have their own platted lot.

[1:35:52] Yes.

[1:35:53] >> Thank you.

[1:36:02] councelor Whitlock. Other

[1:36:04] comments

[1:36:08] » or discussion?

[1:36:09] >> I I have some,

[1:36:11] >> councelor Whipple,

[1:36:12] >> which shouldn't surprise you. Um, first

[1:36:15] I I want to thank the developer for

[1:36:19] their very thoughtful work on this.

[1:36:22] They've gotten a lot of feedback and

[1:36:24] some of it has been really hard to hear

[1:36:26] and they have accepted that with grace

[1:36:29] and gone back to the drawing board

[1:36:31] several times to account for concerns

[1:36:34] that have been raised by the people in

[1:36:36] the neighborhood there. I also want to

[1:36:39] thank the many people who came to give

[1:36:41] comment. Um you can see that there's a

[1:36:46] wide variety of opinions on this and

[1:36:49] everyone is valuing something really important to them. Whether it's

[1:36:54] the existing character of the

[1:36:56] neighborhood, which they define as, you

[1:36:59] know, these older historic looking

[1:37:00] homes, or whether it's the opportunity

[1:37:03] to actually live in the neighborhood

[1:37:07] as we've,

[1:37:10] you know, 20 years ago, 15, 20 years

[1:37:13] ago, the city had the neighbor works

[1:37:16] program and paint your heart out, other

[1:37:18] opportunities where there were these

[1:37:20] partnerships so that there was

[1:37:23] investment of grant money and other

[1:37:25] dollars into old homes so that they

[1:37:28] could be rehabilitated

[1:37:30] and there were grants for people to help

[1:37:33] with their down payment. Um, sometimes

[1:37:36] they'd have to do sweat equity so people

[1:37:38] could get these older homes and live in

[1:37:41] the neighborhoods. And I remember

[1:37:43] helping with the paint your heart out. I

[1:37:44] had neighbors help me paint my house.

[1:37:46] Need to do it again, but that's a

[1:37:48] different story. Um, but all of these

[1:37:51] things built community. And when we have

[1:37:54] a program like that, the RC zone can

[1:37:58] make sense because the RC zone froze the

[1:38:03] zoning, but it also wanted to freeze the

[1:38:06] structures in the houses. But unless

[1:38:09] we've got something that helps the

[1:38:12] community to reinvest in the structures,

[1:38:16] the freezing of the zoning just means

[1:38:18] that they decay. And we've seen that

[1:38:21] decay with a lot of the housing stock in

[1:38:24] the Waqen and the Mer neighborhood. It's

[1:38:27] an issue in all of our Pioneer

[1:38:29] neighborhoods. Frankly,

[1:38:32] we need to have a healthy mix in our

[1:38:36] neighborhoods, a good mix of renters and

[1:38:40] owner occupants so that you have

[1:38:44] stability and vitality. So, you've got

[1:38:47] like the energy from the new people

[1:38:49] coming in and and the anchor families

[1:38:53] who are there to help structure your

[1:38:55] schools and your church communities and

[1:38:58] everything like that. Um, and I say this

[1:39:00] as somebody who lives just a few blocks

[1:39:03] away from this proposed development. I

[1:39:05] see this in my neighborhood, in the the

[1:39:08] church community that I attend. These

[1:39:12] are real issues and we benefit from

[1:39:14] having our young student families,

[1:39:16] mostly married students who are there

[1:39:19] and

[1:39:21] they bemoone the fact that they can't

[1:39:23] afford to stay in the neighborhood. They

[1:39:25] can't afford to buy a house in the

[1:39:26] neighborhood.

[1:39:29] when we're looking at at calling this

[1:39:31] high density housing, um I think maybe

[1:39:35] our language isn't good around that

[1:39:36] because we hear high density and we

[1:39:38] think like super tall apartments and and

[1:39:43] that's not what we're really looking at

[1:39:45] here, even though that's how it's

[1:39:46] defined in our code. What we're looking

[1:39:48] at is going from four units to 12 units.

[1:39:52] three times the number of units in this

[1:39:55] area,

[1:39:56] but instead of being rentals, these

[1:39:58] would be

[1:40:00] occupied by homeowners. That can change

[1:40:03] the balance of an LDS ward to have that

[1:40:07] many people come in and buy a house.

[1:40:11] When we bought our house, it was like we

[1:40:13] had put a target on our back for

[1:40:14] leadership callings. Like, this will

[1:40:18] help the neighborhood if it's approved.

[1:40:23] It's unclear that the existing

[1:40:26] structure, if it were torn down and

[1:40:28] replaced with another threelex and

[1:40:31] another single house, could actually be

[1:40:34] rebuilt on the property because if it

[1:40:37] were torn down to be built with a a new

[1:40:39] unit that matched the density, the new

[1:40:41] one would have to match the new setback

[1:40:44] requirements and everything. And I don't

[1:40:46] know if that's feasible. Um, that would

[1:40:48] be a question for our development

[1:40:49] services, but it would be hard to

[1:40:52] replace it with exactly what's there,

[1:40:54] but a new version of it. And it's really

[1:40:59] expensive to rehabilitate the old

[1:41:01] houses. We a couple of years ago put out

[1:41:05] a bid to to completely redo our house,

[1:41:10] which was built in 1904.

[1:41:12] Because the house is a civ, there's no

[1:41:14] insulation. It's got l and plaster. All

[1:41:17] of these things needed to be upgraded

[1:41:19] from the sewer to the roof to

[1:41:22] everything. Everything basically. And we

[1:41:25] were looking at over $300,000 then. And

[1:41:30] I think it would be more now. Like it

[1:41:32] would be less expensive just to tear

[1:41:34] down our house and do entirely new

[1:41:37] construction. Although again, we would have difficulty citing it on our

[1:41:41] lot because our house doesn't meet

[1:41:44] modern setback requirements either.

[1:41:49] Sorry, I'm having a hard time reading my

[1:41:50] notes because it's getting dark here.

[1:41:52] Um,

[1:41:54] right now another concern. Oh, so the

[1:41:57] council in other context has expressed

[1:42:00] significant concern about backyard

[1:42:04] privacy

[1:42:06] that people need to be able to have

[1:42:08] their backyards and not have somebody

[1:42:10] overlooking into their backyard. And

[1:42:12] some of our public comment raised this

[1:42:15] concern as well. Right now there is an

[1:42:18] apartment complex right next to this.

[1:42:21] There is no way that any structures

[1:42:23] there are going to have a private

[1:42:25] backyard. And it seems

[1:42:29] um

[1:42:31] it seems that this kind of structure in

[1:42:34] this place would fit well with what is

[1:42:37] already there. Looking at the Waqeen

[1:42:40] neighborhood plan,

[1:42:43] it says that, you know, South Walkeen

[1:42:46] has uses just as diverse as those that

[1:42:48] are in Northween, but it has even more

[1:42:52] varied residential types. One of the

[1:42:55] defining characteristics of this

[1:42:56] neighborhood at this point in time is

[1:42:59] the diversity of housing types of houses

[1:43:02] that have been built over the course of

[1:43:05] more than a hundred years sitting side

[1:43:08] by side. So that when you walk through

[1:43:10] the neighborhood, you're walking through

[1:43:13] history and you're seeing the changes.

[1:43:15] We have some houses that are, you know,

[1:43:18] mid-century ranches next to, you know,

[1:43:21] little old ones that were built in the

[1:43:23] early 20th century. That adds charm and

[1:43:29] character, but we haven't been able to

[1:43:31] get a lot of new ones for the last

[1:43:34] couple of decades because of this

[1:43:36] essential m mortorium we've had because

[1:43:39] of the RC zoning. And it's important for

[1:43:42] a neighborhood to be alive, for it to

[1:43:46] have the opportunity to grow and change,

[1:43:49] to adapt to changing times and

[1:43:52] conditions.

[1:43:54] This plan

[1:43:57] does not preserve the old houses. And as one of our commenters said, this is

[1:44:03] one of two existing rowouses that are

[1:44:06] left in Provo. A third one was to the east of Provo Peaks Elementary. It

[1:44:12] was torn down decades ago. And if this

[1:44:15] is torn down, then the only one we'll

[1:44:17] have is the one that's kind of behind

[1:44:19] the Fresh Market, which is adorable.

[1:44:21] Everybody should go look at it. Um,

[1:44:25] I hate the idea of losing that piece of

[1:44:28] our Provo history, but I think it's more

[1:44:31] important

[1:44:32] that we

[1:44:35] build for the people who are here now

[1:44:39] who don't have that home to live in, who

[1:44:42] want to invest in our community, who

[1:44:44] want to buy a house and are simply not

[1:44:46] able to. Right now, our neighborhood

[1:44:50] plan and program and the city council,

[1:44:53] frankly, are structured to really

[1:44:56] protect the interest of a small property

[1:45:02] minority.

[1:45:03] Instead of representing all of the

[1:45:05] people who live in our community,

[1:45:08] we only has 24% homeowner occupation.

[1:45:13] I think going from 12 structures that

[1:45:16] are not homeowner occupied to another 12

[1:45:19] or four that are not occupied to 12 that

[1:45:21] would be may not change that percentage

[1:45:23] much, but it would be a move in the

[1:45:25] right direction and consistent with the

[1:45:29] council goals that we've had for a

[1:45:31] couple of years now.

[1:45:34] But I also have to recognize that my

[1:45:37] constituency

[1:45:39] because this is my district. Most of

[1:45:41] them are renters and most of them are

[1:45:44] facing that uncertainty and instability

[1:45:46] in their housing because their rent

[1:45:50] at most is a year contract and then it's

[1:45:53] raised when they renew or it goes

[1:45:55] month-to-month. They have no stability.

[1:45:58] They have no way of building that wealth

[1:46:00] by having equity in a home.

[1:46:03] So representing

[1:46:06] them that big part of my constituency,

[1:46:10] I have to say that I'm supportive of

[1:46:11] this even though many of my good friends

[1:46:15] are speaking against this project. Um,

[1:46:19] I understand their concerns and I think

[1:46:22] their concerns are valid, but I

[1:46:25] recognize that there are different

[1:46:28] competing concerns. And I think that

[1:46:32] this project

[1:46:34] serves that higher need. And with the

[1:46:37] new profer that these would be homeowner

[1:46:40] occupied in perpetuity, that these would

[1:46:43] not be churned out, it's going to make

[1:46:46] it a lot harder for them to turn into

[1:46:48] student rentals or things like that.

[1:46:51] This is a way to help stabilize the

[1:46:53] neighborhood and I'm supportive of it.

[1:46:56] >> Thank you, Councelor Whipple. Councelor

[1:46:58] Christensen.

[1:47:02] Well, I uh

[1:47:05] I love the uh the home ownership uh that was profered in in this. I I think

[1:47:10] that makes a lot of sense. We we worked

[1:47:13] hard to get home ownership.

[1:47:16] Um the other thing that that I have felt

[1:47:19] strongly about, so Rachel talked about

[1:47:21] things that you value. One of the things

[1:47:22] that I value is neighborhoods

[1:47:26] and I do value. There was a comment in

[1:47:29] the public uh public comments about you

[1:47:33] know going through this whole democratic

[1:47:34] process you know to make this plan and

[1:47:37] yes it is a democratic process and we we

[1:47:41] work together as neighbors we come up

[1:47:43] with plans we come up with things and we do the very best we can and that

[1:47:48] creates a social contract and I don't

[1:47:50] think you just throw that away because

[1:47:52] someone has a better plan I I don't

[1:47:56] think it's appropriate for us to spot

[1:47:58] zone in any neighborhood. Even if we can

[1:48:02] come up with higher goods or the ends

[1:48:05] justify the means or we we create more

[1:48:07] product, it it's it's not like this is

[1:48:10] low-income housing. We're talking about

[1:48:12] this like this is going to um like this

[1:48:16] is a a welfare project. No, this could

[1:48:19] easily be turned into four very nice

[1:48:21] homes instead of 12. Now, I understand

[1:48:24] the developers motivation to optimize in

[1:48:27] market rates, that makes sense to me as

[1:48:30] well.

[1:48:32] But to bring this into a neighborhood

[1:48:34] where that we have um agreements, even

[1:48:38] as perfect as they are, I I I can't

[1:48:40] support that. I do value the process

[1:48:43] that we go through. Now, if that

[1:48:45] neighborhood decides as a neighborhood,

[1:48:47] let's change that and we work together

[1:48:49] as city council, I'm all in. But um no,

[1:48:54] I I I can't support spot zoning even

[1:48:57] when it's a project like this. Um

[1:49:00] because I think it's important to

[1:49:02] respect the neighborhood and the zoning

[1:49:05] that's in place. And I I I uh for that

[1:49:10] reason I I can't support this going

[1:49:12] forward.

[1:49:16] » Thank you, Councelor Christensen.

[1:49:19] Councelor McCay, did you have any

[1:49:20] comments?

[1:49:23] Okay,

[1:49:26] Councelor Whitlock.

[1:49:28] >> Yeah, I have a couple comments, but

[1:49:29] first just one more question if I may

[1:49:32] ask. Director Pepperoni, when can you

[1:49:34] remind me when the Scamp plan was

[1:49:36] created and then when the current plan

[1:49:38] was updated?

[1:49:41] >> I came onto the city in 2010 and Scamp

[1:49:43] had been done four or five years ahead

[1:49:45] of that. The gentleman who spoke about

[1:49:46] that, does that sound right?

[1:49:48] >> Yeah. started in 2000. It took five

[1:49:52] years to get through process

[1:49:57] >> and then what was your question?

[1:49:58] >> And then has that is that still the the

[1:50:00] current plan or was it then re-updated

[1:50:02] into the Waheen neighborhood plan?

[1:50:03] >> It was updated to the Waqen plan. The

[1:50:05] one thing that was most consistent about

[1:50:06] both is that they both said let's allow

[1:50:11] north of 500 North to redevelop as high

[1:50:13] density student housing. Let's try to

[1:50:16] preserve what's below that. And when was

[1:50:18] the current walking plan completed and

[1:50:20] adopted?

[1:50:20] >> About 2014.

[1:50:22] >> 2014. So a little over a decade.

[1:50:24] >> Yes.

[1:50:24] >> Okay. Yeah. Just some thoughts on this.

[1:50:27] If I'm being quite honest, I'm I'm

[1:50:30] conflicted. I think there are some

[1:50:31] legitimate competing values here. Uh one

[1:50:35] being a housing affordability issue. And

[1:50:38] I I think one of the commenters, you did

[1:50:40] a good job. That was one of the most

[1:50:41] articulately uh stated problems that we

[1:50:44] face where that we have a younger

[1:50:47] generation that either was not living in

[1:50:49] Provo or was not politically active when

[1:50:51] many of these plans were created and

[1:50:53] they're saying please help me find a

[1:50:54] place to live. They're looking at a

[1:50:56] median housing price of $550,000 over

[1:51:00] half a million. You have to make $150k

[1:51:04] to not be house poor and make that

[1:51:06] payment. So, when I hear about a

[1:51:08] $280,000 starter home, while someone who

[1:51:10] has owned a house for a long time might

[1:51:11] say, "Well, that doesn't sound that

[1:51:12] affordable." That actually is the

[1:51:14] difference between being able to get

[1:51:15] into a house or not, studies show when

[1:51:17] you're able to purchase a house, it

[1:51:19] stabilizes your financial planning, you

[1:51:21] get equity, you start to build wealth.

[1:51:24] Um, as a community, we need to find ways

[1:51:26] to help younger families get into our

[1:51:29] community. At the same time, I also

[1:51:31] value neighborhood input. That's

[1:51:32] obviously a critical part of the

[1:51:34] process. So, part of me feels a little

[1:51:36] sad that there maybe wasn't more work

[1:51:38] done to try and find a compromise that

[1:51:40] clearly had more neighborhood support.

[1:51:42] Um, and that's kind of maybe where I'm

[1:51:46] at here is like I feel like maybe I I I

[1:51:48] love the owner um occupancy profered

[1:51:51] from perpetuity. I think that's a great

[1:51:54] compromise. Thank you so much for doing

[1:51:55] that. I wonder if there are not a few

[1:51:57] more compromises that could be made.

[1:51:59] perhaps making it look less uh Italian

[1:52:02] and more Provo uh could maybe go a long

[1:52:04] way and then we could get some

[1:52:06] neighborhood support and we could do

[1:52:08] this with um you know with unonymity

[1:52:10] here and I I I really think there's a

[1:52:13] way we can make that happen having

[1:52:14] talked to many of the my constituents in

[1:52:17] that area. Um so that would be my

[1:52:19] encouragement. I'm curious if you have

[1:52:20] any thoughts on on that.

[1:52:24] >> Thank you councelor Whitlock.

[1:52:27] I also remember

[1:52:29] the south campus area master plan that

[1:52:31] was introduced 25 years ago now uh under

[1:52:35] the direction of uh then mayor Lewis

[1:52:37] Billings who got this group together and

[1:52:41] it was very encouraging to see the

[1:52:43] potential that there could be

[1:52:46] preservation in this residential

[1:52:49] conservation district and increase

[1:52:51] student housing. Uh, I would I would

[1:52:55] dare say that um [clears throat]

[1:52:57] the outcome for that vision has not

[1:52:59] really materialized the way I think

[1:53:02] everyone hoped it would.

[1:53:05] But um

[1:53:08] but I value um that plan and the group

[1:53:13] that was determined to preserve um

[1:53:20] the uh their neighborhood. this

[1:53:22] residential conservation area.

[1:53:26] [clears throat]

[1:53:27] Uh Taran, I I love your project. It's

[1:53:30] beautiful. U and your presentation was

[1:53:32] outstanding. I think developers should

[1:53:35] retain you to do their presentation.

[1:53:39] The um

[1:53:41] one reality that we're seeing uh is

[1:53:45] outside

[1:53:47] uh investors for lack of a better word

[1:53:50] uh are sending their kids to school.

[1:53:53] They buy a home and their child lives in

[1:53:56] it and then they have two roommates

[1:53:59] which is allowed. That's the um defined

[1:54:03] by ordinance as a family. Um and one one

[1:54:06] such home in our neighborhood uh just

[1:54:08] changed recently

[1:54:10] purchased by this is a family

[1:54:12] neighborhood purchased by an outside uh

[1:54:15] investor whose daughter and two friends

[1:54:17] live there. So uh I'm afraid that it

[1:54:21] it's likely we would see that kind of

[1:54:24] arrangement in these uh beautiful town

[1:54:27] homes as well.

