City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We apologize for the slight delay in our start this evening. We welcome you to the Provo City Council meeting. It's 533 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11th. We'll begin with a roll call. Councilor Bogdan.

Becky Bogdan.

Travis Hoban. Gary Garrett.

Jeff Whitlock. And are the other counselors online yet, Kevin?

Yes, Craig Christians is online.

Okay, and we expect Catrice shortly.

Can you hear me, Gary?

Yes, thank you, Craig. Rachel, are you online now?

Yes, I was. They just barely made me the panelist. I couldn't talk before.

Okay, thank you. Our opening prayer this evening will be offered by Lynn Sorensen, one of our neighborhood chairs from the Pleasant View neighborhood, after which... Councillor Whitlock will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Lynn?

Eternal Father, we thank Thee for this opportunity to gather as community members, citizens, and residents. We are grateful for our forebearers who helped us to have this opportunity and we're grateful for our current leaders in the community, the state, and the country who work to preserve those freedoms. We ask you to be with us in this meeting that we might have clear minds, that we might be respectful of one another. We pray most humbly for our neighbors in the state who are accosted by fires and those across the continent We pray that those fires might be abated. Again, we thank you for this opportunity and do so in thy holy name. Amen.

Amen. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock, and thank you, Lynn. To begin our meeting, we have a period of recognition. We're going to be recognizing one of Provo City's Employees of the Month. Before we do that, we have another recognition that we're going to do. Erin, did you make your way in here yet? I know you're presenting later. Okay, well, we'll surprise him at a later time in the meeting then. Aaron, as you'll see, he's presenting later on one of our items. He's been one of our planners here in the city for 18 years, and this is his last meeting. So we'll come back to that. With that, then, Chief Beebe, we'll turn the time over to you for the employee recognition.

Council, thank you for the opportunity to recognize one of one of our awesome employees. Denise Fernandez, would you please come forward? Victim advocate Denise Fernandez is a champion for the citizens of Provo and for everyone who needs support. During her two and a half years with Provo City, She first served as a part-time court advocate before transitioning to a full-time victim advocate. Her strong work ethic, organizational skills, and compassion allow her to provide exceptional service to every client regardless of their circumstances. As an affluent Spanish speaker, she also provides valuable interpretation and translation assistance throughout the police department and other departments within the city. Her language and cultural knowledge help serve many Provo residents in an authentic and meaningful way. Denise has played an important role in strengthening the Victim Services Department. When she recognizes a need, she takes initiative and addresses it. She continually seeks training and opportunities to improve her skills, then generously shares what she learns with clients and colleagues. As a lifelong Provo resident, Denise is an outstanding example of the values Provo represents and of the dedicated service our city and police department provide to our community. Denise, thank you very much. Congratulations, Denise.

We'd like to do a council photo, if we could, with you, Denise, just right down here in front. We'll join you down there.

All right.

Okay.

Aaron, we saw you walk in. Could you come up here as well, Aaron? This is Aaron Ardmore, who, as I mentioned, has been our planning supervisor and worked in the planning department for 18 years. He's likely worked with many of you as you've brought projects forward to our city. Aaron, we will miss you greatly. You've been such a resource to the council and helpful in so many ways. We appreciate what you've done. We wish you well in your new venture. and but i appreciate we'll i know we'll hear from you later um this evening as you present a project but we just have this small token of appreciation for you aaron thank you very much aaron where are you going where are you headed where are you going so i'm going to be the planning manager for murray oh congratulations all right thank you thanks We've set aside some time now for open public comment. As indicated on the screen, a required public hearing will be held for certain agenda items prior to council action. After each such item has been presented, time to comment will be provided for all who wish to speak. For items that do not require a public hearing, public comment will still be taken following presentation of the item. At this time, 15 minutes have been set aside for open public comment period, which is intended to allow comment on matters that do not appear on the agenda, but are limited to topics regarding municipal business or within council purview. Persons who wish to speak during this time can approach the podium. During the period, each speaker will generally be limited to two minutes. That will indicate on the screen. Due to noticing requirements, no formal action will be taken on matters that do not appear on the agenda. So any who would like to make a public comment can come forward at this time. We'll take comments on Zoom as well if anyone is watching online. and just begin your comment by stating your name and your city of residence and we we have been joined by our seventh council member catrice um online as well catrice mckay any public comment yes come to the microphone and if you're going if you're just feel free to come up in front here if you'd like to make public comment as well and you can just uh form a line

