[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.