[1:54:29] >> [cough and clears throat]

[1:54:30] >> What I would like to see the the um

[1:54:34] walking neighborhood plan

[1:54:36] 10 years is not a lot of time, but the

[1:54:39] economy has shifted dramatically in the

[1:54:41] last 10 years. And I I would encourage

[1:54:44] the walking neighborhood to come

[1:54:47] together [clears throat]

[1:54:48] and reconsider what their plan should

[1:54:51] look like. What are the objectives

[1:54:52] they're trying to achieve? They'd like

[1:54:55] families. that like homeowner occupancy.

[1:54:59] That's something that this project could

[1:55:00] offer a young couple

[1:55:04] um or um and someone just getting

[1:55:07] started with their home.

[1:55:10] Um

[1:55:12] so [clears throat] I I would like to see

[1:55:14] neighborhoods

[1:55:16] take another look at their neighborhood

[1:55:18] plans given the economics of the last 10

[1:55:21] years. Um, I agree with comments that

[1:55:24] have been made that it's not likely that

[1:55:28] someone can come in and take one of

[1:55:30] these beautiful pioneer homes and turn

[1:55:32] it into what it needs to be um,

[1:55:36] and what we'd like it to be. And that hasn't happened. Many have been

[1:55:40] preserved,

[1:55:42] but it's hard to return those to uh to

[1:55:45] that status that that we've lost.

[1:55:48] We have in [clears throat] other

[1:55:52] regarding other policies in the city,

[1:55:54] we've respected and valued what

[1:55:57] neighborhoods want for their

[1:55:58] neighborhoods.

[1:56:01] We have um

[1:56:04] we've tried to take the position that

[1:56:06] each neighborhood can define and decide

[1:56:09] what they would like knowing that

[1:56:11] they've invested in that neighborhood.

[1:56:17] So, those are some of my thoughts.

[1:56:19] Anyone else? Councelor Hogan,

[1:56:23] >> appreciate the time that you guys put

[1:56:25] into this project. Um, if I'm reading

[1:56:27] the tea leaves, I don't think there's

[1:56:28] support for it. So, um, I guess I'm

[1:56:32] going to make a motion that we continue

[1:56:33] the item. There's one more comment on

[1:56:36] >> Oh, okay.

[1:56:38] >> Do you want to wait?

[1:56:39] >> Yeah, I'll let them make Councor McKay,

[1:56:41] you can go ahead.

[1:56:43] >> Hey, can you hear me?

[1:56:45] Yes.

[1:56:47] >> Um, number one, I'd like to hear the

[1:56:49] response to um Jeff's question about

[1:56:54] changing the design to a more provo

[1:56:56] design.

[1:57:01] » Did we get a response to that?

[1:57:02] >> No, we didn't. Uh, Council McKay is

[1:57:05] asking if you could respond to my

[1:57:06] earlier question.

[1:57:09] >> Councelor McCay, thank you. We have been

[1:57:12] willing to change everything at this

[1:57:13] point. So, of course, we would be

[1:57:14] willing to make that change. We are not

[1:57:16] set on on any specific thing. We just

[1:57:18] have an Italian background. So, we

[1:57:20] thought that might be lovely. But if

[1:57:22] that is something that is a gamecher,

[1:57:24] we're certainly willing to look into

[1:57:25] that.

[1:57:26] >> Yeah, I think the if you look at the

[1:57:28] walking neighborhood plan, it does talk

[1:57:29] about certain design standards that kind

[1:57:31] of fit in with the historic nature of

[1:57:33] this uh neighborhood and I think that

[1:57:36] would be highly valued by the residents.

[1:57:37] >> Appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:57:40] Um on I I love that. That is important

[1:57:42] to me. This is an I'm extremely torn on

[1:57:44] this decision. Um, I value the

[1:57:47] neighborhood plans. I value neighborhood

[1:57:48] input. I've been to every neighborhood

[1:57:50] meeting about this and I go to every

[1:57:52] neighborhood meeting that I can attend.

[1:57:56] And at the same time, I'm also value I

[1:57:59] think it's huge that Taran is offering

[1:58:01] homeowner occupancy in perpetuity. That

[1:58:05] is a game changer for this part of town.

[1:58:06] It'll change wars. It'll change schools.

[1:58:08] It'll change community. It will

[1:58:10] absolutely be a gamecher. Now, correct

[1:58:12] me if I'm wrong, Brian. I believe that

[1:58:14] with our new sham transaction law that

[1:58:15] we've done that a parents could not buy

[1:58:18] the home and put their child in it. That

[1:58:22] they would need to have the home, the

[1:58:24] mortgage, all the things that we set out

[1:58:26] in the child's name, which makes it a

[1:58:29] much more complicated situation. Is that

[1:58:30] correct?

[1:58:34] » But they put them on the title.

[1:58:37] Well, I'm trying to think this through

[1:58:39] back with with regard to councelor

[1:58:41] Whitlock's earlier question about ADUs

[1:58:44] versus um

[1:58:46] uh versus this kind of issue because it

[1:58:50] would certainly pre our our ordinance

[1:58:53] would certainly prevent parents from

[1:58:57] buying a home and trans and then

[1:59:00] allowing their children to live there

[1:59:02] and then their children renting out an

[1:59:05] ADU in the basement and qualifying for

[1:59:07] owner occupancy.

[1:59:09] The problem here is that the method by

[1:59:12] which we that for this kind of thing

[1:59:15] that we have devised in order to enforce

[1:59:17] owner occupancy is really prohibiting

[1:59:21] rental rather than actually enforcing

[1:59:24] owner occupancy. And so

[1:59:28] that's that's where we're going to run

[1:59:30] into a conflict because the idea of a

[1:59:32] parent buying buying one of these and

[1:59:34] giving it to their kids is not going to

[1:59:36] violate the no rental restriction. It's

[1:59:40] only going to violate the owner

[1:59:41] occupancy restriction, which is the one

[1:59:43] that is much more difficult to

[1:59:47] uh enforce. So I think it's I think it's

[1:59:51] feasible. I think that would require

[1:59:54] changes to

[1:59:57] uh the template that we've created to do

[1:59:59] this because we now have to account for

[2:00:01] enforcing two different things where we

[2:00:03] were previously only trying to enforce

[2:00:04] one.

[2:00:08] Okay, that's what I need to nail down.

[2:00:10] Like that's the reason I'd vote for this

[2:00:12] is 100% because of that the homeowner

[2:00:14] occupancy in perpetuity. And I need that

[2:00:17] nailed down that we know how do that and

[2:00:21] that it be successful and that the

[2:00:23] neighbor

[2:00:26] by our lack of enforcement and their

[2:00:28] fear of that. They have a fear

[2:00:31] can't go into this with that being in

[2:00:33] question.

[2:00:40] » Anything else councelor?

[2:00:43] Okay.

[2:00:45] Thank you, Katrice.

[2:00:47] Counselor Whipple.

[2:00:50] >> Yeah, I think Katrice is hitting on a

[2:00:52] really good question there, and that is

[2:00:55] if a a parent buys it for their their

[2:00:58] college age student, then they shouldn't

[2:01:01] be able to also rent it to two other

[2:01:04] students to get that three family. I

[2:01:07] suppose if they wanted to let two other

[2:01:08] students live with their child for free,

[2:01:11] that would be legal. But if they're

[2:01:14] charging rent for, you know, their BFFs,

[2:01:17] then we have a problem. Is that right?

[2:01:20] Is that what we were you're bringing up,

[2:01:22] Katrice?

[2:01:24] >> Yes. The whole benefit of having the

[2:01:27] owner occupancy is the stability for the

[2:01:30] neighborhood communities, churches,

[2:01:32] schools, but it's also in the pricing.

[2:01:35] When you keep investors out, when you

[2:01:36] keep California money out, the investors

[2:01:39] who have the money to throw, you know,

[2:01:40] hundreds of thousands down for their

[2:01:42] kids to live,

[2:01:44] um, that's where the prices go up. The

[2:01:47] only going to keep prices down and

[2:01:50] trulated by investors is to have this

[2:01:53] airtight.

[2:01:56] >> Yeah, I would I would like to be able to

[2:01:58] explore that, Brian. It'll take a little

[2:02:00] bit work on your your template to make

[2:02:03] that happen. Um, one other thing that I

[2:02:06] noted was, um, Jeb had asked earlier

[2:02:11] about the residential conservation zone

[2:02:13] being temporary. And the documentation I

[2:02:16] found for that was in the temp

[2:02:18] neighborhood plan where on page 14 it

[2:02:21] does say that the RC zone was intended

[2:02:23] to be temporary. Um, but it's been kind

[2:02:26] of difficult to actually reszone that

[2:02:29] area much like Waqin because you have

[2:02:32] such a diversity of uses and housing

[2:02:35] types within it that if the zoning

[2:02:39] reflected the actual uses of those

[2:02:41] properties, it would be a very bright

[2:02:45] patchwork quilt of many, many different

[2:02:47] things. Um, but it would help everyone

[2:02:51] to see what the actual uses are for

[2:02:54] those properties. Um, but I think it's

[2:02:57] important to to recognize for this

[2:03:00] neighborhood as well that the RC zone

[2:03:02] was intended to be temporary for us to

[2:03:04] catch our breath and to figure out what

[2:03:09] type of development and structures we

[2:03:13] want in here going forward. And I was

[2:03:17] looking again at the the walking plan

[2:03:20] and it recommends, you know, creating

[2:03:24] this essentially a style guide for it.

[2:03:28] And I don't know that we've we've

[2:03:29] necessarily done that. Um, and so those

[2:03:33] were were the additional comments that I had. I I did want to thank my

[2:03:38] fellow counselors for like all of their

[2:03:41] thoughtful consideration on this too.

[2:03:43] This is a hard thing because the

[2:03:45] different competing values that we have

[2:03:47] are both really really good and really

[2:03:50] important.

[2:03:53] » Thank you, Councelor Whipple.

[2:03:58] » I do I do want to apologize. There

[2:04:00] appears to be a online participant with

[2:04:04] a hand raised and if your hand was

[2:04:06] raised during public comment, I

[2:04:09] apologize for missing that.

[2:04:13] Now we're ready for a motion.

[2:04:17] » Yeah. Um I guess my thought is I think

[2:04:20] if we had to force a decision today, I

[2:04:22] think there's some questions that some

[2:04:24] council members have to that they want

[2:04:26] answered before they would be able to

[2:04:27] vote. Um so my motion would be that we

[2:04:30] continue this to give an opportunity to

[2:04:33] potentially come back with a different

[2:04:34] design that might be more amunable to

[2:04:38] people. um and um also explore the owner

[2:04:44] occupancy and enforcability around that

[2:04:47] which is disappointing that we don't

[2:04:49] have it figured out because I kind of

[2:04:51] thought we had figured that out but um I

[2:04:54] mean why are we talking about it today

[2:04:55] if it's not even enforceable but in any

[2:04:57] case and then potentially even looking

[2:04:59] at the um

[2:05:02] residential uh conservation aspect of

[2:05:06] this so I'd make a motion that we delay

[2:05:08] this not indefinitely, but that we come

[2:05:10] back in well whenever we can get it on

[2:05:12] the schedule. My motion.

[2:05:16] >> I'd second that motion.

[2:05:18] >> We have a motion by councelor Hobin to

[2:05:20] continue the item to answer the

[2:05:23] questions that he has posed with a

[2:05:24] second by councelor Whitlock. I'll call

[2:05:27] for a vote.

[2:05:28] >> How about discussion?

[2:05:31] >> Discussion on the substitute motion.

[2:05:33] >> Um yeah. Yeah. I was just really quickly

[2:05:38] a lot of the comments that we've gotten

[2:05:40] recently have been about the design and

[2:05:42] not matching the historical character of

[2:05:44] the neighborhood. And so I just wanted

[2:05:46] to mention to the the developer um we

[2:05:50] have really great architectural examples

[2:05:54] like the the old Mer School um and some

[2:06:00] of our our buildings downtown.

[2:06:02] I think that there could be design

[2:06:05] elements from those um you know early

[2:06:09] 20th century buildings and late 19th

[2:06:12] century buildings that could be

[2:06:15] the new skin for this project that would

[2:06:20] hit those design concerns for the

[2:06:23] neighborhood that wouldn't necessarily

[2:06:26] require a complete revision of the

[2:06:28] entire the entire plan. That that was

[2:06:32] all I had for the [clears throat]

[2:06:32] discussion.

[2:06:35] >> My other Hold on.

[2:06:37] >> Thank you, Rachel.

[2:06:38] >> My other uh discussion on the motion was

[2:06:41] just to make clear that we understood um

[2:06:44] at least from the city's side what

[2:06:46] questions we had for Brian. Feel pretty

[2:06:50] good about that.

[2:06:52] >> Yes. Great.

[2:06:56] >> Any other discussion?

[2:06:58] Okay. Now I'll call call for a vote.

[2:07:00] Council,

[2:07:01] >> excuse me, Gary. Gary, hold on.

[2:07:02] >> Councelor Christensen.

[2:07:03] >> Um, I I could certainly see the value in

[2:07:08] um continuing this. It sounds like

[2:07:10] there's been a great deal of flexibility

[2:07:12] on the developer's part. I would love to

[2:07:16] see the developer and the neighborhood

[2:07:20] um come together with with something

[2:07:22] that that both of them felt like could

[2:07:24] work. So, to me, it's not just the skin,

[2:07:28] it's the it's also the the density. the

[2:07:30] parking. It's I mean it's the whole it's

[2:07:32] the whole thing. So, um if we were if we

[2:07:36] were working towards something like

[2:07:38] that, uh I would I would be in favor of

[2:07:41] continuing.

[2:07:43] >> Thank you, Councelor Christensen.

[2:07:44] Councelor Hovind.

[2:07:45] >> Yeah, I guess I clarify that too that

[2:07:48] you know your job between now and the

[2:07:49] next meeting would figure out how to

[2:07:50] make this work for the council members

[2:07:52] and the consideration that they take

[2:07:55] give to the neighborhood plan and and

[2:07:57] feedback from the neighborhood and such.

[2:07:59] So you just reiterate what Craig's

[2:08:01] saying.

[2:08:02] >> Thank you.

[2:08:04] I'll call for a vote. Councelor

[2:08:06] Christensen,

[2:08:08] >> yes.

[2:08:10] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[2:08:12] >> yes.

[2:08:12] >> Councelor Boggen,

[2:08:14] >> yes.

[2:08:14] >> Councelor Hoben,

[2:08:15] >> yes.

[2:08:16] >> Councelor Whipple,

[2:08:17] >> yes.

[2:08:18] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor McCay,

[2:08:22] >> yes. So, that motion passes by a vote of

[2:08:25] 70 to continue the item uh in hopes that

[2:08:29] there could be more

[2:08:32] neighborhood unonymity.

[2:08:34] Thank you. Thank you, Taran.

[2:08:38] And thanks to all of you who came to

[2:08:41] share your um support and comments with

[2:08:44] us.

[2:08:51] [clears throat]

[2:08:51] Next, we we're going to move to item

[2:08:54] nine. We're going to skip items seven

[2:08:57] and eight for now because item nine

[2:09:00] really has a bearing on uh on how we

[2:09:03] treat seven and eight. I'll read in item

[2:09:06] nine. [clears throat]

[2:09:09] a resolution approving an interlocal

[2:09:11] cooperation agreement between Provo City

[2:09:14] and Springville City to share net

[2:09:17] benefits from the Springville Rising development. This

[2:09:22] will be presented by our economic

[2:09:23] development division director, Cody

[2:09:26] Hill. Cody, welcome.

[2:09:29] >> Thank you, Councilman Garrett, and thank

[2:09:30] you, city council members. Really

[2:09:32] appreciate uh the opportunity to present

[2:09:35] this item. Um, as mentioned in the work

[2:09:38] session, I think this is a really great

[2:09:40] opportunity for cities to two cities to

[2:09:42] work together. A lot of the time you see

[2:09:45] development come and have cities play

[2:09:48] off each other and say who can offer me

[2:09:50] the best benefits, who can offer me the

[2:09:51] tax breaks and I'll make my decision on

[2:09:54] who, you know, where I'm going to get

[2:09:55] the sweetest deal. And I really like to

[2:09:57] see Clyde Company approach Springville

[2:10:00] and Provo and say, "Hey, we have a

[2:10:02] development that is Provo on your

[2:10:05] southeast border and Springville on your

[2:10:08] north border and we'd love to to see a

[2:10:11] development here that have that benefits

[2:10:13] everyone equally." Um, so a little bit

[2:10:16] about the background of this

[2:10:17] development. It's, like I said, it's in

[2:10:19] southeast Provo, right on the border

[2:10:20] with Springville. And it contains um a

[2:10:26] mix of residential and commercial. The

[2:10:28] majority of the commercial uh retail and

[2:10:30] office is in Springville with all of the

[2:10:34] uh residential being located in Provo.

[2:10:37] And it's about 35% condos. Um and then

[2:10:40] the rest are town homes. So 65 units for

[2:10:42] town homes and 90 units uh for condos.

[2:10:45] and then a little bit like 10,000 about

[2:10:47] 10,000 square feet of retail for the

[2:10:51] Provo side. And we've been working with

[2:10:53] the city manager and and the city

[2:10:56] manager over there uh Troy Fitzgerald in

[2:10:59] Springville City has been working with

[2:11:00] me and his council to to figure out an

[2:11:03] interlocal agreement whereby we can

[2:11:05] share uh net benefits from this

[2:11:07] development. And so um we discussed

[2:11:10] terms of this development in the work

[2:11:12] session. um some of the terms that that

[2:11:15] we would probably want to to reconsider

[2:11:17] and amend. And I've spoken with Brian

[2:11:19] Jones who has a couple of amendments

[2:11:22] already to that agreement um ready to to

[2:11:25] go um with amended uh motion from from

[2:11:29] you. And so I'm happy to discuss any uh

[2:11:32] questions that you may have or if if you

[2:11:34] want to refer to to Brian on those

[2:11:36] amendments as well.

[2:11:38] >> Any questions for Cody?

[2:11:43] Council. Okay. All right. Okay. Um

[2:11:48] Brian, let's turn to you then.