My name is Brooklyn Lawrence. I live a two minute bike ride from here. I have geared up for some time to address concerns about housing and rent in Provo, but I've tabled those comments after an experience on July 2nd, showing me something far more imminent to my life. On Thursday, July 2nd, I had a fun evening planned, biking to Bridalville Falls with my mom, brother, and daughter in her bike seat. On this trail, much like bike lanes throughout Provo, rogue right turners wanting perfect visibility pummel through crosswalks at high speeds, which turns every intersection into a complete stop for bikers who can't perfectly trust that white walking man sign. On July 2nd, at the office at Riverwood's intersection, I had such a white walking man sign, and uniquely, a large black pickup truck, the kind with tires waist high and a hood shoulder height, was already parked there respectfully behind the crosswalk lines. Though his windows were tinted darkly and I couldn't see if we had made eye contact, I stopped to ensure he saw us and also to allow my family to catch up so we could all cross together. The white walking man sign was still boldly white and traffic the other direction had a green light when I entered the crosswalk. My front tire had almost cleared his car when he was suddenly lurching forward. Could he have lifted his foot off the brake accidentally? Surely he saw me directly in front of him. The truck slammed into my front tire, forcing my handlebars the wrong direction, making the whole thing lean until his tire was in my left ankle. I heard myself yell, and he stopped and backed up. Four or five feet from his head, I could make out his look of surprise and embarrassment in what appeared to be his phone in hand. But what if we had been a little further? What if Briar, my daughter in the backseat, had been what made contact with him? Or my stomach carrying my unborn 20-week second child had made contact? As an adolescent, biking safety is different. And I implore Provo City Council to help us achieve platinum so that we can protect our younger Provo residents.

Thank you, Brooklyn. Thank you. Please do. Sorry about the experience that you had. Glad that we have public safety officers here who have made a note as well.

Hello, my name is Cullen Stockdale and I'm a constituent from Provo. I'm here asking that Provo creates a formal policy that prohibits the Provo Police Department from entering into a 287G agreement with ICE. I believe that the County Police and the Riverton Police have set a dangerous precedent by entering into this type of agreement and that we should not follow suit. ICE tears apart families and acts in ways that are a disgrace to law enforcement and democracy. And if we were to enter into this agreement, our own officers would be seen in the same way. I ask that you please create this policy for the safety of the people living in Provo. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Isaac Lowe. I'm a resident of Provo, and I also want to speak about ICE today. I firmly believe that the presence of ICE in our neighborhoods weakens our community and undermines trust in the government, including at the local level. And on the topic of trust, I want to propose some ways that we as a city can proactively help all of our residents to feel safer. I recently emailed the council and the mayor about some specific suggestions on how we as a city can build that trust and limit local entanglement with federal immigration enforcement. And a full list of those suggestions can be found at noiceinyoutacounty.com, which has been put together by a loose coalition of concerned citizens and volunteers, including myself. and I would urge you to look over that. I'm grateful for the reply I received to my email from Councillor Bogdan, which linked to a Facebook post from the Provo Police Department that listed the ways in which they do not collaborate with ICE. I do, however, feel that this is insufficient without any official law or policy behind it, especially when it comes to that trust that I keep mentioning. Items two and three from the previously mentioned website feel particularly relevant. and they're also not without legal precedent according to my research and i just want to read those one has already been mentioned it is to pass a formal resolution prohibiting local law enforcement from entering any 287g agreement with ice either now or in the future and two is to pass a formal policy directing local law enforcement not to honor ice civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant signed by a judge rather than an administrative warrant signed by ice alone I know that the council can't respond to public comment directly in the moment, but I would love the opportunity for me or one of my fellow volunteers to discuss this further, maybe in a future council meeting or work meeting. And you can reach out on that same website. And I'll just say it again, noiceinyoutacounty.com. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome. Thank you, Isaac.