[2:11:49] >> Yes, please. Thank you. Uh councelor

[2:11:51] Garrett. Um Kevin, can you put that uh

[2:11:54] red line up and we'll just show them the

[2:11:57] two changes. So, there were essentially

[2:11:59] three issues as my understanding

[2:12:02] discussed in the work session. I've made

[2:12:04] edits to two of them that I think

[2:12:06] address the concerns. Then the third one

[2:12:08] is the one that would require some more

[2:12:11] time. And so it's really a question of

[2:12:13] how you feel about that one. But Kevin,

[2:12:15] if you scroll down, keep going. This is

[2:12:17] the introductory document. Okay. The

[2:12:19] exhibit is the agreement. And then right

[2:12:22] there in paragraph 2B,

[2:12:25] I proposed changing the end date to 207

[2:12:29] instead of 2042. So that would make it a

[2:12:31] 30-year agreement instead of a 15-year

[2:12:33] agreement. I did confirm that state law

[2:12:37] prohibits interlocals from being more

[2:12:38] than 50 years. So that's the outside

[2:12:41] max, but based on some of the comments

[2:12:43] in the meeting, I propose changing it to

[2:12:45] 30. We can obviously change it to

[2:12:47] whatever number up to 50 that you'd

[2:12:49] like. And then down in section four,

[2:12:52] Kevin, can you turn on uh all changes so

[2:12:55] you can so we can see the red line

[2:12:59] the

[2:13:01] up up the left where it says simple

[2:13:03] markup. if you'll change that to all

[2:13:04] markup. There we go. Thank you. So down

[2:13:07] there in section four for the we talked

[2:13:09] what the one of the concerns I had was

[2:13:12] that the trigger required 90% of both

[2:13:15] sides of the project to be built out and

[2:13:17] you know I I said that you know the

[2:13:18] nightmare scenario is they build 85% of

[2:13:21] the residential and we have 85% of the

[2:13:24] cost but we never trigger the revenue

[2:13:25] sharing. So based on the email that Cody

[2:13:28] had exchanged with the Springville city

[2:13:30] manager, I propose changing this to it

[2:13:33] goes into effect as soon as a

[2:13:35] certificate of occupancy has been issued

[2:13:37] for at least one building within Provo

[2:13:39] City and one in Springville City. So as

[2:13:41] soon as there's one building on each

[2:13:43] side, we go ahead and start. And based

[2:13:45] on the email from the Springville city

[2:13:46] manager, I I believe that that would be

[2:13:48] acceptable to them. So I think that's a

[2:13:50] much better trigger than the one

[2:13:51] originally. So the one thing that was

[2:13:54] the one comment from work session that

[2:13:56] none of this addresses is whether or not

[2:13:58] you're comfortable with the calculation

[2:14:01] of what our costs are. Um and so there

[2:14:05] was a lot of discussion about that. This

[2:14:07] version of the agreement just focuses on

[2:14:10] public safety costs. There were various

[2:14:13] comments in the meeting about whether

[2:14:15] there really were other costs or not and

[2:14:17] how much they would be. So that's just

[2:14:20] an open question for you. I think this

[2:14:22] addresses two of your concerns and if

[2:14:24] those two concerns are the most

[2:14:25] important, it's it's would be feasible

[2:14:27] to make an a motion to accept these

[2:14:30] changes and approve it tonight. Uh which

[2:14:32] as Cody said, I think puts us in a

[2:14:34] pretty good position with Springville

[2:14:35] because we're actually sending them

[2:14:36] back. It's kind of like a purchase

[2:14:39] agreement where we're sending them back

[2:14:40] and a counter offer that we've already

[2:14:42] approved. They just need to accept it as

[2:14:44] opposed to kind of continuing back and

[2:14:47] forth. But the other question about the

[2:14:49] cost uh calculation is something that

[2:14:52] you'd have to decide whether you were

[2:14:53] comfortable with or not.

[2:14:58] » Great. Thank you, Brian.

[2:15:01] Questions for Brian?

[2:15:07] All right. Thank you, Brian. Thank you,

[2:15:09] Cody. We'll open this item for public

[2:15:11] comment if there are any here who would

[2:15:14] like to speak. And this is for now it's

[2:15:15] just the interlocal agreement between

[2:15:17] the two cities.

[2:15:20] >> I'm Angie Carter and the neighborhood

[2:15:22] district chair for the east neighborhood

[2:15:24] district. We discussed this at our

[2:15:27] meeting last week, this project. Um and

[2:15:31] things did come up related to the

[2:15:32] interlocal agreement that I think would

[2:15:34] be interesting. Um some of the things

[2:15:37] that came up that I don't see in this

[2:15:38] agreement are infrastructure costs. um

[2:15:41] things like water, sewer, um those kinds

[2:15:44] of things that would need to be built

[2:15:45] out if that's not included in here.

[2:15:47] Those are going to be some of our costs.

[2:15:49] Also, there's going to be costs for

[2:15:50] schools. So, um these are

[2:15:55] going to be home owner occupied most of

[2:15:58] these and we will have children that are

[2:16:00] going to school here. So, we need to be

[2:16:02] thinking about what does that mean?

[2:16:04] will, you know, right now probably

[2:16:06] trying to decide if they're going to,

[2:16:10] you know, close some schools, but if we

[2:16:12] get more students, then there could be

[2:16:14] the possibility of having to increase

[2:16:16] the amount of schools that are or the

[2:16:20] capacity of schools around them. Um, not

[2:16:23] sure. um you probably need to talk to

[2:16:25] the school board maybe Jennifer

[2:16:28] Partridge for in census in this

[2:16:29] neighborhood and find out um what the

[2:16:32] capacity is at Provost Pro Peaks and

[2:16:36] Spring Creek that are elementary schools

[2:16:38] in that area. um there are no middle

[2:16:40] schools or high school in that area and

[2:16:42] so everyone's saying it need to be

[2:16:44] busted which then puts infrastructure

[2:16:46] road issues on what you're dealing with

[2:16:49] and then you have interchanges in terms

[2:16:51] of roads in terms of

[2:16:55] the businesses that will be there um it

[2:16:58] splits there so some of that would be

[2:17:00] springville's cost but up on State

[2:17:02] Street I guess that's UD do so but

[2:17:05] somebody's going to have to build better

[2:17:06] roads there for this um And then you

[2:17:10] know we're talking about property tax

[2:17:12] but what about sales tax sharing? I

[2:17:14] haven't read the whole interlocal

[2:17:15] agreement but is that included there?

[2:17:18] And have you defined what a net benefit

[2:17:21] is? What does that even mean in terms of

[2:17:24] this agreement? Um how do you calculate

[2:17:28] each other's costs and how do you

[2:17:30] calculate you know what the revenue is

[2:17:33] and who's getting what and making sure

[2:17:36] that we're both being honest with each

[2:17:38] other. Thank you.

[2:17:39] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Angie.

[2:17:41] Others.

[2:17:49] I'm Lynn Sorenson, Pleasant View

[2:17:52] neighborhood and I was born in Cedric,

[2:17:55] Kansas. [clears throat]

[2:17:57] » [cough]

[2:17:59] >> I'm concerned about what seems to be a

[2:18:02] trivial matter, but I used to write

[2:18:05] headlines for the Arizona Republic.

[2:18:09] And naming is very important. I am not

[2:18:13] pleased that this development, whether

[2:18:16] it goes through or not, is called

[2:18:17] Springville Rising. That leaves Provo

[2:18:20] out of it altogether. So, I would like

[2:18:23] very much for someone to come up with

[2:18:25] something so that it doesn't stick

[2:18:28] forever. So, if you want to remember

[2:18:31] things that have stuck forever,

[2:18:33] Watergate, Obamacare, Summer of Love,

[2:18:37] whatever, once it gets going, there's no

[2:18:40] getting around it. Now, obviously, some

[2:18:43] places have solved this problem. Twin

[2:18:46] Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, it's Twin

[2:18:49] Cities.

[2:18:50] uh Dallas Fort Worth using both names.

[2:18:54] There's got to be a way that this cannot

[2:18:56] seem like it is solely

[2:18:59] belonging to uh Springville,

[2:19:02] notwithstanding that they're getting all

[2:19:04] that tax tax revenue. I mean, I have

[2:19:06] concerns in many ways, but at this

[2:19:08] stage, I really think we need to be

[2:19:11] submitting to the the people who are

[2:19:14] putting this together some form of a

[2:19:17] name. I don't know if that's proville or

[2:19:20] you know what it might be, but there's

[2:19:21] got to be something. Please consider

[2:19:24] that. Thank you.

[2:19:25] >> Thank you, Lynn.

[2:19:29] Anyone else?

[2:19:32] If not, we'll close public comment and

[2:19:34] bring the item to council for

[2:19:35] discussion.

[2:19:37] Councelor Whitlock.

[2:19:40] >> Yeah. So, I appreciate those comments

[2:19:43] particularly from Angie. Um just to

[2:19:46] answer that question about net benefit

[2:19:48] for those who are interested.

[2:19:49] Essentially the way the formula works is

[2:19:51] it's the revenue which is a function of

[2:19:53] sales tax and property tax minus public

[2:19:57] safety costs and that's the net benefit.

[2:19:59] And then essentially uh whoever has the

[2:20:02] highest higher net benefit then pays a

[2:20:04] 50/50 split of the delta. And that's how

[2:20:08] it would work.

[2:20:10] So to answer your question, I still have

[2:20:13] the concerns I expressed in the work

[2:20:15] meeting. I think

[2:20:17] again I'm a little less strong on the on

[2:20:19] that opin I don't know if Director

[2:20:20] Pebborn is here. A little less strong on

[2:20:23] that opinion given the fact that we

[2:20:24] don't have as many roads as I assumed,

[2:20:26] but there still are pretty large cost

[2:20:28] categories that we'd be responsible for

[2:20:31] that would not be accounted for in this

[2:20:33] formula.

[2:20:35] Uh, I mean I I we'd have to get more of

[2:20:37] the details, but sewer, storm water, um,

[2:20:42] parks and wreck,

[2:20:44] sanitation. I the thing is I don't think

[2:20:47] like our sanitation costs fully cover

[2:20:49] our not fully covered by the fees. I

[2:20:51] think they're partially

[2:20:53] covered by taxes, right? So anyway, I

[2:20:56] but but again, you guys could push back.

[2:20:58] I just I'd like to understand that

[2:20:59] better.

[2:21:02] My understanding of how the way a like a

[2:21:04] suburban suburban works is the street

[2:21:07] and sidewalks maintenance is only just a

[2:21:08] part of the overall set of services

[2:21:11] you're getting from the city.

[2:21:16] » Yeah, please respond. Yeah.

[2:21:19] >> Yeah. So, you are correct. Not every

[2:21:21] single cost is covered. It's just public

[2:21:23] safety. The logic behind that is just

[2:21:25] because public safety takes up the

[2:21:26] majority. If you were to look at all of

[2:21:28] the services that a city provides,

[2:21:30] public service takes up the largest um

[2:21:33] percentage of a city's budget

[2:21:34] expenditures. Um and they're not covered

[2:21:37] by any type of um um you know additional

[2:21:40] fee. The more fire, the more police you

[2:21:42] use, the more you would be charged. That

[2:21:44] doesn't exist. Whereas, you know, it

[2:21:45] exists in other um utilities where we

[2:21:48] have enterprise funds that help cover

[2:21:49] the costs for additional uses for it. Um

[2:21:52] I'm sympathetic. parks and recreation.

[2:21:54] There's going to be um a lot of homes

[2:21:56] here, a lot of kids. They're going to be

[2:21:58] use using parks and recreation

[2:22:00] resources. Um and those costs are not

[2:22:02] covered in this agreement like you said.

[2:22:04] Um and so the question is just how how

[2:22:06] granular do do we want to get in in

[2:22:09] encapsulating all the costs that are going to be borne um by the

[2:22:13] city from this proposal from this uh

[2:22:15] proposed development um that are not

[2:22:18] covered um by additional fees um like

[2:22:21] utilities or by the the public safety

[2:22:24] consideration of the equation. I mean if

[2:22:25] there's one one theme that I picked up

[2:22:28] from my first budget cycle it's that we

[2:22:31] have a huge maintenance backlog. I mean,

[2:22:32] we just heard it today. How many million

[2:22:34] dollars of sidewalk ADA backlog? We have

[2:22:37] this massive maintenance backlog that's

[2:22:39] not covered by the taxes we collect from

[2:22:43] our single family home residences and

[2:22:46] essentially the way that we water,

[2:22:48] right? We we're having to raise our

[2:22:49] water rates because we have this huge

[2:22:51] deferred maintenance backlog. And so all those so I hear what you're saying

[2:22:56] when you're saying that like on a

[2:22:57] marginal cost basis safety maybe is the

[2:22:59] easiest to calculate because it's like a

[2:23:02] you're using a per call assumption. What

[2:23:04] I'm saying is we're taking on a bunch of

[2:23:06] long-term maintenance liabilities that

[2:23:09] are maybe harder to calculate on a

[2:23:11] marginal cost basis but nonetheless will

[2:23:12] be real. Whereas I feel like when you

[2:23:14] look at the development what is it 60%

[2:23:16] of it is on the Provo side, 40% on the

[2:23:19] roughly on the Springfield side. they're

[2:23:21] taking on a lot less infrastructure and

[2:23:23] then getting the majority of the tax

[2:23:25] revenue benefits because of sales tax,

[2:23:28] >> right?

[2:23:28] >> And the way that this agreement is

[2:23:30] structured, like I said, is if it's a

[2:23:31] low sales tax year, you could imagine a

[2:23:32] world where we're actually slightly

[2:23:34] ahead on net benefit and then we end up

[2:23:35] paying to them.

[2:23:36] >> So that's my fundamental concern with

[2:23:38] the structure.

[2:23:39] >> Yeah. And I'm not opposed to that. If we

[2:23:40] want to add transportation maintenance

[2:23:43] [clears throat] and and parks and wreck

[2:23:44] costs to to the equation, I'm I'm

[2:23:47] totally fine with that. And then I think

[2:23:49] one thing that hasn't been said but I

[2:23:50] think it's important is the additional

[2:23:53] revenues that we receive that are in

[2:23:54] that equation are just property tax and

[2:23:56] sales tax. So impact fees which which

[2:23:59] are used to cover uh future

[2:24:00] infrastructure projects are are not

[2:24:02] considered in that. So any impact fees

[2:24:04] that that Clyde pays to Provo that just

[2:24:06] goes into our impact fee funds to

[2:24:08] support [clears throat] facilities

[2:24:09] future facilities.

[2:24:10] >> And that that's fair. Yeah.

[2:24:12] >> In fact, Councelor Whitlock, if you

[2:24:13] don't if you don't mind if I piggyback

[2:24:15] on that. Again, not opposed to anything

[2:24:17] you're saying. I do think the one

[2:24:20] caution I would say is I think we need

[2:24:21] to be really careful that we don't

[2:24:24] include any costs that impact fees

[2:24:28] should be going for because I think it

[2:24:30] will undermine our impact fee study and

[2:24:33] actually subject because we would then

[2:24:35] be getting money against impact fees

[2:24:38] that were presume that the study is

[2:24:40] based on us not getting. So to the

[2:24:42] extent that I really like that you were

[2:24:44] focusing in on future maintenance

[2:24:45] because I think that that is something

[2:24:48] that that isn't accounted for. Uh but in

[2:24:52] you know you're talking we've talked

[2:24:53] about sewer and infrastructure inside

[2:24:56] the development the developer themselves

[2:24:58] will be paying for that. So the city's

[2:24:59] only paying for things to connect it

[2:25:03] that would not otherwise be required

[2:25:06] without it. Right? And that's a lot of

[2:25:07] what many times the impact fees are

[2:25:10] going for. Uh, same with parks and

[2:25:11] wreck. A lot that we've got a parks and

[2:25:13] wreck impact fee. So again, maintenance

[2:25:17] I I totally get. Anything else we just

[2:25:20] need to be really careful that we're not

[2:25:21] doing something we're not incorporating

[2:25:24] a cost that impact fees are supposed to

[2:25:26] be going to.

[2:25:28] >> So purely focused on maintenance.

[2:25:33] Jeeoff, I'm not as worried because our

[2:25:35] sales tax, our sales tax, our property

[2:25:39] tax, we haven't really raised it. It's

[2:25:42] because we do get that what is it 12%

[2:25:45] now return on utilities back to the

[2:25:47] general fund.

[2:25:49] >> So,

[2:25:50] >> for power,

[2:25:51] >> power, sewer, water, garbage,

[2:25:54] >> all of it comes back. So, I'm not as

[2:25:58] concerned about that because it seems

[2:25:59] like that's going to be protected with

[2:26:00] the housing.

[2:26:02] Um,

[2:26:04] but to Angie's point about the schools,

[2:26:07] we did talk about the schools and the

[2:26:08] mayor had a very good perspective on

[2:26:12] that and we can't negotiate for the

[2:26:14] schools. If the school district needs to

[2:26:16] negotiate with Nebo School District,

[2:26:17] then the school district needs to take

[2:26:19] that on. we can negotiate for Provo City

[2:26:22] and again Springville City. Um it is sad

[2:26:26] to say, but Jennifer's if that's what

[2:26:28] Jennifer's worried about, she's going to

[2:26:30] have to reach out to Nebo and have some

[2:26:31] kind of agreement or something like we

[2:26:33] have ours. But the mayor can before I

[2:26:36] get to the mayor and let her address

[2:26:38] that comment. Gordon,

[2:26:42] we did ask in work meeting about the

[2:26:44] utilities. Are we providing water,

[2:26:47] sewer,

[2:26:49] um, storm water and electricity to this

[2:26:52] development?

[2:26:53] >> Yes, excuse me. [clears throat] Yes. And

[2:26:55] so I did hear about that the question.

[2:26:57] So we in this development, the

[2:27:00] developers putting all the new

[2:27:02] infrastructure. So there's no actual

[2:27:04] dollars the city is putting in this.

[2:27:06] They're also doing a lot of improvements

[2:27:08] on uh center or state street for U DOT.

[2:27:12] So they're required to put sidewalk

[2:27:14] along the curb and gutter and really

[2:27:16] make that a lot more with with the trail

[2:27:19] along there as well. So they're also

[2:27:21] building part of the Spring Creek trail

[2:27:24] that we don't have to build. So those

[2:27:25] are all things that are coming in. The

[2:27:28] maintenance is an issue. A lot of their

[2:27:30] roads are

[2:27:32] private, so that won't be a significant

[2:27:35] issue for storm wa for water storm water

[2:27:39] transportation. We collect the normal

[2:27:41] fees that we'd collect from all the

[2:27:42] residents. Uh with uh road we also get

[2:27:46] CDBG is I think based upon linear roads

[2:27:50] and population base. So those will

[2:27:54] then incrementally increase through some

[2:27:56] process that the state organizes.

[2:27:59] >> Is this still CDBG?

[2:28:02] So the CDBG funds uh are based upon

[2:28:06] this it's a gasoline tax other taxes but

[2:28:10] the state distributes it based on your

[2:28:12] population in a formula that's your

[2:28:14] population and road miles. So as you

[2:28:17] increase your population and road miles

[2:28:18] then you get additional funding. I just

[2:28:21] >> are we talking community development

[2:28:22] block grants?

[2:28:23] >> No CDBG or excuse me I did say CDBG. I

[2:28:26] meant BNC road funds.

[2:28:28] >> Oh B and C. Okay. too many alphabet

[2:28:30] letters this late at night.

[2:28:32] >> All right, I'll let the mayor adjust.

[2:28:36] Is that okay? So, what I brought up was

[2:28:39] that when we talk about and it's not

[2:28:42] with you, but

[2:28:43] >> um when we talk about the schools, um I

[2:28:45] don't want to put words in their mouth,

[2:28:47] but they the way that they get funds

[2:28:50] from the city is through property tax.

[2:28:52] So, any improvement to property does

[2:28:55] give them more revenue. They do worry

[2:28:57] and have uh sometimes have concerns if

[2:29:01] there's going to be a tax increment

[2:29:02] financing scheme because then that can't

[2:29:05] that takes away from especially if it's

[2:29:07] housing because that takes away from

[2:29:09] what they would be getting to cover the

[2:29:11] cost of those extra students that might

[2:29:12] go in. However, um when there are just

[2:29:16] new students that come to an area, a

[2:29:18] housing subdivision that comes to an

[2:29:20] area that has students, those costs are

[2:29:24] covered by the weighted people unit. and

[2:29:26] um mechanism at the state, right? Plus,

[2:29:29] they get that increased property tax

[2:29:30] increment or that increased well, it is

[2:29:32] an increment, but they get that

[2:29:33] increased property tax um revenue. And

[2:29:36] so, it's actually good for the schools

[2:29:40] to have students move in, especially

[2:29:42] where we are decreasing in students and

[2:29:44] they are losing that funding. Concerning

[2:29:47] busing, if it's more than um Oh, I'm I'm

[2:29:50] going to get it wrong, but if it's more

[2:29:51] than a certain distance, that's usually

[2:29:53] covered by the state, but I can't that's

[2:29:56] back when I was on the school board. I

[2:29:58] don't want to speak for them at all, but

[2:30:00] that's kind of like some of those

[2:30:02] concerns for having a new development

[2:30:04] with students coming in.

[2:30:07] I don't think that those are going to be

[2:30:09] concerns in this particular case.

[2:30:17] Any other council discussion?

[2:30:25] Um I I'd be I'd like to make a a Well, I let me ask Cody. I think it's very

[2:30:31] clear from the council that we like this

[2:30:33] agreement. I'm purely pushing for us to

[2:30:35] get the best deal we can get. And I and

[2:30:37] I think both both Springville and Provo

[2:30:39] want this deal to happen. I personally

[2:30:41] think this is a better deal for spring

[2:30:42] bill. That's my assessment. The council

[2:30:44] may disagree. So I what I'm curious is

[2:30:47] if we were to continue this item for you

[2:30:49] to go back and and negotiate a little

[2:30:52] bit, is that going to put this whole

[2:30:54] thing at risk or do you think that the

[2:30:56] timelines could line up?

[2:30:59] >> I don't know that there's a need to

[2:31:00] continue. I think if if you feel

[2:31:02] obviously feel strongly about including

[2:31:03] more costs and I think you can add that

[2:31:05] as as an amendment to the motion and

[2:31:08] push it through and get a vote and then

[2:31:10] we can add that language in and then

[2:31:12] hand it over to Springville for them to

[2:31:14] consider and I know Troy Fitzgerald has

[2:31:16] been so this amendment so this agreement

[2:31:19] has already been adopted without our

[2:31:21] amendments by Springville City Council

[2:31:23] and they've given um Troy Fitzgerald the

[2:31:26] city manager um some leeway in altering

[2:31:29] that that agreement agreement um as long

[2:31:31] as there's not significant substantive

[2:31:33] changes to that agreement um and still

[2:31:36] enter into it. And so when we make our

[2:31:39] amendments, approve it, give it back to

[2:31:41] them, then the ball's in their court

[2:31:43] whether our changes are significant or

[2:31:46] they're not so significant that they

[2:31:49] can't just sign it.

[2:31:50] >> Sign of administratively that I Yeah, I

[2:31:52] think that would be my preferred

[2:31:53] direction for you to go.

[2:31:54] >> Okay.

[2:31:56] >> In that case, I I think we could go that

[2:31:58] direction. So, I'd like to make I'd like

[2:32:00] to make an a motion to um approve this

[2:32:04] agreement, this interlocal agreement

[2:32:06] with the amendments that are have been

[2:32:09] made to the current document with the

[2:32:12] additional direction that Cody goes and

[2:32:14] tries to negotiate a slightly more

[2:32:16] favorable cost formula for Provo.

[2:32:20] Is there a second?

[2:32:22] >> I'll second that.

[2:32:24] >> Thank you.

[2:32:27] Any discussion on the

[2:32:30] motion? Councilor Bogden,

[2:32:33] >> I would still like it to go to 50 years

[2:32:35] instead of 30. I think if we're looking

[2:32:37] at a more favorable for Provo,

[2:32:40] >> 50 years is more

[2:32:42] >> favorable than 30. And that pushes it to

[2:32:45] the max of the limit. And then then

[2:32:47] we've got it for that mall.

[2:32:50] >> So that would still fit within what he

[2:32:52] what councelor Whitlock has.

[2:32:54] >> I'd agree with that as well.

[2:32:56] Yeah, for the record, I agree with that.

[2:32:58] That's a great point.

[2:32:59] >> We We don't want to see Provo sinking.

[2:33:01] >> Should I update the motion, Brian, with

[2:33:03] that?

[2:33:04] >> Well, yeah. Let me let me clarify one

[2:33:06] thing about your intent, though. Uh,

[2:33:08] you've essentially with regard to the

[2:33:09] cost proposal, you've essentially said

[2:33:13] you're delegating it to Cody to

[2:33:15] negotiate the best deal on that that he

[2:33:16] can, and whatever he whatever he gets is approved. Same thing with the 30 to

[2:33:21] 50. Like you want him to ask for 50, but

[2:33:24] it's okay if they only agree to 30 or is

[2:33:26] it you're only approving it if they

[2:33:29] agree to 50?

[2:33:33] [laughter]

[2:33:34] >> I actually I actually think

[2:33:35] substantively councelor Bogdan's right

[2:33:38] that that's probably a more financially

[2:33:40] substantive ask for us to be honest.

[2:33:43] Um,

[2:33:45] >> so in that case I would I would say make

[2:33:48] that part of your motion that that you

[2:33:50] are it is approved contingent upon the trigger that's on the screen 50

[2:33:56] years and the best cost calculation

[2:34:00] formula that that Cody can negotiate.

[2:34:03] >> Okay. I make a motion that we approve

[2:34:05] this interlocal agreement based on the

[2:34:07] changes uh showed on this updated

[2:34:09] document and contingent to getting 50

[2:34:12] years as as the duration of the

[2:34:14] agreement and a better more favorable

[2:34:16] cost calculation propo.

[2:34:20] » I'll second your substitute substitute

[2:34:23] motion.

[2:34:24] >> Any discussion? Councelor Christensen,

[2:34:26] did you have a comment earlier?

[2:34:30] >> No.

[2:34:31] >> Okay, I'll call for a vote.

[2:34:34] Councelor Whitlock.

[2:34:36] >> Yes.

[2:34:36] >> Councelor Bogden.

[2:34:37] >> Yes.

[2:34:38] >> Councelor Hoben.

[2:34:39] >> Yes.

[2:34:40] >> Councelor Whipple.

[2:34:42] >> Um,

[2:34:44] I would be okay if it were the 3250.

[2:34:48] I'm I'm willing to say yes to this, but

[2:34:50] I I think 50 I I

[2:34:54] don't want that to kill it.

[2:34:57] So, I'm a I I'm Yes. with that

[2:35:02] understanding if that's helpful for Cody

[2:35:04] at all in his negotiations.

[2:35:06] >> Okay. Thank you, Council Ripple. That's

[2:35:07] been noted. Councelor Garrett. Yes.

[2:35:10] Councelor McKay.

[2:35:17] » Councelor McKay reported that her signal

[2:35:20] is is in and out of service. So, we'll

[2:35:23] excuse her vote at this time. Councelor

[2:35:25] Christensen.

[2:35:26] >> Yes. That motion passes by a vote of 6.

[2:35:32] [clears throat]

[2:35:33] Brian, um, having passed that, do do we

[2:35:38] move to seven and eight now?

[2:35:44] [laughter]

[2:35:46] Um,

[2:35:48] yes, with this caveat. Um, so I mean I I

[2:35:52] think you should hear the presentation

[2:35:54] on seven and eight. Um, we do not at the

[2:35:58] moment have a binding interlocal

[2:36:01] agreement. And so the question becomes,

[2:36:03] do you really want to approve either the

[2:36:05] general plan or the reszone without one?

[2:36:09] Um, you could

[2:36:13] we could do there's a few options here.

[2:36:15] one is you you hear them and get the

[2:36:17] developers uh input presentation, ask

[2:36:21] the questions you have and we're and

[2:36:22] we're ready to move forward later when

[2:36:25] we hear back from Springville uh with

[2:36:27] nothing and just continue it after um

[2:36:30] the presentations.

[2:36:32] We could um

[2:36:36] [sighs]

[2:36:38] well the other thing that occurred to me

[2:36:40] that now that I'm I'm going to say it

[2:36:41] because I already said there were three

[2:36:43] things but I actually don't like this

[2:36:44] one. [laughter] So, so the the reszone

[2:36:47] is not effective until the development

[2:36:49] agreement is signed. So, you could

[2:36:51] instruct

[2:36:51] >> the interlocal agreement.

[2:36:52] >> Well, the development agreement.

[2:36:54] >> Okay.

[2:36:54] >> Right. So, you so you could approve both

[2:36:57] and then ask the mayor to not sign the

[2:37:01] development agreement until the

[2:37:02] interlocal agreement has been approved.

[2:37:04] That's just that's a weird way of doing

[2:37:07] it. So the better way of doing it would

[2:37:08] be to actually add language to the

[2:37:11] resolution saying that it's not

[2:37:13] effective until both the development

[2:37:16] agreement and the interlocal cooperation

[2:37:18] agreement have been fully executed. And

[2:37:20] so if you get if we get to the point

[2:37:22] where you're ready to vote and you're

[2:37:24] satisfied with the development

[2:37:25] agreement, we could add that language.

[2:37:30] Thank you, Brian.

[2:37:31] Are the developers here?

[2:37:35] Let's go ahead and hear the development

[2:37:37] uh and hear from the developers then. I should read in this item first

[2:37:43] and I would go ahead and read in both of

[2:37:44] them.

[2:37:45] >> I'm sorry.

[2:37:46] >> There's two more, right? Because there's

[2:37:47] a general

[2:37:48] >> seven and eight.

[2:37:49] >> Yeah. Or eight and eight and Oh, you're

[2:37:52] right. Seven and eight because we

[2:37:53] skipped and went to nine first. Yeah.

[2:37:55] So, if you can read in both seven and

[2:37:56] eight. [clears throat]

[2:37:58] >> So, I'll read in these two items. an

[2:38:01] ordinance amending the general plan map

[2:38:03] designation of real property generally

[2:38:05] located at 3657 South Sierra Vista Way

[2:38:09] from the industrial designation to the

[2:38:11] mixeduse designation in the Spring Creek

[2:38:14] neighborhood. And then the next one is

[2:38:17] [clears throat] an ordinance amending

[2:38:18] the zone map classification of real

[2:38:20] property generally generally located at

[2:38:23] 3657 South Sierra Vistaway from

[2:38:26] [laughter] the PIC zone to the medium

[2:38:29] density residential and general

[2:38:31] commercial zones in Spring Creek. Erin

[2:38:34] and this will be presented by Aaron

[2:38:36] Ardmore.

[2:38:37] >> Yes, thank you council. I'll be very

[2:38:39] brief so the developers can come up here

[2:38:40] and address some of the questions that

[2:38:42] have been asked. Um so you've heard a

[2:38:44] lot about this already through the

[2:38:45] previous items. So let me just go

[2:38:47] through the the other legislative asks

[2:38:49] that they have on this. Um to to get to

[2:38:51] the point where they can develop uh

[2:38:53] what's being proposed. Uh first is this

[2:38:55] general plan map amendment. So to take

[2:38:57] it out of the industrial designation and

[2:39:00] move it into mixed use designation would

[2:39:02] be the first step. Uh that would enable

[2:39:04] them to then amend the zone map as well.

[2:39:07] uh to go from the planned industrial

[2:39:08] commercial zone as it currently is to a

[2:39:11] mix of medium density residential for

[2:39:13] the majority of it and then the the

[2:39:15] general commercial zone for uh Provo's

[2:39:17] commercial portion of the project uh

[2:39:20] which on their applications is called

[2:39:22] the Iron Redevelopment Project and not

[2:39:25] Spring Rising just to to note that. Um,

[2:39:29] and then the concept plan here, um,

[2:39:31] you've seen this. This is, uh, condos up

[2:39:34] in the brown, um, stack units in the top

[2:39:38] right there. Uh, the yellow and or the

[2:39:40] golden and purple units are town homes.

[2:39:43] All of these would be for sale. Uh,

[2:39:45] through the development agreement,

[2:39:47] they've uh, profered that only 25% of

[2:39:50] all the units could be rented at any one

[2:39:52] time. Uh they've also profered that

[2:39:54] there be an initial 2-year owner

[2:39:57] occupancy requirement on on each of

[2:39:59] these sales. Um and then um there's some

[2:40:03] other elements that they hope to kind of

[2:40:07] work out with UD do and UTA that they've

[2:40:10] identified in the development agreement

[2:40:12] that came up with planning commission

[2:40:15] discussion. Um so that's all I've got on

[2:40:17] this unless you've got questions for me.

[2:40:19] Um we can let the developers come up.

[2:40:22] questions for Aaron.

[2:40:26] » Thank you, Erin. We'll hear from the

[2:40:28] developer.

[2:40:34] » Thank you, council and mayor, for having

[2:40:36] us tonight. We uh we're excited about

[2:40:38] this development.

[2:40:38] >> Could you tell us your name?

[2:40:39] >> Oh, yes. Sorry. My name is Spencer

[2:40:41] Warren. I represent the Clyde Companies

[2:40:42] and I'm part of their development team.

[2:40:45] Um you've you've already heard most of

[2:40:46] what you need to hear about this uh this

[2:40:48] both zone changes or the the amendment

[2:40:51] to the general plan and the zone change.

[2:40:53] And so primarily I'll just address the

[2:40:56] comments the planning commission gave us

[2:40:58] and then happy to answer questions. So

[2:41:00] they the planning commission did approve

[2:41:01] this and they had three um generally

[2:41:04] three comments for us. The first was to

[2:41:07] buffer the industrial zones so that the

[2:41:09] residential and the industrial had a

[2:41:12] little bit of space between them. And uh

[2:41:14] as you can see on the the site plan

[2:41:16] here, there's been some green space

[2:41:18] added where you see top left from my

[2:41:21] perspective, you see detention basin.

[2:41:23] That green space buffers the entire west

[2:41:26] side of this development from Sierra

[2:41:28] Vista Way and the the uh commercial or

[2:41:32] the industrial that's directly to the

[2:41:34] west of that. The second uh ask from the

[2:41:38] planning commission was to put a

[2:41:41] structure within the setback on Main

[2:41:44] Street inside of Provo. This plan or

[2:41:47] this uh site plan does not show the

[2:41:50] update there, but in the upper right

[2:41:52] corner of parking lot B, we've proposed

[2:41:55] to put a 16 by 16 foot monument sign to

[2:41:59] address the need for a building to go

[2:42:01] there. And then the third ask that they

[2:42:03] had was to consider the pedestrian

[2:42:06] experience. And so, as has already been

[2:42:08] discussed, there's some extension of the

[2:42:10] Spring Creek Trail. There's added um let's see art walk is what we term it

[2:42:18] but there's uh some desirable features

[2:42:21] to see for a pedestrian we'll call it

[2:42:23] that and uh so those those comments have

[2:42:26] been addressed in this updated site plan

[2:42:28] what questions can I answer for you

[2:42:33] [clears throat] so Spencer to the

[2:42:35] earlier comment so the housing portion

[2:42:38] of this development is being called what

[2:42:40] the Ironton And

[2:42:42] >> that is a great question. It doesn't

[2:42:44] have that official name at the moment.

[2:42:45] Okay. The name of the entity is Spring

[2:42:47] Rising. The name of the neighborhood

[2:42:49] area is Iron.

[2:42:50] >> So those those are its nicknames for

[2:42:53] now.

[2:42:53] >> Okay.

[2:42:55] >> But that could clearly be designated

[2:42:57] with

[2:42:58] >> welcome to Provo signs on the

[2:43:00] appropriate road.

[2:43:02] >> Yes.

[2:43:02] >> And entrances. Yes.

[2:43:04] >> And then maybe a a community name.

[2:43:07] >> Yeah. I I mean Proville, that's a good

[2:43:09] one. I I hadn't heard that one yet. Um

[2:43:11] but yeah, this we have not given it a

[2:43:14] specific name.

[2:43:14] >> Okay. Okay.

[2:43:17] Other questions for Spencer or Clyde

[2:43:19] Companies? Councelor Boggden,

[2:43:24] » I like the project. What gives me a lot

[2:43:27] of heartburn, a lot a lot of heartburn

[2:43:30] is

[2:43:32] there is no perpetuity in your homeowner

[2:43:34] occupancy.

[2:43:36] There is for the 25%.

[2:43:40] There's a two-year deed restriction for

[2:43:41] the entire place, the entire

[2:43:43] development, and then there's a 25%

[2:43:45] restriction to rentals. So 75% of that

[2:43:48] will be permanently homeowner occupied.