um and i think i believe it was 2016. your your name and city of residence and city of residence yeah josh provo utah great thank you um so i believe in 2017 there was a company called flock that was established um and from my most recent research i came to the conclusion there's about 100 100 000 flock cameras throughout the united states and what these cameras do I'm sure a lot of you guys are aware is they are mainly used to track license plates and cars for traffic reasons, also for supposed security reasons. And so I wanted to pose the question of, I guess, what implementations are set in place that will restrict the use of these cameras throughout the united states i'm not as much worried about or concerned about the camera itself we've had cameras throughout the united states in utah for the longest time at traffic stop lights whatever um the problem i have is with the data centers the data that the cameras collect And I just haven't seen anything about, I came here just to find out if there was anything put in place to kind of restrict the use of those cameras. In fact, I don't think they should be used at all personally, especially with the type of data that they record, including facial recognition. Further updates that will be used to track Bluetooth connections when walking by the cameras. Um, I've read enough books to, to know that this isn't the type of thing I want to have in the United States. Um, so that is my one concern I wanted to address today. I don't know if any people in the government in the United States are concerned about this and if they are, I would like to know what is going to be put in place to stop the progression of these cameras.

Thank you, Josh. Any other public comment? Great, thank you. We'll close public comment. And any of those who have offered public comment, if they'd like to get our email address from our staff, we're happy to follow up via email as well.

Thank you again. Chair Garrett? Yes. If I could just make one, I guess, public service announcement. Regarding the very last comment, on the Provo City website at provo.gov, there's a page that's called the Transparency Portal. And on that page, under Trending Issues, is a link to the Provo City Transparency Portal page about flock cameras. It has a bunch of information that I think would answer many of your questions. Great. Thank you, Brian. Councillor Bogdan?

I'll follow up with that. Also, March 10th, because we have had these and I've been replying, March 10th, if you go to agenda, no, if you go to Provo City Council's YouTube page, March 10th, 2026, we did have a work meeting session about this. It's the first item on the agenda. So if you go to that YouTube page for March 10th, 2026, you should be able to see the presentation. But that's as far as council can go.

Thank you, Councillor Bogdan. Items. two and three this item and the next one two and three have been continued and four and four uh have been continued to another meeting i don't need to read them in do i no okay so um with that and they're all related to the lakeview parkway development we'll continue with with item five item five is an implied motion on an ordinance regarding parking requirement reductions this will be presented by one of our council policy analysts tanner taguchi tanner welcome yes thank you council so this item is an amendment to a proposal that's been through the legislative process thus far

it's been amended significantly and i can explain the uh proposal that will be that's in the draft ordinance associated that's included in your packet There we go. So right now, I could explain there are two different ways that someone who's proposing a development can receive a reduction in the required number of parking spaces that they need to construct as part of that development. So in each zone, there's a required amount. Based on its needs and what's laid out in code. If they would like to reduce that amount, they approach the planning commission and they can either go one of two routes, the parking impact study and traffic demand management plan, which is essentially evidence that the traffic demand will be less and that they can mitigate it through increasing things like bike parking and ride share, access to transit and things like that. or to have an adequate number of long-term and short-term bike parking stalls. And then the Planning Commission can grant a percent reduction in the amount of stalls that's required for that development. What this proposal would do, as it's presently written, is to eliminate both of those avenues to receive a reduction, effectively making it there's no more administrative means for a developer to request such a reduction. Now, in the previous work meeting, we talked about how this basically puts the power to grant a reduction in the council's hand, not explicitly, but by default, because the only way a developer could get such a reduction is to ask the council for Code amendments, a zoning change or amendment to a zone, an overlay or some type of negotiate some type of agreement with a deed restriction to ensure that those parking desires are met by the council, those council desires are met. Also, to address the concern from the work meeting which was presented, I read through the TDM agreements, so the traffic demand management agreements that have been fully executed and are listed in our software at the Development Services Department. And this would still allow the department to follow up and enforce on those agreements that are currently in effect. And this is just an illustration for your benefit of what the process would look like if this were to pass. So they would come up with a legislative solution, present it to the council, and then they would take one of those avenues to help the developer meet their goals. I have them open to any questions.