[2:43:50] Only 25% will be allowed to go into the

[2:43:52] rental pool. And that 75% is in

[2:43:54] perpetuity.

[2:43:56] And

[2:43:57] >> so are these sold or are these all

[2:43:58] rentals?

[2:43:59] >> No, these will be sold. They're all for

[2:44:01] sale. So, how would you enforce that

[2:44:04] 25%.

[2:44:05] >> The same as what was discussed earlier

[2:44:07] through the application in the

[2:44:09] development agreement or the the

[2:44:11] template, excuse me, in the development

[2:44:13] agreement as well as through the HOA.

[2:44:15] >> I I like that you have 25% rental,

[2:44:19] but for me, I I have a hard time that

[2:44:22] you don't have

[2:44:24] perpetuity in your homeowner occupancy

[2:44:27] on the deed restriction. I think that's

[2:44:30] really clear to somebody that's going to

[2:44:31] buy it. I I I think that helps it be

[2:44:36] more enforceable. I do like the 25%

[2:44:40] as well. But for me, I would I would

[2:44:44] also need that strictness of every time

[2:44:46] it's sold, people understand that they

[2:44:50] have to own that place and stick in that

[2:44:53] place a year or two. that that is the

[2:44:56] intent of our HOA and and uh restriction

[2:45:01] through the development agreement is to

[2:45:02] keep it so that 75% of those and condos

[2:45:05] and town houses will always be owner

[2:45:07] occupied.

[2:45:07] >> Right. I get that. But

[2:45:10] I would also appreciate it

[2:45:13] >> as restriction specifically

[2:45:15] >> in perpetuity. [clears throat]

[2:45:16] >> Yeah.

[2:45:16] >> Thank you,

[2:45:18] >> Councelor Whipple.

[2:45:21] Yeah, I think um Proville is much better

[2:45:24] than Springingo would be. Um I was

[2:45:27] wondering so this project would it have

[2:45:29] to meet our gateway standards that we

[2:45:32] have for Provo for a monument sign or

[2:45:34] for other design elements?

[2:45:38] That may be a better question for Aaron

[2:45:40] than it is for the developer.

[2:45:42] >> Aaron is nodding his head. Yes.

[2:45:44] >> Okay.

[2:45:44] >> Yes.

[2:45:45] >> Um did the developer know about the

[2:45:47] gateway design standards? Did I just

[2:45:50] bring something new on him?

[2:45:52] >> No. Well, on me as an individual

[2:45:54] perhaps, but not on our design team.

[2:45:56] >> Okay. I I just wanted to to be sure that

[2:45:59] those would be met because

[2:46:03] I I I really like this project and I

[2:46:06] like that this gives a really great

[2:46:08] entrance to Provo and a wonderful

[2:46:11] transition between Provo and

[2:46:12] Springville. And I think doing kind of

[2:46:16] the monument sign and our gateway

[2:46:18] standards will help

[2:46:20] to to mark and kind of celebrate that

[2:46:25] common line that we have with each

[2:46:27] other. So I'm I'm excited about it and

[2:46:30] I'm really happy that you're here to do

[2:46:33] this project.

[2:46:35] >> Thank you. We are too.

[2:46:38] >> Councelor Whitlock. Echoing some of my

[2:46:40] comments from the last item. I love that

[2:46:44] all these units are for sale. I love

[2:46:46] that there's condos for sale. That's not

[2:46:48] a product we see very often. Condos are

[2:46:51] the new starter home. That's just the

[2:46:53] reality that we live in as we've

[2:46:55] discussed. And I'm really happy that

[2:46:57] there's going to be 90 families that can

[2:47:00] buy these and live close to

[2:47:03] dining retail. I think that's amazing. I also appreciate all the green space.

[2:47:08] There's a lot of parks in this

[2:47:09] development. So, I think you guys have

[2:47:11] done a wonderful job.

[2:47:12] >> Thank you.

[2:47:12] >> I really appreciate it and I like I love

[2:47:14] this development. I want to make it

[2:47:15] happen.

[2:47:16] >> Great. Thank you very much.

[2:47:19] >> I also am encouraged by this project,

[2:47:21] Spencer, and appreciate the commitment

[2:47:23] that Clyde Companies has made to develop

[2:47:25] this part of our city. It has great I-15

[2:47:29] access from there. 1400 South is

[2:47:31] underutilized

[2:47:33] and um [clears throat] but to see life

[2:47:37] in this part of our city will be will be

[2:47:40] great.

[2:47:43] If there's no other comment

[2:47:45] or questions for Spencer

[2:47:48] or discussion, I'll call for a vote.

[2:47:49] Thank you, Spencer.

[2:47:50] >> Thank you, [clears throat]

[2:47:54] » Chair Garrett.

[2:47:55] >> Yes.

[2:47:55] >> I just wanted to Well, let's see. Are

[2:47:58] you doing the general plan one first?

[2:48:00] >> Yes. Okay. I'll My comments are about

[2:48:03] the reason, not about the general plan.

[2:48:08] » Would we need to add the stipulation to

[2:48:10] the general plan that you suggested or

[2:48:12] is that just on the resone?

[2:48:14] >> Well, I suppose um

[2:48:18] [sighs]

[2:48:19] I I guess that's up in your discretion.

[2:48:21] The general plan doesn't grant any

[2:48:22] vested rights, right? So if the if you

[2:48:26] approve the general plan and then the

[2:48:27] whole deal falls through, you can just

[2:48:28] undo the general plan and it and they

[2:48:30] you've not given anybody any rights

[2:48:32] because it's just discretionary. It's

[2:48:34] just a guideline to begin with. So I'm

[2:48:36] less concerned about that one, but we

[2:48:38] could certainly add it if you want

[2:48:42] so that you don't have to go through the

[2:48:44] step of undoing it afterwards. Seems

[2:48:46] easy. Yeah.

[2:48:51] Can you Kevin, can you put up the

[2:48:53] ordinance then for the general plan?

[2:48:59] » Let's see and then scroll down.

[2:49:02] Um,

[2:49:07] I would so I would suggest that in sub

[2:49:11] paragraph C,

[2:49:15] um,

[2:49:18] I would add

[2:49:20] to right there where it says immediately

[2:49:22] after,

[2:49:24] um, I would add the words

[2:49:28] uh, if you're able to edit it or even a

[2:49:31] PDF.

[2:49:33] But I can

[2:49:42] » I would say this ordinance takes effect

[2:49:43] immediately after the interlocal

[2:49:46] partic what did we let's see what's the

[2:49:48] agreement called interlocal

[2:49:49] participation agreement Cody is that the

[2:49:51] name of it

[2:49:52] >> after

[2:49:53] >> cooperation after the

[2:49:57] relevant interlocal cooperation

[2:49:59] agreement with Springville has and

[2:50:01] executed by both parties.

[2:50:07] And

[2:50:19] yeah. And so with with that change, that

[2:50:21] makes it so y that's just one more

[2:50:23] trigger before it's effective.

[2:50:26] >> So it would just so if that meets what

[2:50:28] you're expecting, then we would want a

[2:50:30] motion.

[2:50:31] to add that language and then a sub and

[2:50:34] then a a second vote on the amended uh

[2:50:39] ordinance.

[2:50:41] All right, I'll I'll make a motion to

[2:50:44] update the implied motion uh to uh make

[2:50:48] an ordinance text amendment to the

[2:50:51] general plan for the property located at

[2:50:54] 3657

[2:50:55] Sierra. You're scrolling, Kevin, while

[2:50:57] I'm reading.

[2:51:00] No, Sierra Vista way. Uh, subject to the

[2:51:04] amended language that this is contingent

[2:51:06] upon the interlocal cooperation

[2:51:09] agreement being executed.

[2:51:15] » I'll second that.

[2:51:17] >> Public comment.

[2:51:27] » [clears throat]

[2:51:27] >> It's late.

[2:51:28] >> So, we have a motion by councelor

[2:51:30] Whitlock with a second by Rachel

[2:51:32] Whipple. We will open public comment for

[2:51:36] this item at this time before we vote.

[2:51:40] >> You can tell we're getting tired.

[2:51:44] » It's been a long meeting. I'm tired,

[2:51:46] too. Um [clears throat] I'm Angie

[2:51:47] Carter, um the East Neighborhood

[2:51:50] District Chair, and again, this came up

[2:51:54] in our meeting. Um the residents are

[2:51:57] generally supportive of this, but as you

[2:51:59] know, our area struggles with a lot of

[2:52:02] over rental of the area. So Becky

[2:52:06] Bogdan's concerns echo our concerns. How

[2:52:10] will you enforce owner occupancy in this

[2:52:13] area? And we would recommend that it not

[2:52:16] be approved until there's some pretty

[2:52:18] strict

[2:52:20] enforcement of that here. Otherwise,

[2:52:23] we're just going to end up with even

[2:52:26] lower owner occupancy in our area than

[2:52:28] we already have. Um, we we think the

[2:52:32] interlocal agreement will take care of

[2:52:34] some of our concerns about most of the

[2:52:35] sales tax revenue going into

[2:52:38] Springville, but that is a concern that

[2:52:39] we have as well that Provos seems to be

[2:52:43] getting all the housing without the

[2:52:48] tax revenue to support all of that. So,

[2:52:51] it sounds like some of that's been

[2:52:53] addressed, but I would like you to know

[2:52:55] that that came up in our meeting as

[2:52:57] well. Um, that's all that we have, but I

[2:53:00] just wanted you to know that. Thank you.

[2:53:02] >> Great. Thank you, Angie.

[2:53:05] >> To that point.

[2:53:07] >> Um, can you speak just in more detail

[2:53:10] how it will it be in the So, basically,

[2:53:13] you're making a HOA, correct, for this?

[2:53:15] Yep. And and then you're going to have

[2:53:17] the 25% rental being enforced through

[2:53:20] the HOA.

[2:53:21] >> Yes. As well as the application that was

[2:53:23] discussed with the prior development.

[2:53:25] >> What would uh So is the HOA board going

[2:53:29] to be like will Clyde be on the HOA

[2:53:31] board? Do you put Do you pretend to have

[2:53:33] control over the HOA?

[2:53:34] >> Um if Clyde owned all of the houses then

[2:53:38] we could

[2:53:38] >> then you can't you can't it has to be

[2:53:39] owner

[2:53:40] >> like we'd have to rent them to be able

[2:53:42] which we're not going to do. So

[2:53:44] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:53:46] Spencer.

[2:53:48] >> And Chair Garrett, if I could just

[2:53:50] clarify, um,

[2:53:52] let's, in case there was any confusion

[2:53:55] about this, I think that we have open

[2:53:56] public comment for both seven and eight,

[2:53:59] right? So that we're not let's not do

[2:54:01] separate public comment for the general

[2:54:03] plan and for the reason. But

[2:54:04] >> thank you, Brian.

[2:54:06] Okay. So, I won't close public comment

[2:54:08] yet until it's clear that this public

[2:54:11] comment applies to both items seven and

[2:54:14] eight

[2:54:16] on the same project. One relative to the

[2:54:18] general plan map designation and the

[2:54:21] other to the zone map classification.

[2:54:26] Seeing no other public comment, all

[2:54:28] close public comment and we'll continue

[2:54:30] with our vote on item seven, the general

[2:54:34] plan map designation. Councelor

[2:54:38] Bogdton.

[2:54:39] >> So Jeff, I think

[2:54:44] >> the homeowners and the homeowner

[2:54:45] association, they can change that 25% in

[2:54:48] their CCNRs, can they?

[2:54:51] >> Yes, but they've I think what may not be

[2:54:54] clear here is that I understand. Now,

[2:54:57] let me back up and talk about how this

[2:54:59] done. So we So they have given us a

[2:55:00] draft. Okay. the way and I'm skipping

[2:55:03] ahead to number eight, but the but the

[2:55:06] reszone item

[2:55:08] does not approve the draft they've

[2:55:10] submitted.

[2:55:12] It says that the mayor is authorized to

[2:55:14] negotiate a development agreement

[2:55:16] consistent with their representations in

[2:55:18] this meeting. So the key here is that if

[2:55:20] there's something that you want that you

[2:55:22] wouldn't vote for the reszone unless

[2:55:24] they promise to do it, you need to make

[2:55:26] sure that they promise to do it on the

[2:55:28] record here in this meeting and then

[2:55:30] that'll get included in the development

[2:55:32] agreement. Now I'm understanding from

[2:55:35] the comments that they've already made

[2:55:37] that they are not just relying on the

[2:55:39] CCNRs and the HOA, but that they are

[2:55:41] willing to do the same deed restriction

[2:55:43] process that we talked about in the

[2:55:45] previous item.

[2:55:48] So I I believe they have already made

[2:55:50] that profer and that that would be part

[2:55:52] of what we would put in the final

[2:55:54] development agreement.

[2:55:55] >> Can you specifically say what that

[2:55:58] profer would be? Is that in perpetuity

[2:56:01] two years in perpetuity or is that

[2:56:04] what exactly would that be? They they do

[2:56:06] need to clarify that that point um about

[2:56:10] the now but but let's clarify again

[2:56:12] because it a little bit is a little bit

[2:56:14] confusing because the 75% 25% thing the

[2:56:16] 75% is already in perpetuity

[2:56:20] >> because they have said that they can't

[2:56:22] have more than 25% of it rented. So 75%

[2:56:25] of the units must be owner occupied in

[2:56:28] perpetuity. But I think the question

[2:56:30] that councelor Bogdan asked was what's

[2:56:32] the mechanism enforcing that because if

[2:56:33] it's just the CCNRs then the HOA board

[2:56:35] can change it

[2:56:37] >> right and the right yes that's fair

[2:56:43] » and our response to that is that we'll

[2:56:45] plan to use the template as you've as

[2:56:47] you've outlined that gives Proo's law

[2:56:49] enforcement the ability to enforce that

[2:56:51] as well.

[2:56:51] >> Okay, perfect.

[2:56:55] >> I just need to hear you say what that

[2:56:56] means. [laughter]

[2:56:59] That means that for the first two years,

[2:57:01] 100% of these houses and and condos will

[2:57:03] be owner occupied. That's what the

[2:57:05] two-year deed restriction is. In

[2:57:06] perpetuity after that, 75% of them will

[2:57:09] be owner occupied. 25% of them can be

[2:57:12] rented.

[2:57:13] >> And that's going to be on the deed

[2:57:15] restrictions.

[2:57:16] >> That's as part of the development

[2:57:17] agreement. Yes.

[2:57:17] >> Is that work?

[2:57:20] >> Yes. Well, I want to clarify because of councelor Hoben's comment

[2:57:24] during the last one. I want to clarify.

[2:57:26] I think there was a misinterpretation of

[2:57:27] something I said earlier. I do think

[2:57:29] this works for rentals. My concern was

[2:57:32] that Krice was raising something that to

[2:57:34] my recollection we've never talked about

[2:57:36] before, which is owner occ which is a

[2:57:40] unit that is not owner occupied because

[2:57:42] somebody's living in it for free who is

[2:57:44] not the owner. That we haven't thought

[2:57:47] about before. But I do think that all of

[2:57:49] this works if the if the units are being

[2:57:51] rented.

[2:57:59] » Okay. So theoretically it's going to be

[2:58:02] work works. It works and the city can

[2:58:05] enforce on it if 30% of those units are

[2:58:08] rented.

[2:58:10] >> Yes. And we've and we have done this

[2:58:12] we've done that exact model in other

[2:58:14] development agreements before with other

[2:58:15] properties. We haven't had a violation

[2:58:17] yet that in fact I don't know that any

[2:58:19] of the developments have actually

[2:58:20] finished being constructed. But we have

[2:58:23] a deed restriction template. We have

[2:58:25] development agreement language. We have

[2:58:27] the language we need to be able to say

[2:58:29] that if any more than 25% of the units

[2:58:34] in this development are being rented, we

[2:58:37] can deny any unit above the 25% mark a

[2:58:40] rental dwelling license and then

[2:58:42] prosecute them for renting without it

[2:58:44] license. That's how we understand it as

[2:58:46] well.

[2:58:46] >> How do you tell which ones by right can

[2:58:49] rent and which ones can't?

[2:58:51] >> Well, I think our enforcement would be

[2:58:53] based on time. Now, that and right, the

[2:58:56] first 25% would be the ones that we

[2:58:58] would give a pass to and as soon as

[2:58:59] somebody above that rented, we would

[2:59:01] prosecute them.

[2:59:03] >> Thank you.

[2:59:05] >> Quick question to follow up on that. So

[2:59:08] the people who get in on that 25% would

[2:59:11] be the order in which they apply for

[2:59:13] their rental dwelling license if I'm

[2:59:16] understanding correctly. So if they were

[2:59:18] renting it out without the rental

[2:59:19] dwelling license, they wouldn't have

[2:59:21] their place secured in that queue or to

[2:59:24] be part of that 25% and they could just

[2:59:26] be enforced on.

[2:59:29] >> Yes.

[2:59:30] And would it make sense to have any

[2:59:35] penalties attached to the HOA as well

[2:59:40] instead of just the original or the

[2:59:42] individual property owners? because this

[2:59:46] is kind of a community enforcement

[2:59:47] thing. If we've got this in the CCNRs,

[2:59:50] but we're if we're relying on that

[2:59:53] entity to be that first level of

[2:59:56] policing, um would it make sense for

[2:59:59] there be penalties to that entity for

[3:00:02] failing to do that?

[3:00:06] >> I think that's uh up to

[3:00:10] the council. Um,

[3:00:15] yeah, I we haven't done that in the

[3:00:18] past. I certainly we we are expecting

[3:00:20] the HOA to enforce and we would want

[3:00:22] them to be the first enforcer. So, I

[3:00:25] don't know for sure what those penalties

[3:00:27] would be. We would have to actually

[3:00:31] build those somehow into

[3:00:36] Yeah, I'm not quite sure. I'm not quite

[3:00:37] sure how to do that because

[3:00:38] >> Yeah, that's why I was wondering like we

[3:00:40] don't have a mechanism in place for that

[3:00:43] already.

[3:00:44] >> Yeah.

[3:00:44] >> Okay. I mean that that makes sense and

[3:00:47] honestly I think um this would encourage

[3:00:50] anybody in that development to really be

[3:00:53] sure that they properly do their rental

[3:00:55] dwelling license application in a timely

[3:00:58] manner because otherwise they're not

[3:01:00] going to have a chance to to do that.