Any questions for Tanner? Thank you, Tanner. This item is available for public comment. We'll open public comment at this time for this item. If any of you would like to speak to this item, you can come to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring the item to council for discussion. Councillors, any discussion that you'd like to have on this item? Rachel, go ahead.

Councillor Whipple. Thank you. Thank you. I, as probably will not surprise you based on the work meeting, am completely opposed to this. We had as well a previous iteration of the council carefully thought out what the qualification should be for parking requirement reductions with the advice of our excellent staff. This was a well-developed plan and I don't see the benefit for removing this administrative tool, which we defined and gave to them to put it back on the burden of the council to do this. I believe that the result will be less innovation, less development, or frankly, less housing because it would be very difficult for this council to approve request for parking reduction that's why we're taking out this administrative route right now and if you are spending more money and more of your square footage on parking you're spending it less on places where people can actually live I believe I'm in the minority on this as far as the council goes but I did want to voice my objection to it and I did also want to thank our staff for our excellent work on this

Thank you, Councillor Whipple. Any other council discussion? Councillor Whitlock.

Yeah, we had a really good discussion about this in our work meeting. One of the reasons why this came up is because Parking continues to be a major driver of costs in development. A parking spot on the land costs about $12,000 to $15,000 a above ground per stall. An above ground stall costs 25 to 35 000 and the underground stall costs 40 to 50 000 so it's a very dramatic cost and when we have a environment where people are struggling to find places to live housing costs so much it is something that i think where I am and I think other counselors are interested in trying to find opportunities to find creative solutions. At the same time, parking is a consistent concern we hear from residents of people wanting to make sure that they're able to park when they go about their daily lives. And that's something we really understand. i i personally am interested in this change because i think it'll help us as a council grapple with this issue a bit more and try to understand how we can um maybe revise those criteria that counselor whipple mentioned um if this ends up becoming something where as, as counselor Whipple suggested, maybe we never see any of these proposals. I think that would be unfortunate. I hope we do. I hope we get to see them and we get to review them and try to understand the scenarios and get better data about who owns cars and which circumstances. I think there's a lot of times where we have these conversations. We bring anecdotes to the table and say, well, you know, I didn't have a car when I was at BYU. And then someone says I had a car when I was at BYU. And then, That's the conversation I really want to understand. What percentage of BYU students actually own cars? What percent would not like to own a car but feel like they have to because they can't get around reasonably without it? I think better data would help us make better decisions. And I think as we have better data and good discussion, we can potentially come up with a better long-term framework.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock. Councillor Christensen, I see you unmuted your mic. Do you have a comment?

No, I'm actually good to go. I do support this because I think the council owes a good response to the city. And instead of just an administrative approach where we dwindle down the parking and make parking a nightmare for everyone, I think the city deserves better. And I think we need to take that responsibility on and improve. So I am supportive of this.

Thank you, Councillor Christensen. Anyone else? I'm encouraged knowing that the administration is looking to connect with BYU proactively and get some data relative to how many students are bringing cars and how we can address this important issue for our city. It's not to say the council wouldn't grant at least certainly at least consider a parking reduction for projects that maybe are near campus, but our hope is to maintain that control at the council level. So if there's no other comment, I'll call for a vote. Councillor McKay.