[3:01:03] Um, would we also be keeping track of

[3:01:10] like if if we drop down like somebody

[3:01:13] doesn't renew their RDL and so like

[3:01:17] could they lose the right to rent their

[3:01:19] home because theirs is expired and

[3:01:22] somebody else hops in with their

[3:01:23] application?

[3:01:27] » Good question. [laughter]

[3:01:30] I would probably advocate for not doing

[3:01:32] it that way, but that would be something

[3:01:33] we would need to um clarify or it's

[3:01:38] going to be up to enforcement at the

[3:01:40] time that it happens.

[3:01:42] >> Do we does our enforcement generally

[3:01:45] send notices that, hey, you're RDL is

[3:01:48] about to expire. If you're continuing to

[3:01:50] rent your property, you might want to

[3:01:52] fill out this thing to let us know that

[3:01:54] you're continuing to rent.

[3:01:58] I don't believe so, but I don't know

[3:01:59] that for sure.

[3:02:02] >> That that might be a

[3:02:03] >> Oh, Malia is giving a thumbs up that

[3:02:05] they do do that.

[3:02:06] >> Okay. Well, in that case, then they've got at least constructive notice

[3:02:11] that they would need to do it. So, I'd

[3:02:13] feel okay about that.

[3:02:16] >> Thank you, Councelor Whipple.

[3:02:18] >> Thanks.

[3:02:20] >> Okay, we'll call for a vote then on

[3:02:22] this. Oh, councelor Hovind. Yeah, I just

[3:02:26] I think some of these comments and

[3:02:28] questions, it just seems like we are

[3:02:30] creating a nightmare for ourselves. And

[3:02:33] I don't know how this is really from a

[3:02:35] practical standpoint going to be

[3:02:36] enforcable, but I have all the faith in

[3:02:39] the world that Brian can figure this

[3:02:41] out, but I just I'm worried about what

[3:02:43] we're what we're handing off to the

[3:02:45] administration and what they're going to

[3:02:48] have to deal with. And it seems a lot

[3:02:50] messier than some of the other ones that

[3:02:52] we've done, but maybe it's just my

[3:02:54] perception. And I don't know.

[3:02:55] >> I don't think it's messier than other

[3:02:57] Well, it's messier. Yes, you're right.

[3:02:59] It It's messier than other ones we've

[3:03:01] done because we because we haven't done

[3:03:03] one before where we had this percentage,

[3:03:05] right? Before it was just

[3:03:08] >> none of them can be

[3:03:09] >> or a percentage of them can be.

[3:03:11] >> Um, well, we have we have we did do one

[3:03:14] with a percentage before. I think we're

[3:03:16] just asking questions we haven't asked

[3:03:17] before. [laughter]

[3:03:19] >> And and and you're right. I mean, I was

[3:03:22] actually having a text conversation with

[3:03:24] a former member of our office who's

[3:03:26] watching the meeting and is the single

[3:03:28] greatest danger to enforcement here is

[3:03:31] lack of interest in the enforcement,

[3:03:33] right? I mean,

[3:03:35] this is a priority for the council now

[3:03:37] and we and I I am confident that this

[3:03:41] mechanism

[3:03:43] can work.

[3:03:45] Somebody at the city's got to make it

[3:03:47] work 5 years from now, 10 years from

[3:03:49] now. But the alternative is nothing,

[3:03:53] right? Because there's there's not I

[3:03:55] mean there's not some alternative out. I

[3:03:57] mean the alternative is to just not

[3:03:59] approve any deals

[3:04:03] >> ever.

[3:04:04] >> Well, yeah. I mean or just have the two

[3:04:06] years and then

[3:04:08] it there's not a percentage after that.

[3:04:10] >> Right. Right. But even even

[3:04:12] >> that's that's easier to enforce than I

[3:04:15] mean if you know for two years there's

[3:04:16] no rentals at that place. It's a lot

[3:04:18] easier to enforce than oh we're going to

[3:04:20] have 25% okay now one's in and one's out

[3:04:22] and you know just managing that I just I

[3:04:25] don't All right it doesn't seem like

[3:04:27] there's an answer but I sure am good at

[3:04:30] finding complaints

[3:04:35] » okay we'll call for a vote on the motion

[3:04:37] this is item seven amending the general

[3:04:39] plan map designation councelor Bgden

[3:04:42] >> yes

[3:04:44] >> councelor Hoben

[3:04:46] >> yes to the new development called Hoben

[3:04:48] Rising.

[3:04:49] >> Yes.

[3:04:52] >> Councelor Whipple.

[3:04:54] >> Yes. [laughter]

[3:04:55] >> Councelor Garrett. Yes. Councelor

[3:04:57] Whitlock.

[3:04:58] >> Yes.

[3:04:59] >> The motion passes 5-0 with counselors

[3:05:02] McKay and Christensen excused.

[3:05:08] » [clears throat]

[3:05:09] >> Now on to item eight, which is the

[3:05:12] ordinance amending the zone map

[3:05:15] classification of the same development.

[3:05:18] >> Brian, did we need to do a second vote?

[3:05:22] >> Um, that's how we've normally done.

[3:05:25] [clears throat] I mean, Jeff Jeff's

[3:05:26] motion did imply approval, but normally

[3:05:29] uh based on our rules, we would have

[3:05:31] considered that motion to only add the red line to it. And now you're

[3:05:36] voting on the amended. So you're voting

[3:05:39] on the implied motion as amended by

[3:05:41] Jeff's motion for number seven. But it

[3:05:45] you don't need a discussion. You just

[3:05:47] vote on that.

[3:05:48] >> Okay.

[3:05:58] » We're voting on item seven as amended.

[3:06:02] Councelor Bogden.

[3:06:03] >> Yes.

[3:06:04] >> Councelor Hoben. Yes.

[3:06:05] >> Councelor Whipple.

[3:06:07] >> Yes.

[3:06:07] >> Councelor Garrett. Yes. Councelor

[3:06:09] Whitlock.

[3:06:10] >> Yes.

[3:06:11] >> The vote passes. The item passes 50 with

[3:06:15] councils McKay and Christensen excused.

[3:06:18] Okay. Now on to item eight, which is

[3:06:20] [clears throat] amending the zone map

[3:06:22] classification.

[3:06:23] >> Can you put it up, Kevin? Uh because I'm

[3:06:26] gonna I'm gonna make you go through the

[3:06:28] whole entire same convoluted procedure

[3:06:30] except that there's an easier way to do

[3:06:32] this. So Kevin, if you can go to part

[3:06:34] two in the word document of number

[3:06:37] eight.

[3:06:41] » Okay.

[3:07:05] if you scroll down to part two,

[3:07:09] um that last sentence, zone map

[3:07:11] classification change described in part

[3:07:12] one is not effective until the date of

[3:07:14] final execution of the development

[3:07:15] agreement and the relevant interlocal

[3:07:18] cooperation agreement

[3:07:21] with Springville.

[3:07:28] Okay. So, uh based on our prior

[3:07:30] discussions, my suggestion would be that

[3:07:32] someone make a motion to add that

[3:07:34] language

[3:07:36] and then after that motion passes,

[3:07:39] you'll have to vote on the as amended

[3:07:41] ordinance.

[3:07:43] >> Okay. So, I'll look for a motion then on

[3:07:45] this resolution as amended

[3:07:49] >> to to amend it. To amend it.

[3:07:52] >> Yeah.

[3:07:54] All right. I'd like to make a motion uh

[3:07:57] that we update the uh we pass the

[3:08:01] ordinance amending the zone map

[3:08:03] classification of the property located

[3:08:05] at 3657 South Sierra Vista Way from the

[3:08:09] planned commercial industrial zone to

[3:08:11] the median density residential zone and

[3:08:13] the general commercial zones. and

[3:08:16] subject to the updated language

[3:08:18] requiring that the interlocal

[3:08:21] cooperation agreement with Springville

[3:08:23] be executed.

[3:08:24] >> Thank you, Councelor Whitlock. Do we

[3:08:26] have a second?

[3:08:27] >> I will second that.

[3:08:28] >> Councelor Bodden. Thank you. Is there

[3:08:30] any discussion?

[3:08:32] >> Do a quick discussion. Is fun hazing

[3:08:34] you, Jeff.

[3:08:36] >> I'm the only freshman.

[3:08:40] » All right, I'll call for a vote.

[3:08:42] Councelor Hoben.

[3:08:43] >> Yes. Councelor Whipple,

[3:08:49] » yes.

[3:08:49] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:08:51] Whitlock,

[3:08:52] >> yes.

[3:08:53] >> Councelor Bognet,

[3:08:54] >> yes.

[3:08:55] >> The motion passes by a vote 50-0 with

[3:08:58] counselors McKay and Christensen

[3:09:00] excused. I'll We'll now vote on the

[3:09:04] >> implied motion.

[3:09:06] >> as amended.

[3:09:10] >> Councelor Hogan.

[3:09:12] >> Yes. Councelor Whipple,

[3:09:16] » yes.

[3:09:17] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:09:19] Whitlock,

[3:09:20] >> yes.

[3:09:20] >> Councelor Bogden,

[3:09:22] >> yes.

[3:09:22] >> That motion also passes by a vote of 5-0

[3:09:26] with counselors McKay and Christensen

[3:09:28] excused.

[3:09:31] We'll now turn to item 10 on our agenda,

[3:09:35] a resolution approving the appropriation

[3:09:38] of $14,1711

[3:09:42] in the general fund for a contractual

[3:09:45] sales tax increment post-performance

[3:09:48] payment today's market presented by Cody

[3:09:50] Hill.

[3:09:54] » Thank you again, Council Member Garrett

[3:09:56] and council members. So this budget

[3:09:59] appropriation request is to fulfill our

[3:10:01] obligation to today's market. We entered

[3:10:03] into an agreement with them in 2019 for

[3:10:06] the remittance of sales tax increment.

[3:10:09] Their base year value is about $39,000

[3:10:13] of um sales tax revenues to Provo City.

[3:10:17] And the formula is that we take what we

[3:10:20] have collected in a year, subtract that

[3:10:23] base year value, and then half goes to

[3:10:25] today's market and half goes to Provo

[3:10:26] City uh with a $100,000 cap. And that

[3:10:29] $100,000 was used uh to cover costs

[3:10:32] associated with uh improvements to

[3:10:34] today's market. And uh we've definitely

[3:10:37] seen uh an impressive return on that

[3:10:39] adjusting for inflation as we discussed

[3:10:41] in the work session. Um we've seen 111%

[3:10:44] increase in the amount of sales tax

[3:10:47] revenues to the city. And so um as

[3:10:51] calculated this $14,171

[3:10:54] would fulfill that obligation and they I

[3:10:57] estimate that they will reach that cap

[3:10:59] next year even though there are um it

[3:11:02] will be done two and a half years early.

[3:11:04] So happy to.

[3:11:07] >> Great. Thank you. We have

[3:11:09] >> any questions for Cody?

[3:11:12] >> Thank you. This item is open for public

[3:11:14] comment if anyone wishes to make a

[3:11:17] comment.

[3:11:19] If not, we'll close public comment and

[3:11:21] invite council discussion.

[3:11:25] Councelor Whitlock.

[3:11:28] I'd just like to make a comment that I

[3:11:30] love to see a small neighborhood ger be

[3:11:33] so successful. and I hope we can get

[3:11:35] more of them in Provo.

[3:11:37] >> Thank you.

[3:11:39] If there's no other discussion, we'll

[3:11:41] call for a vote.

[3:11:43] >> Councelor Whipple,

[3:11:45] >> yes.

[3:11:46] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:11:48] Whitlock,

[3:11:49] >> yes.

[3:11:50] >> Councelor Boggen,

[3:11:51] >> yes.

[3:11:51] >> And councelor Hoben,

[3:11:53] >> yes. That motion passes by a vote of

[3:11:55] five to zero with councilors McKay and

[3:11:58] Christensen

[3:12:00] excused.

[3:12:02] We'll now move to item 11, a resolution

[3:12:06] appointing an executive director for the

[3:12:08] Provo Municipal Council.

[3:12:13] Rachel, do you know who's presenting

[3:12:14] this item? Because it was supposed to be

[3:12:17] our council chair who's out of town.

[3:12:22] [laughter]

[3:12:35] We were um [clears throat]

[3:12:37] sad to lose our executive director last

[3:12:41] month. Justin

[3:12:44] served our council for four to six

[3:12:47] years, I think, and was outstanding in

[3:12:49] every way. He accepted a similar job

[3:12:52] back in uh [clears throat] Nevada where

[3:12:55] he was before coming to Provo, but um

[3:12:58] really served us well. After much uh we opened this position to um

[3:13:06] uh the public and we received many

[3:13:09] applications which were screened. The

[3:13:12] council as a whole participated in

[3:13:14] interviews of top candidates and um

[3:13:18] unanimously we selected

[3:13:22] Ezraire who is actually here. Ezra we

[3:13:26] can wave stand and wave.

[3:13:30] Ezra [clears throat]

[3:13:31] previously served on the council for

[3:13:34] Vineyard and also is employed by Utah

[3:13:37] County. He brings with him significant

[3:13:40] experience in council government and

[3:13:42] municipal government and with an

[3:13:45] influence by county service as well. So

[3:13:48] we're grateful to um have him with us.

[3:13:52] We will Is there any discussion

[3:13:55] regarding this motion to appoint him?

[3:14:00] just pointing out that it was uh we got

[3:14:02] a lot of really great applications and

[3:14:05] we interviewed a number of them and it

[3:14:07] was uh a hard decision but not that

[3:14:09] hard. We're very happy to have you.

[3:14:11] >> It was it was a hard decision.

[3:14:14] [clears throat]

[3:14:15] Okay, I'll call for a vote then.

[3:14:20] Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:14:22] Whitlock,

[3:14:23] >> yes.

[3:14:24] >> Councelor Bogden,

[3:14:25] >> yes.

[3:14:25] >> Councelor Hoben,

[3:14:27] >> emphatically, yes. Councelor Whipple.

[3:14:30] >> Yes.

[3:14:32] >> So that motion passes by a vote of 50-0

[3:14:35] with councilors McKay and Christensen

[3:14:38] excused. Welcome Ezra. We look forward

[3:14:41] to working with you and [clears throat]

[3:14:43] trust that you'll help us find ways that

[3:14:45] we can make our council meetings

[3:14:48] shorter.

[3:14:52] Item 12, an ordinance amending the zone

[3:14:55] map classification of real property

[3:14:57] generally located at 1804 North Geneva

[3:15:01] Road from the one family residential

[3:15:03] zone to the specific development plan

[3:15:06] SDP

[3:15:08] uh zone. This is in the Lake View North

[3:15:11] neighborhood presented by Dustin Wright.

[3:15:15] All right. Thank you very much, council.

[3:15:17] So, this property here, it's a 10acre uh

[3:15:21] piece of land over on Geneva Road. Uh

[3:15:25] the applicant is looking to create a

[3:15:26] single family residential subdivision

[3:15:28] here and looking to uh reszone the

[3:15:31] property. So, here highlighted in red is

[3:15:34] the proposed uh subdivision layout of of

[3:15:38] this land, single family residential

[3:15:41] lots,

[3:15:42] uh 8,500 square feet and larger. Um

[3:15:49] there we go. So here is the existing

[3:15:52] current zone is the single family R120.

[3:15:56] And our general plan uh has a a

[3:16:00] designation here for this area to be the

[3:16:02] SDP4 uh zone. And that's what they're

[3:16:06] requesting and it um fits uh with what

[3:16:10] uh that map there shows as far as uh

[3:16:13] units go um or lots uh just the

[3:16:17] configuration of the the street network

[3:16:19] has has changed but other than that it's

[3:16:22] generally going to be the same there. So

[3:16:24] uh pretty straightforward. Any questions

[3:16:26] you'd have for me I'd be happy to answer

[3:16:28] those.

[3:16:30] Any questions for Dustin?

[3:16:41] Okay. Thank you, Dustin. We'll open this

[3:16:43] item for public comment.

[3:16:51] Is the developer here?

[3:16:54] Would you uh like to come forward and

[3:16:56] make any comment and then we'll see if

[3:16:58] we have any questions for you. Thank

[3:17:00] you.

[3:17:04] My name is Jay Henry. Live in

[3:17:07] ORM about a mile from the property.

[3:17:10] We've owned the property for about six

[3:17:12] years and uh just looking to develop it.

[3:17:15] We bought it with the intent of

[3:17:17] developing it. We've had to wait for

[3:17:19] about well six years now for the sewer

[3:17:22] and water to get to the property so we

[3:17:24] could but uh we tried another plan here

[3:17:28] about four years ago of twin homes and

[3:17:32] we were turned down on that and so we

[3:17:34] went back to the general plan and so our plan here has been explained is

[3:17:40] directly in line with what the general

[3:17:43] plan is. In fact, if you look at the our

[3:17:46] property there on the bottom and you

[3:17:48] count the number of lots, there's 34

[3:17:50] lots in the general plan and there's 34

[3:17:52] lots in our development. So,

[3:17:54] >> great.

[3:17:55] >> We look forward to moving forward with

[3:17:57] it. So, thank you very much.

[3:17:58] >> Thank you, Jay. Any questions for the

[3:17:59] developer for Jay? Councelor Bogden.

[3:18:04] » In the planning commission, they

[3:18:05] recommended having a walking path open.

[3:18:08] Have you talked to Ben about this?

[3:18:12] >> To to who? Ben May.

[3:18:14] >> Ben May, you know, I've met several

[3:18:16] times with Ben May. I don't know if he

[3:18:19] would have I I didn't discuss this item.

[3:18:21] He had several concerns,

[3:18:23] >> right? I know

[3:18:24] >> about it. And to my knowledge, we've

[3:18:27] ironed out all of his issues and

[3:18:29] concerns. I didn't know he was involved

[3:18:32] in this specific one.

[3:18:33] >> No, he wasn't. But I knowing Ben

[3:18:37] >> and I'm not and I'm trying not to speak

[3:18:40] for him. That's why I'm asking if you

[3:18:41] asked him.

[3:18:43] >> Yeah,

[3:18:43] >> I can imagine if he doesn't want a

[3:18:45] stubbed road to go to his property.

[3:18:48] >> He doesn't want pedestrian access for to

[3:18:50] me that would create more trespass

[3:18:52] opportunities.

[3:18:53] >> Yeah,

[3:18:53] >> I can imagine Ben would strongly object

[3:18:57] to having a pedestrian path.