Yes.

Councillor Christensen.

Yes.

Councillor Whitlock. Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban. Yes. Councillor Whipple. No. And Councillor Garrett. Yes. So that motion passes by a vote of 6-1. Thank you. Next, we have an ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property generally located at 313 East 200 North from the residential conservation or RC zone to the high density residential or HDR zone. This is in the Joaquin neighborhood and it will be presented to us by one of our planners, Dustin Wright. Welcome Dustin.

All right, thank you very much. Good evening. Yeah, so here's the property that the applicant is looking to have rezoned. It's just under a half acre of land in the Joaquin neighborhood. Currently on the property, there's a single family home and also on the property, on the parcel on the north, there's a triplex. The proposal is to build a 12-unit townhome project. And here is a look at the zoning, so the residential conservation zone for this property. It doesn't allow for lots to be created or new units, and so that's why they're requesting a rezone at this time, so that they can move forward with that project. The HDR zone is what they're requesting that's the high density residential that allows up to 50 units per acre. Their project would be well under that at 27 units per acre is what they're proposing. Our city has adopted a Joaquin neighborhood plan back in 2014. Here's a look at a future land use map within that document. And the intent and goal of this document is to help when rezones come in to take a look at this to see if what's being proposed uh fits with what the the future land use map was um the plan was designed to to help implement so as you can see here the property is located down in the in this yellow area which is the residential conservation um indicating that uh The existing zone matches with what is proposed to continue there. So higher density type developments, the Joaquin plan identified the northern portion of the neighborhood to locate those type of higher density developments closer to campus to allow for walkability and things like that there. You can see at 500 north, that's kind of where below 500 north is where the conservation of the single family residential pioneer neighborhood is kind of focused. And then higher density kind of increases as you go closer to campus to the north. Here's a look at the concept plan that the applicant's proposing to develop these 12 unit townhomes. then there's some elevations as well of that project um as part of this because they're asking for the high density residential zone which like i showed earlier has a higher allowed density they're proposing or proffering a development agreement that would cap the density at 27 units an acre and not the 50 as allowed in the zone as well as the height to be capped at what they're proposing here at 42 feet instead of 55 feet. They've also proffered to do a deed restriction for owner occupancy within these units for the, I believe the first year, possibly two years. And so that was another thing that was proffered there. So it's kind of an overview of this one. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Dustin. Any questions for Dustin? Okay, thank you, Dustin. If the developer is here, we are happy to hear from him at this time. Perfect. Thank you. Him and or her. Him and or her.

I'll take either.

Remind us of your name. I'm sorry. Taryn Melissa Elkins. Taryn, thank you.

Thank you. And good evening council members and city staff. Mayor Judkins, lovely to see you here as well. Again, my name is Taryn Melissa Elkins. I'm the owner of the property on 313 East 200 North there here in Provo. Thank you, Dustin, for the introduction. Before I begin, I'd actually like to ask the Council's permission to use a slightly updated version of our presentation. The updates simply reflect a few items we were recently able to confirm and do not change the substance of the application. So I wonder if that would be okay?

Yes, uh-huh.

And Cameron, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. Okay, thank you all for your patience, your guidance, and collaboration throughout this process. We truly appreciate your service and the many evenings you devoted to our community. I came into this process wanting to build something beautiful, and I didn't realize I'd also become strangely passionate about sewer infrastructure. So with that said, let's dive in. This property has been home to my grandfather, my father, my sister, myself, and now my children. It's been part of our family story for over 50 years. This corner property is bordered on two sides by more than 30 existing apartment units over 40 feet in height with direct views into the site. We explored preserving and reinvesting in the existing improvements, but the costs were substantial and the site's challenges still remained. Ultimately, we saw an opportunity to create high quality owner occupied housing that better serves both the neighborhood and the community. This project represents nearly four years of collaboration. We've worked closely with the city staff, neighboring property owners, planning commission members, elected officials, and the community through multiple project refinements. With the city engineering staff, we've secured additional property necessary for that HDR eligibility and to achieve a better overall site design. We partnered with Public Works to improve the sidewalks and upgrade that six inch sewer line into a ten inch line, delivering a long planned infrastructure improvement that benefits the entire block. Most importantly, we're proposing to formalize these commitments through a development agreement that includes a perpetual owner occupancy deed restriction and corresponding HOA management, helping preserve long term homeownership for generations to come.

Tara, could you, that last sentence, did you say perpetual?

Perpetual, I did.

Okay.

And that was one of the things that we were able to confirm. I know Dustin said that we were just going to do that year. We felt like at the City Planning Commission that that was a concern, that they didn't think that that might be long enough for people to establish those routes. And so we really looked into that and we were able to find out that through establishing our own HOA before these are sold, that we can accomplish that very goal and then hand that off to the owners.

Thank you. Keep going.

Yeah, of course. Okay, our HDR is being requested primarily for setback flexibility, allowing improved landscaping, circulation, and more functional homes. As most of you are aware, those MDR setbacks are 20, 20, and 10. HDR is the opposite, 10, 10, and 20, which significantly improves the footprint of this project. So while the requested zoning is HDR, the project itself remains consistent with MDR in its scale, height, density, parking, and overall character. We are not suggesting HDR belongs everywhere, only that in this established context, the project provides thoughtful infill, a logical transition between existing land uses, and something the neighborhood has very little of today, which is the permanent home ownership. Every residence includes a parking garage with off street access, helping preserve an attractive pedestrian streetscape. The two car garages are 15 to 20% larger than required and the single ones are 48% larger than required. Guest parking and bicycle parking are also provided. when the project did come up that point five that one half parking shelf stall short city planning advised us that we could incorporate a transportation demand management strategy that tdm to address that deficiency so based on those discussions we understood the tdm would satisfy that requirement and eliminate the need for an additional parking stall encouraging walking bicycling and other alternatives to driving This is one of Provo's most walkable neighborhoods. Within just a few minutes, residents can walk to BYU, parks, transit, schools, shopping, and the library. And the surrounding neighborhood reflects a range of architectural styles, including the bungalow slash craftsman, mid-century ranch, neoclassical, and Victorian. So because no one style predominates, a structure that complements this variety would strengthen the distinctive character and architectural diversity. What excites us most about this project is who it is designed for. These homes are intended for households looking to establish roots and invest in the neighborhood. And we want our project to compliment the existing surroundings while adding something it currently lacks, that permanent home ownership. So this is the community we spent four years creating. Vanna White, if you will. Vanna Brown. This is the Tuscany Townhomes. centered around home ownership, thoughtful architecture, quality landscaping, walkability, and neighborhood compatibility. And although that application requires that HDR zoning, the project itself remains contextually consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in its height, massing, and residential feel, creating that lasting value for both the neighborhood and the city of Provo. So, in summation, 12 owner-occupied townhomes, perpetual owner occupancy formalized through the development agreement, deed restriction, and HOA regulations, a project significantly below HDR height and density allowances, and designed to strengthen long-term homeownership in Provo and the Joaquin neighborhood. so four years ago we came to you with an idea today we return with something much better a project shaped by your guidance strengthened through collaboration and designed to serve provo for generations we appreciate this opportunity to continue partnering with you to create a project that reflects the character the value and the long-term future of provo thank you for your time your service and your thoughtful consideration

You're welcome. Thank you, Tara. Thank you for your presentation. Any questions for the developer, for Tara? Yes, please. We'll do public comment in just a second. Yes, Councillor Whitlock.

So one of the things that we talked about during our work meeting was the fact that you were proffering two-year deed restrictions, but this says otherwise. Is that a change, and can you explain that?