[3:18:59] >> Oh,

[3:19:00] >> stubbing at his property. And that's why

[3:19:03] I'm wondering, did you chat with Ben

[3:19:05] about that?

[3:19:05] >> Oh, I see. Okay. The issue was the the

[3:19:08] path to the church property, not to

[3:19:10] Ben's property, but the planning

[3:19:13] commission had was suggesting we have a

[3:19:15] pedestrian path to the church property.

[3:19:18] How would you?

[3:19:18] >> At least that was my understanding.

[3:19:20] >> Where would you put that path exactly?

[3:19:23] >> Yeah, it's on the or the church property

[3:19:27] is below probably lots 10 to the end of

[3:19:32] the street. But yeah, you can see the

[3:19:34] church property right there. Ben's

[3:19:35] property is one right to the south and

[3:19:38] the west. The church property is that

[3:19:40] one. Yeah. On on over where it says zone

[3:19:44] R 120. Not not that one, but the other

[3:19:48] >> Mhm.

[3:19:48] >> other side.

[3:19:50] >> Yeah. Right. Right in.

[3:19:51] >> So it'd be back there.

[3:19:52] >> That's a church property.

[3:19:53] >> That was my biggest concern is I there's

[3:19:55] not been a church there for years.

[3:19:57] Right. To the south. They took it down

[3:19:59] and there's not been a church there for

[3:20:01] years. I don't know what it'll become in

[3:20:02] the future,

[3:20:04] >> but I would think that if it was still

[3:20:05] going to be a church, they would have

[3:20:07] kept it intact.

[3:20:09] >> Yeah, they uh one issue is providing a

[3:20:12] stub road down to the church and one to

[3:20:15] Ben Mays and Ben said that he didn't

[3:20:16] want it like you say and the church they

[3:20:19] wrote them a letter and they said that

[3:20:22] they're using it. They want to retain

[3:20:23] the property for religious assembly

[3:20:26] purposes is the word they used so that

[3:20:29] they didn't didn't want a stub road down

[3:20:31] there. Now the planning commission

[3:20:33] suggested you know maybe a pedestrian

[3:20:36] path down to the church and so I wrote

[3:20:39] the church again at least my contact

[3:20:41] with the church and I I heard nothing

[3:20:43] back from them but I can't imagine them

[3:20:46] wanting a pedestrian path back to the

[3:20:48] back of their church property either. I

[3:20:52] can't control the planning commission,

[3:20:53] but I did want this conversation to be

[3:20:55] had publicly so that, you know,

[3:21:00] they don't always know the ins and outs

[3:21:01] of things. Sometimes it's just a great

[3:21:03] idea. And then when property owners are

[3:21:06] like, "No, I have a different purpose

[3:21:07] for my property and having stubbed off

[3:21:10] pedestrian pathways would create more

[3:21:12] trespassing opportunities." I think I

[3:21:15] think that's a valid point to bring back

[3:21:16] to the planning commission for any

[3:21:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. Maybe.

[3:21:20] you know, we we looked into it and I've seen paths through the church

[3:21:25] through other properties and the chain

[3:21:27] link fence and we we don't have a a HOA

[3:21:31] board there and so I don't know who

[3:21:33] would manage that. So that seemed to be

[3:21:38] you know we don't think it's a good idea

[3:21:40] for the neighborhood.

[3:21:42] >> Okay. And councelor Bogdan, if I could

[3:21:44] uh just mention that with regard to

[3:21:47] that, my understanding is that the the

[3:21:49] way the planning commission report is

[3:21:50] phrased that they phrased it as they

[3:21:52] approved it with conditions. They don't

[3:21:54] actually have the ability to impose

[3:21:56] conditions.

[3:21:57] >> Okay?

[3:21:58] >> So it and and all they are doing is

[3:22:01] recommending to you. So what I've

[3:22:03] actually suggested to him in the past is

[3:22:04] what they should have done is recommend

[3:22:07] denial unless the following issue is

[3:22:10] addressed. Right? Anyway, that's that's

[3:22:13] a separate issue. Point being, the the

[3:22:16] ordinance as written right now does not

[3:22:18] contemplate a development agreement. And

[3:22:20] if you don't require one, then the zone

[3:22:24] is just changed. And anything that the c

[3:22:27] anything that the planning commission

[3:22:29] recommended that they do is just a

[3:22:31] recommendation.

[3:22:33] >> So, they have no leeway with the concept

[3:22:34] plan or anything?

[3:22:35] >> Not unless the not unless the code

[3:22:37] requires it.

[3:22:38] >> All right. I'm fine with that. I just

[3:22:40] want to make sure that I'm kind of

[3:22:41] standing up for Ben and and for those

[3:22:43] other things cuz I know him and I don't

[3:22:45] think he

[3:22:46] >> I've known Ben for a long time. We we've

[3:22:48] worked together. We're neighbors. We're

[3:22:49] in the same kind of neighborhood.

[3:22:51] >> I've known Ben for a while, too. So,

[3:22:53] >> he's he's a good man.

[3:22:54] >> He is. He's a very good man.

[3:22:56] >> And so, she's a good woman.

[3:22:57] >> I know father very well. So,

[3:23:00] >> thank you.

[3:23:01] >> We're aware of that.

[3:23:02] >> Thank you, Jay.

[3:23:03] >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[3:23:03] >> We'll open this item now for public

[3:23:05] comment. If there are any here who would

[3:23:07] like to speak to this item, you can

[3:23:09] approach the podium.

[3:23:18] Okay, I'm looking at that map and maybe

[3:23:21] I'm just misunderstanding about where

[3:23:23] stub roads and walking paths and stuff

[3:23:26] would go, but in my neighborhood, we do

[3:23:28] have a walking path between one set of

[3:23:31] houses and another. And it's actually

[3:23:34] very helpful to break up that long

[3:23:39] section of

[3:23:42] neighborhood, I guess, so that you can

[3:23:44] get from

[3:23:47] it's in our road, it's 360 south over to

[3:23:50] 300 South and then walk to church rather

[3:23:54] than having to go all the way down to

[3:23:56] about 1080 east or 1350 east when the

[3:24:00] church is at 1289 east.

[3:24:02] So, you know, as I've been listening to

[3:24:04] your discussion about having, you know,

[3:24:07] a path to get to the church through

[3:24:09] those homes, it seems like you could

[3:24:12] move homes over rather than having us a

[3:24:15] road that ends at somebody's property.

[3:24:17] You could move them down a little bit

[3:24:19] and have a little road there. Anyway,

[3:24:23] just giving you some suggestions to deal

[3:24:25] with your issue.

[3:24:28] I know there's no church, but there

[3:24:29] could be one. And then it would be in

[3:24:32] place before you build a bunch of homes

[3:24:35] and then it goes in because now there's

[3:24:37] a bunch of homes and now they need to

[3:24:39] build a church. Just, you know, forward

[3:24:41] thinking for y'all. Thanks.

[3:24:44] >> Thank you, Angie.

[3:24:46] Any other comments?

[3:24:50] We'll close public comment and bring the

[3:24:52] item back to council for discussion. Any

[3:24:55] additional discussion?

[3:24:58] All right, then we'll call for a vote.

[3:25:02] >> Councelor Whitlock,

[3:25:04] >> yes.

[3:25:06] >> Councelor Bogden,

[3:25:07] >> yes.

[3:25:08] >> Councelor Hoben,

[3:25:09] >> yes.

[3:25:10] >> And Councelor Garrett, yes. This item

[3:25:12] passes by a vote of 40 with councilors

[3:25:15] McKay, Christensen, and Whipple excused.

[3:25:19] We'll now move to item 13, a public

[3:25:21] hearing for a substantial amendment to

[3:25:24] the home ARP allocation plan

[3:25:28] presented by Melissa McN, our community

[3:25:30] grants administrator.

[3:25:32] Welcome, Melissa.

[3:25:35] >> Thank you. Good evening. Uh so this is

[3:25:39] uh

[3:25:41] just a public hearing for this

[3:25:42] substantial amendment um which is

[3:25:44] required by HUD anytime there um are big

[3:25:48] changes. This is for our home ARP

[3:25:51] funding which is the the home American

[3:25:53] rescue plan. Um it's a one-time

[3:25:56] [clears throat]

[3:25:57] um source of funding and we have a a

[3:26:03] subreient

[3:26:05] um who received a substantial amount of

[3:26:08] funding for tenant-based rental

[3:26:09] assistance. and their wish was to

[3:26:12] transfer some of that tenant-based

[3:26:14] rental assistance funding um 260,000

[3:26:19] um over to uh supportive services

[3:26:22] funding because I feel like it will

[3:26:25] they'll be able to better serve that um

[3:26:27] population that is experiencing

[3:26:29] homelessness or um near homelessness

[3:26:32] with um that that funding change. So, do

[3:26:36] you have any questions about the

[3:26:38] substantial amendment? Any questions for

[3:26:41] Melissa?

[3:26:44] Thank you, Melissa.

[3:26:45] >> Thank you.

[3:26:45] >> We'll open this item for public comment.

[3:26:48] Any public comment?

[3:26:51] If not, we'll close public comment and

[3:26:53] bring the item to the council for

[3:26:55] discussion. Any discussion?

[3:26:59] Then we'll call for a vote.

[3:27:01] >> Chair, there's there's not a there's not

[3:27:03] a vote on this item. It's just a public

[3:27:05] hearing for the purpose of public.

[3:27:06] >> Thank you. Item 14, a resolution

[3:27:10] approving an urban deer control plan.

[3:27:14] This will be presented by Nicholas

[3:27:16] Mulestein, the assistant. This will be

[3:27:19] presented by Brian Jones, our city

[3:27:21] attorney, and Greg Hook, BYU managing

[3:27:24] director of operations and grounds.

[3:27:27] >> I'm a nicer boss than Bill, and I sent

[3:27:29] my people home. So, [laughter]

[3:27:32] just kidding, Bill. Um, so you've heard

[3:27:37] this before in a in work session a

[3:27:39] couple of times uh and you're aware of

[3:27:41] it. This is just an issue where the

[3:27:44] state allows uh some programs to take uh

[3:27:49] in other words euthanize capture and

[3:27:52] euthanize uh urban deer uh with very

[3:27:56] strict guidelines about when that can

[3:27:59] happen and how it can happen. It's a

[3:28:01] plan that can only it requires a

[3:28:03] submission of a plan by a municipality

[3:28:06] to DWR who then approves the plans,

[3:28:10] issues a a CO it's called and then the

[3:28:14] city can go on and and implement this

[3:28:16] program. Well, uh BYU has come to us and

[3:28:20] they have asked us to submit a plan on

[3:28:24] their behalf so that they can run a

[3:28:26] program on their campus to take urban

[3:28:29] deer. So, what you're voting on here is

[3:28:32] a a resolution approving that plan

[3:28:36] that's already been approved by the

[3:28:37] state. Uh there was also, so you know,

[3:28:41] an agreement executed between BYU and

[3:28:44] the city where they acknowledge that

[3:28:47] it's their plan that we've approved for

[3:28:50] them on the state and they're going to

[3:28:52] they're doing all the work. They're indemnifying the city against

[3:28:56] any potential risks and it's ju this is

[3:28:59] just uh one of those steps of the city

[3:29:02] authorizing something that we have

[3:29:05] control over so that they can do what

[3:29:06] they want to do. Do you want to add

[3:29:08] anything to that?

[3:29:10] >> No, you you said it very well. There's

[3:29:12] just there's a lot of deer on campus and

[3:29:14] uh the body of this deer they live on uh

[3:29:17] campus year round and they continue to breed and there's a lot of

[3:29:21] deformities and other problems that

[3:29:23] happen because of it and we were just

[3:29:24] looking to thin out the herd and bring

[3:29:27] it down to a more manageable level. So

[3:29:32] >> any questions?

[3:29:34] >> Yes, counselor.

[3:29:36] Um,

[3:29:38] >> I think we asked some variant of this

[3:29:40] question previously, but if I may ask

[3:29:42] again, just because I heard some public

[3:29:43] comment on it, did we look or evaluate

[3:29:46] options for relocation as opposed to

[3:29:47] youth in Asia? Yeah, that that's a great

[3:29:49] question. Uh, from what I understand, a

[3:29:52] number of years ago, uh, there was a

[3:29:53] relocation program that the DWR worked

[3:29:56] in conjunction with with BYU. Um uh

[3:29:59] there became a problem with chronic

[3:30:00] waste disease a number of years ago and

[3:30:03] at that point DWR stopped trapping and

[3:30:05] relocating. They they didn't want to

[3:30:07] spread that.

[3:30:08] >> Can you just explain what that is? And

[3:30:10] uh from what I understand chronic waste

[3:30:12] disease is a disease where these deer

[3:30:15] slowly just start to kind of die, lose

[3:30:17] strength, lose um muscle strength and

[3:30:21] just start to die. So essentially the relocations were failing because the

[3:30:25] deer were dying through this disease and

[3:30:28] DWR said it's actually less humane to

[3:30:30] retreat to transport them or relocate

[3:30:32] them.

[3:30:33] >> Uh they actually don't want it to spread

[3:30:35] >> spreads to other herds. Okay. So okay

[3:30:37] >> it's also for the health of the sort of

[3:30:40] non BYU based herds.

[3:30:42] >> You got it.

[3:30:43] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[3:30:43] >> Good question.

[3:30:46] >> Anyone else?

[3:30:51] » Okay. Thank you, Brian and Greg.

[3:30:53] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[3:30:54] >> We'll open this item for public comment.

[3:30:56] Is there anyone who would like to speak

[3:30:58] to this item?

[3:31:01] If not, we'll close public comment and

[3:31:03] bring the item to council for

[3:31:05] discussion. Any additional discussion,

[3:31:07] council members?

[3:31:10] » Okay, we'll call for a vote. Councelor

[3:31:12] Bogden,

[3:31:13] >> yes.

[3:31:14] >> Councelor Hoben,

[3:31:15] >> yes.

[3:31:16] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. And councelor

[3:31:18] Whitlock,

[3:31:19] >> yes.

[3:31:20] >> Thank you. Thank you. That item passes

[3:31:22] by a vote of 40 with counselors McKay,

[3:31:25] Christensen, and Whipple excused.

[3:31:31] Item 15 is a resolution adopting an

[3:31:34] American with an Americans with

[3:31:37] Disabilities Act transition plan. This

[3:31:40] will be presented by our engineer, David

[3:31:42] Michaelelsson. David, thank you for your

[3:31:45] patience hanging out with us tonight.

[3:31:47] >> Yeah, you bet. Um, [clears throat]

[3:31:50] appreciate it. I'll be quick tonight.

[3:31:51] So, uh, the Americans with Disability

[3:31:54] Act or ADA is a federal civil rights law

[3:31:56] that prohibits discrimination against

[3:31:58] individuals with disabilities. For local

[3:32:00] governments, title 2 applies to our

[3:32:02] program, services, and activities

[3:32:04] provided by the city. Accessibility

[3:32:06] improvements can range in cost and

[3:32:08] scope, while others may be addressed

[3:32:09] through changes to policy, procedures,

[3:32:11] or how services are provided. The city

[3:32:14] cannot address every issue at once, and

[3:32:16] so the ADA requires a transition plan to

[3:32:18] be established. um how accessibility

[3:32:21] barriers will be addressed over time. Uh

[3:32:23] so our transition plan does not create

[3:32:25] the city's ADA responsibilities.

[3:32:27] Instead, it provides a framework on how

[3:32:30] to identify, plan, and track

[3:32:32] accessibility barriers and improvements.

[3:32:36] Um finally, this is not a one-time

[3:32:38] document. Uh it is a living document

[3:32:40] intended to be updated as new

[3:32:41] assessments are completed, improvements

[3:32:43] are made, and projects are finished. The

[3:32:46] goal is continual process towards

[3:32:48] compliance. And ultimately the ADA estab

[3:32:51] ADA establishes the requirements while

[3:32:53] the transition plan just provides the

[3:32:55] roadmap of how the city will work

[3:32:56] towards meeting those requirements. I'm

[3:32:59] happy to answer any questions you have.

[3:33:01] >> Thank you, David. Any questions for

[3:33:03] David? Yes, councelor Bogden.

[3:33:05] >> So I'm curious, the mayor did comment

[3:33:07] that we still have a lot of work to do.

[3:33:09] We still have to have every single

[3:33:10] department in this. So do we come back

[3:33:12] and the council ratifies each

[3:33:15] amendment to this thing or how does this

[3:33:18] work? It's a good question.

[3:33:21] >> Yes, it's I mean we don't necessarily

[3:33:22] have to do them separately, but there

[3:33:24] will be updates to this. In fact, it's like many documents, the general

[3:33:29] plan and many other documents. This is

[3:33:30] intended to be a living document that

[3:33:32] should be getting frequent updates

[3:33:33] anyway. So, we're setting the baseline

[3:33:36] here tonight. There will be updates and

[3:33:38] those updates will be coming back to the

[3:33:40] council for approval.

[3:33:42] So, are we going to just like wait until

[3:33:44] we get a couple of departments in or are

[3:33:46] we going to just like every single

[3:33:48] department that finishes, we're going to

[3:33:50] come back and we actually got a um I

[3:33:53] mean we have an ADA committee in the

[3:33:55] city. Uh we uh actually spoke about this

[3:33:58] about director's meeting in director's

[3:34:01] meeting this morning and we are um

[3:34:04] implementing monthly check-ins on the

[3:34:08] department's self-evaluation and update

[3:34:11] process. So hopefully those updates will

[3:34:14] be coming back to you fairly soon.

[3:34:17] >> You're chairing that committee, right?

[3:34:19] >> I I am on that committee. Yeah, I

[3:34:21] >> think Scott Henderson is actually the

[3:34:23] chair. Oh, Scott's the chair and you're

[3:34:24] on that committee.

[3:34:25] >> Yeah, I'm I'm currently one of the ADA

[3:34:28] coordinators as well as Travis Savage

[3:34:30] from facilities

[3:34:32] as

[3:34:32] >> um my preference would be that you would

[3:34:34] collect munch and come back rather than

[3:34:38] like once a month come and modify each

[3:34:41] one of them.

[3:34:42] >> For sure.