It is a change and that is why we had Kevin upgrade the slides is because we were able to look in that a little bit further, as I mentioned. So what we want to do so that that is not a concern at all is make sure to get that HOA in place before these are sold. Then once they are sold, then we can hand those over to the property owners and they can maintain that HOA, that deed restriction, the development agreement, everything is going to support that and it's going to regulate the home ownership. for hopefully as long as it can. Yes. Exponentially.

Yes. Any other questions for the developer, Councillor Bogdan?

So the deed restriction, what will it state on it?

I'm sorry?

What will it state on the deed restriction?

So the deed restriction will state the perpetual long-term home ownership. We want to put that in the development agreement. The deed restriction will go in the development agreement, and so will the HOA regulations, if that makes sense. Okay.

Yeah, Councilor Buck and I was just going to weigh in and say that I can probably actually answer that better in the sense that because this has now been something the council has asked for so many times, we actually have a form for that. So we have a template deed restriction that based on the representations in the meeting, we would anticipate attaching that template to the development agreement. And the development agreement would say that they would have to record with the county something that matches that template.

And is the other idea is that it would also be in the CC&Rs? Is that why you were mentioning the HOA?

Yes, exactly. Yes. And when I know that sometimes it's Bill, is Bill here? Bill in the back. Yes. OK, so what is that thing that's recorded with the county that if we do an zone like an HDR zone that whatever is in that development agreement is going to hold fast and strong there instead of disappearing with the certificate of occupancy?

I believe that would need to be in the deed restriction.

What exactly is that? Can you explain it?

So a deed restriction regarding the occupancy?

Well, no, regarding the HDR zone and having it not go to 50 units an acre or whatever that is. So it would just stay the 12 units unless it was rezoned or a development agreement was...

I'd have to refer to Ryan.

Yeah, as I say, it's similar to the deed restriction we've discussed in the Vesper property. It would be a deed restriction recorded on the county records that says, notwithstanding the uses permitted in the HDR zone, that the density is limited to... x units and then that that's recorded on the property perpetually so that remains the the restricted use and then they would have to come back to council to get that off the data restriction right they'd have to come back and ask for our permission in order for it to be taken off and becky we're only at a barely under a half acre and so we can't you can't build more than that only by that restriction alone just the acreage alone

But if it's 50 units to an acre and you're at a half acre and an HDR zone, you could build 25 units. So I would push back and say no.

You're saying that somebody would build something bigger eventually or that we would build something bigger or?

Yeah. I mean, as long as you have that zone in place, right? Yeah. By right. The HDR zone. Someone can just come in and do that without coming into council because you'd have that. And those deed restrictions, well, that development agreement is going to expire the minute that you have your certificate of occupancy, right? Unless it's recorded on the deed plot. And then from what I understand, those 12 will be in place until it comes to council. If like in 20 years you want to build something more, you'd have to come and do the process again. In 20 years, if you want to like rip down the whole thing and build whatever's in that zone, that's allowable without having it come to council. So to me, that's another concern. Yeah.

No, and I think you bring up a really good point. I think we are trying to safeguard in every way possible so that that doesn't happen through recording and deed restrictions, everything that we have possible and at our disposal right now.

Is it 12 three-bedroom units?

So there are two three-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units, and the rest are two-bedroom units.

The remaining 13? Yeah. Okay.

Not 13, but yeah. 12. Because there's only 12 in total.

And two parking stalls per unit?

Two parking stalls per unit.

Plus five or six guests.

yes and our architect can speak to all the lovely um advantages each room will have uh each bedroom will have its own bathroom walk-in closets there's some really really beautiful things that he's been able to do the parking is is above and beyond the The infrastructure is based so that you can really get in and out. It's beyond what the restrictions are, beyond what the code is. And so we're hoping that we've made something beautiful with what we have there.

Councilor Whitlock, do you have a sense on what these will cost?

We're going to hit market value and go from there.

No estimates?

No estimates as of right now. Okay, thank you. Probably a little too hard to tell students.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Tara. Thank you so much. We'll now open this item for public comment. If there are residents here who would like to address this, please come to the microphone, state your name and city of residence.