[3:34:43] >> Is that does that put us in

[3:34:45] >> I think I think that's the plan. as long

[3:34:47] as we're, you know, if if some things

[3:34:50] are more, we might have a couple

[3:34:52] batches. May maybe we'll have five

[3:34:54] departments that are really easy and a

[3:34:55] couple departments that are hard. And so

[3:34:56] we but but yes, we would not intend to

[3:34:59] come back to you 10 times for every

[3:35:01] department.

[3:35:02] >> Thank you.

[3:35:05] David. We'll open this item

[3:35:08] for public comment if there's anyone

[3:35:10] here who would like to speak.

[3:35:13] Thank you for your patience tonight.

[3:35:15] Welcome.

[3:35:17] >> Um I'm Jonathan Handy uh from Provo.

[3:35:21] Um uh just on the topic of um sidewalks

[3:35:26] as they apply to ADA. Uh one thing I

[3:35:29] would like to bring up is the problem of

[3:35:32] uh places being inaccessible

[3:35:35] uh due to sprinklers. Uh sometimes

[3:35:37] private sprinklers, sometimes city

[3:35:39] sprinklers. uh where the sprinklers are

[3:35:43] um throwing water onto the sidewalks

[3:35:46] onto the paths. Uh I don't know about

[3:35:49] you guys, but uh I don't particularly

[3:35:51] like getting my groceries soaked when

[3:35:53] I'm bringing them home from the grocery

[3:35:54] store. Um,

[3:35:57] so I I would like to see I in some form

[3:36:02] or another um some effort be put towards

[3:36:06] ensuring that sprinklers that are

[3:36:08] watering the grass stay on the grass and

[3:36:10] stay off of the places where people are

[3:36:13] walking. Thank you.

[3:36:15] >> Great. Thank you, Jonathan. Appreciate

[3:36:17] your comment. Anyone else?

[3:36:22] We'll close public comment and continue

[3:36:24] the item with our council for

[3:36:26] discussion. Any discussion, councilors?

[3:36:30] Councelor Jeff,

[3:36:31] >> I just want to say thank you for the

[3:36:33] effort the city's putting into doing

[3:36:35] this. Sounds like we've had some

[3:36:37] liability for a while for not having

[3:36:39] this and so I'm glad we're taking care

[3:36:41] of it and I know it's a big project. So,

[3:36:42] thank you.

[3:36:47] » Yes, Councelor Bogdan. I just want to

[3:36:49] address.

[3:36:52] We can make all the laws we want to, but

[3:36:54] sometimes laws are really hard to

[3:36:55] enforce. And I think a sprinkler law

[3:36:58] would be very hard to enforce.

[3:37:00] Somebody's going to run over it the

[3:37:02] wrong way or it I just think it would be

[3:37:05] really, really hard to enforce that

[3:37:06] within the city. So, just keep that in

[3:37:09] mind

[3:37:11] when looking at that because I think,

[3:37:13] you know, there's a lot of people that

[3:37:14] don't want to get wet and then then

[3:37:15] sometimes you're really hot and you do

[3:37:17] want to get wet, but um I think it would

[3:37:20] be really hard to enforce.

[3:37:23] >> Thank you, counselor.

[3:37:25] [clears throat]

[3:37:27] >> All right, I'll call for a vote.

[3:37:29] Councelor Hoben,

[3:37:32] >> yes.

[3:37:34] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:37:36] Whitlock,

[3:37:36] >> yes.

[3:37:37] >> And councelor Boggden,

[3:37:38] >> yes.

[3:37:39] >> Thank you. This item passes by a vote of

[3:37:42] 40 with councilors Christensen, McKay,

[3:37:46] and Whipple excused. Move to item 16,

[3:37:49] which is an ordinance regarding a

[3:37:51] general residency requirement for boards

[3:37:53] and commission candidates. This will be

[3:37:56] presented by one of our policy analysts,

[3:37:58] Tanner Tuchi.

[3:38:00] >> Yes. Good evening, council. Thank you

[3:38:02] for hearing this item. This is an issue

[3:38:04] item sponsored by councilors Bogden and

[3:38:07] Christensen.

[3:38:09] And

[3:38:11] currently there is no general residency

[3:38:13] requirement in Provo City Code, meaning

[3:38:16] that these are the five uh committees or

[3:38:19] boards that have some form of residency

[3:38:22] requirement and then all the others do

[3:38:24] not. So, this proposal would change that

[3:38:28] to require all future candidates

[3:38:30] presented by the mayor for uh advice and

[3:38:32] consent to be residents of Provo. This

[3:38:36] would have the effect of allowing

[3:38:38] current uh including recently appointed

[3:38:41] um non-residents to serve out their

[3:38:43] current terms. Uh the two exhibits B and

[3:38:46] C also as I mentioned in the work

[3:38:49] meeting will carve out an exception for

[3:38:51] the FBO representative uh on the airport

[3:38:54] board. Uh they're required to be on that

[3:38:56] board and are not always necessarily

[3:38:58] going to be residents. So that was

[3:39:00] important uh that that be included as

[3:39:04] well.

[3:39:05] This will bring uh our provo or our

[3:39:09] residency requirement in line more with

[3:39:11] what other cities are experiencing with

[3:39:13] their boards of commissions in terms of

[3:39:15] residency. And just for uh your visual

[3:39:19] uh for the visual for the public and for

[3:39:21] you, this is what will be required if

[3:39:23] this was adopted. There would only be

[3:39:26] four non-residents out of all the boards

[3:39:28] and commissions that would allow be

[3:39:29] allowed to be non-residents.

[3:39:32] Uh just some to reiterate some of the

[3:39:34] considerations that were brought up

[3:39:36] during the work meeting. Um the only

[3:39:38] thing that I brought up as an potential

[3:39:40] issue is whether or not the talent pool

[3:39:42] will be constricted. In the le in the

[3:39:45] left example here that would be an

[3:39:47] example where you know the expertise

[3:39:50] required by say the landmarks commission

[3:39:53] uh would impose an unne like a a

[3:39:56] negative burden because that pool of

[3:39:57] potential people who are both residents

[3:39:59] and experts are small. I will say that

[3:40:01] Scott Henderson in the work meeting said

[3:40:03] that they've had not had an issue

[3:40:05] finding people who fit the requirements

[3:40:07] for boards and commissions who require

[3:40:10] specific expertise who are also

[3:40:11] residents. So the reality of the

[3:40:13] situation likely resembles the the ven

[3:40:16] diagram on the right. Uh and I will also

[3:40:19] note this is something that I think

[3:40:21] Brian mentioned in the work meeting as

[3:40:22] well. While this does require the

[3:40:24] executive to act in a certain way and to

[3:40:26] and it restricts their ability to

[3:40:28] propose, conversely, it would also not

[3:40:31] allow the council to entertain

[3:40:32] non-resident uh candidates anymore. But

[3:40:36] if that is the priority is being put on

[3:40:39] pro residency, which I think it is, then

[3:40:42] that is not an issue.

[3:40:45] Thank you. I'm open to any questions.

[3:40:48] for Tanner.

[3:40:54] All right. Thank you, Tanner.

[3:40:58] » Any public comments on this item?

[3:41:05] » Angie Carter, Provo. Um, my concern is one that our presenter just mentioned

[3:41:12] about the expertise. I think for many of

[3:41:14] our boards it makes sense to just have p

[3:41:17] pro residents, but I would suggest that

[3:41:22] maybe for a couple of the other boards

[3:41:24] there be an option to have, you know,

[3:41:28] one or two members that that could be

[3:41:31] out of city residents. um if there

[3:41:36] wasn't a city resident that had that

[3:41:37] expertise, maybe there's something that

[3:41:39] you can add into the this proposal that

[3:41:43] makes you know residents the highest

[3:41:45] priority but then allows for an expert

[3:41:48] from outside Provo if there is not a

[3:41:51] resident expert. I'm thinking maybe of

[3:41:53] the landmarks commission um airport

[3:41:56] board um you know some of those boards

[3:41:59] that may need a little bit more

[3:42:00] expertise. Um, I think we've got

[3:42:03] probably enough people for maybe arts

[3:42:05] council and library board and that sort

[3:42:07] of thing, but I can see some other

[3:42:09] specialties that may need that. And that

[3:42:12] could be a way to balance what we're trying to do,

[3:42:16] which is have more Provo resident input

[3:42:18] because these boards do affect us. But

[3:42:21] also, I think it's important to get

[3:42:24] expertise from outside of Provo. Um, so

[3:42:26] we're not

[3:42:29] just circling the same ideas around each

[3:42:31] other all the time. There's benefits to

[3:42:33] having a greater pool of ideas, too.

[3:42:35] Thank you.

[3:42:36] >> Thank you, Angie.

[3:42:38] Tanner, did you say that this would not

[3:42:41] preclude the council from considering

[3:42:44] other candidates from outside the city?

[3:42:47] It would because the mayor would not be

[3:42:48] able to submit them to you for your

[3:42:50] consideration.

[3:42:51] >> Okay. And I will say based on that

[3:42:52] comment, this just essentially changes

[3:42:55] the default setting. If the council

[3:42:56] realized that the landmarks commission

[3:42:58] needed to expand its talent pool, they

[3:43:00] could you could create in the land in a

[3:43:04] landmark section a separate section of

[3:43:05] code that addresses that on a case-byase

[3:43:08] basis, but you can keep this as the

[3:43:10] default.

[3:43:10] >> Okay.

[3:43:14] Any other public comment?

[3:43:16] [clears throat]

[3:43:18] If not, we'll close public comment.

[3:43:23] and continue with council discussions.

[3:43:26] >> I had I had actually one question for

[3:43:28] Tanner. Just quick clarification. So

[3:43:30] there the there there is one loan

[3:43:32] exception still and that's the airport

[3:43:35] board for the FBO position

[3:43:37] >> that is part of this ordinance and then

[3:43:39] the three seats that already exist on

[3:43:42] the arts council will be retained and

[3:43:44] then the city employees who are part of

[3:43:47] the uh

[3:43:49] what was it the the board that has city

[3:43:51] employees on it but on the arts on the

[3:43:55] arts commission or council apologies. uh

[3:43:59] when those seats are expired or their

[3:44:02] terms expired, would it then revert back

[3:44:04] to requiring

[3:44:06] residents?

[3:44:07] >> That code will not change as part of

[3:44:08] this. And so you can continue to have

[3:44:10] non-residents serve in that role until

[3:44:13] unless you decide to remove that

[3:44:15] exception that's currently in the arts

[3:44:17] council language.

[3:44:18] >> So in your professional opinion, is is

[3:44:22] I've heard the landmarks board now been

[3:44:23] mentioned twice. I think you mentioned

[3:44:25] it. I think it was mentioned by the

[3:44:26] public comment. Is that the one

[3:44:28] remaining board where you kind of maybe

[3:44:30] felt a concern about expertise being

[3:44:33] needed that might outside the city?

[3:44:35] >> I think the landmarks commission is

[3:44:36] brought up most often as an example of

[3:44:39] that because it is one of only a few

[3:44:41] that currently have expertise explicitly

[3:44:44] required in it. You know, the mayor

[3:44:46] might for the energy board seek out

[3:44:49] people who have experience in the energy

[3:44:51] sector. However, it's not currently in

[3:44:54] statute that that person have a specific

[3:44:57] background. Whereas in the landmarks

[3:44:59] commission, it is. So, I think that's

[3:45:00] probably the the the most common example

[3:45:03] >> because we require certain experience or

[3:45:05] professional based requirements.

[3:45:08] >> I will say if you look at the the code

[3:45:10] section that governs that, there are

[3:45:12] specific requirements. However, the list

[3:45:14] is quite long and so if you know if you

[3:45:16] have professional experience in in

[3:45:18] history or archaeology or interior

[3:45:21] design, those sort of all fit that

[3:45:24] qualification. So the definition in the

[3:45:27] landmarks commission in particular is I

[3:45:30] think quite broad. Thank you,

[3:45:33] >> Jeff. We um we talked about that in work

[3:45:38] meeting, right? That we have a big

[3:45:41] enough talent pool with BYU professors

[3:45:44] and everything that lives here versus

[3:45:46] somewhere else. But to me, when you have

[3:45:49] a voting commission,

[3:45:51] and I've seen it over and over and over

[3:45:53] again, people that are brought in from

[3:45:56] out of area to vote on Provo things, it really leaves some salt.

[3:46:01] And people being on boards that don't

[3:46:04] live here brings in some salt because we

[3:46:06] do have a talent pool here. the arts

[3:46:09] board from what I remember because the

[3:46:12] CVY is so broad and they're trying to

[3:46:14] attract people from all over the county.

[3:46:17] That's where they wanted the three

[3:46:19] people from around the county so that

[3:46:20] it's not just attracting people here in

[3:46:23] Provo. It's about outreach. It's about,

[3:46:28] you know, money and different things

[3:46:29] that they they do within the county, not

[3:46:33] necessarily here in the city. and that's

[3:46:35] why they wanted the three that was

[3:46:36] broader.

[3:46:40] » Thank you. If there's no other council

[3:46:43] discussion, we'll call for a vote then

[3:46:45] on this motion.

[3:46:48] Councelor Whitlock,

[3:46:51] >> yes.

[3:46:52] >> Councelor Bogden,

[3:46:53] >> yes.

[3:46:54] >> Councelor Hoben,

[3:46:55] >> yes. And councelor Garrett, yes. This

[3:46:58] item passes by a vote of 4 Z with

[3:47:01] counselors McKay, Christensen, and

[3:47:04] Whipple excused.

[3:47:07] Our final agenda item is number 17, a

[3:47:10] resolution approving an interlocal

[3:47:13] agreement between Provo City and Orem

[3:47:15] City regarding funding for ORM 2000

[3:47:19] South storm drain project and

[3:47:22] authorizing the mayor to sign the

[3:47:23] agreement on behalf of the city. This

[3:47:26] will be presented by our public works

[3:47:28] engineer, Danielle Dixon. Welcome,

[3:47:31] Danielle.

[3:47:32] >> Thank you. I'll try to be really fast. I

[3:47:34] know you saved the best for last,

[3:47:36] though. So,

[3:47:36] >> we did. [laughter]

[3:47:39] >> Okay. So, this is an interlocal

[3:47:40] agreement for 2000 North or 2000 South

[3:47:43] in uh Oram City. So, we have an existing

[3:47:46] agreement because Provo City owns the

[3:47:49] entire roadway up to the backup curb and

[3:47:52] then north of that is Oram City. Um, so

[3:47:54] we have an agreement on how the road is

[3:47:56] supposed to look and to allow utilities

[3:47:59] from both cities to be placed in that

[3:48:01] road. Um, the location specifically is

[3:48:06] between Geneva Road and the UTA tracks.

[3:48:10] So they'll end right before the UTA

[3:48:12] tracks and it's a just a storm drain

[3:48:14] system that's going down the middle of

[3:48:15] that roadway. Um, in the proposed

[3:48:18] agreement, we are the proposal is that

[3:48:22] Provo City will pay for the cost to

[3:48:24] install a lateral off of that main. Um,

[3:48:28] because that would be our cost. The main

[3:48:31] is ORM city's cost. Um, the biggest

[3:48:34] thing, the biggest stipulation within

[3:48:36] this new agreement is that Orm City is

[3:48:39] not allowed to discharge any city water,

[3:48:42] any of their city water into this system

[3:48:44] until they have an outfall into Lake

[3:48:47] View Parkway and they can't put that in

[3:48:49] until they build their portion of Lake

[3:48:51] View Parkway. So, that is um a

[3:48:54] stipulation within this new proposed

[3:48:56] agreement. Um, here's the plans that

[3:49:00] they have for this project. It's a large

[3:49:02] storm drain. I believe it's a 48 inch

[3:49:04] storm drain main. Um, again going all

[3:49:08] the way up to the UTA just before the

[3:49:11] UTA tracks. Um, the section that's

[3:49:14] highlighted in yellow is the lateral and

[3:49:18] that they'll be connecting in to an

[3:49:21] existing sump that's in Provo City. So,

[3:49:23] we're paying for that cost plus

[3:49:25] additional overall costs that are with

[3:49:28] the contract. So the breakdown is

[3:49:32] there's an overall cost of $900,000.

[3:49:34] We're paying for the materials and labor

[3:49:36] cost to install the lateral and then we

[3:49:39] pay a portion of the overall contract

[3:49:43] like the mobilization, the SWIP costs

[3:49:45] and all of that in addition. So the

[3:49:47] total comes out to $16,52049.

[3:49:53] So in summary, storm drain needs to go

[3:49:56] in so that ORM can have their master

[3:49:59] plan um storm drain system in place and

[3:50:02] it will help with the future whitest

[3:50:04] stone estates which is on the ORM side

[3:50:06] of 2000 north. Um both PLO and ORM city

[3:50:10] staff have agreed to the design and the

[3:50:12] agreement and the contractor and then

[3:50:16] work it says immediately will begin work

[3:50:19] has already begun. So, [laughter]

[3:50:22] >> I've seen those big 48 inch pipes

[3:50:24] already being cut and put in. So, I was

[3:50:26] like, "What?"

[3:50:27] >> Yeah, they they're trying to beat the

[3:50:29] asphalt

[3:50:31] >> um deadline, so they went ahead and got

[3:50:34] started.

[3:50:36] >> Any questions?

[3:50:38] [clears throat]

[3:50:38] >> Any questions for Danielle?

[3:50:40] >> No, that was my big question is I know

[3:50:41] they're doing road work on 20th North

[3:50:43] right now in that spot.

[3:50:46] >> Yeah.

[3:50:47] >> Okay. Thanks.

[3:50:49] >> Thank you.

[3:50:52] We'll open this item for public comment

[3:50:53] if there is anyone who would like to

[3:50:55] make a comment.

[3:50:58] If not, we'll close public comment and

[3:51:00] ask for council discussion.

[3:51:05] Seeing none, we'll call for a vote.

[3:51:08] Councelor Bogden,

[3:51:09] >> yes.

[3:51:10] >> Councelor Hoben,

[3:51:12] >> yes.

[3:51:12] >> Councelor Garrett, yes. Councelor

[3:51:14] Whitlock,

[3:51:15] >> yes.

[3:51:16] This item passes by a vote of 40 with

[3:51:20] councilors McKay, Christensen, and

[3:51:22] Whipple excused. If there's no

[3:51:24] objection, we'll now adjourn the

[3:51:26] municipal council meeting by unanimous

[3:51:28] consent.

[3:51:29] >> Congratulations to all of you who

[3:51:31] stayed.

[3:51:32] >> Good job.

Provo City Council Meeting | August 11, 2026

Transcript