Richard Wilson. I live in Orem. However, I own a business in Provo with 51 employees and also own several of these old houses that were built in the 50s with multiple remodeling problems. I've worked on these houses for more than a decade with Taryn's father and now with Taryn, all for free, by the way. And the infrastructure is just unworkable. It's got the old plumbing. Every time you go to do something, something else is dependent on that. And you just go, ah, we've poured money into them trying to preserve them. It just will not be preserved. They're just crumbling. They're over 100 years old. And so I think this project would be a real improvement to the neighborhood. Right now, they're just old buildings and almost impossible to restore. The only way you could do it, I think, is tear the whole thing down and rebuild. And then it's not historical. It's a new place, you know. but uh so my vote would be to do this rezoning i think it would be much better looking in the neighborhood and than it is now and so there you have it thank you richard as an example you know we we had to replace a boiler it cost us 20 grand uh cost scott 20 grand and then five years later we had to replace it again the parts are just so old and everything is okay thank you thank you richard

Hi, I'm Reagan, resident of Provo, and a young mother, and I have just a little family here. And as a young couple who's wanting to build a family in Provo, the housing market's extremely disheartening. It's very hard to find rentals, let alone something that you could buy to set down roots here in Provo. There's just simply not very many options. And we believe that projects like this will give us the opportunity to stay in Provo, build a life here, and become part of the community, especially at such an affordable rate. I think that we would be able to bring more young families who can help support the community, help grow it, and become outstanding citizens of Provo and help improve. just the quality of life here. And so we'd love to see more opportunities like this. And we think that this project would be just the thing that Provo needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Reagan.

Hi, I'm Reagan's mom. My name is Jenny. I live on just the border of Orem and Provo. My dad grew up just a couple blocks from here. And so we have deep roots in Orem and Provo.

And I get emotional. I don't know why. As a mom, I want my kids and my grandkids to stay. I have a son getting married this week. That's why I'm being emotional. Anyway, three kids getting married in five years. And I just, they love the community, but there's no way they can afford a house. And just give them a chance to stay and I would have a chance to be near my grandkids. So thanks for your time.

You're welcome. Thank you, Jenny. Jenny, did you say you live in Orem?

Thank you. um good evening my name is jeremy brown and i'm the general contractor for this project um i've spent my career building homes and neighborhoods jeremy are you also from provo i live in orem right right on yeah literally i can throw a rock into provo for one thank you it's on the other side of the fence so um i spent my career building homes and neighborhoods and i've learned that you can tell a lot about a project by the questions that people ask Some projects ask, how do we save money? And others ask, how do we build more? But over the last four years, this team has kept asking, how do we make this better for the neighborhood? I've known Taryn for a long time, and she doesn't settle for good enough. Her property has been reviewed in three neighborhood meetings, countless meetings with designers, engineers, and Provo City staff, and input from neighbors. She listens, takes feedback seriously, and keeps improving until she believes she's found the best solution. That commitment shows up in decisions most people will never see. Upgrading sewer infrastructure, which I understand she's very passionate about now, and purchasing additional property to make the site function better aren't inexpensive decisions, but they're investments that will benefit this neighborhood for years to come. As the general contractor, that tells me this team isn't just building homes, they're investing in the future of this neighbourhood and in the City of Provo. What has impressed me the most is that she genuinely believes communities become stronger when people know their neighbours, gather together and create memories. And if you still have doubts about her commitment to community, drive by her house this Halloween. Rumor has it there may even be some Dementors flying over Hogwarts. So thank you for your time and consideration on this project. You're welcome. Thank you, Jeremy.

Good evening. My name is David Hawkinson, and I am a resident of Provo and the Joaquin neighborhood. And my iPad just went off. Trust. I think this issue comes down to trust. Do you, as city council members, have trust in the city planning commission when they recommended denial this project? Can we, as residents in the Joaquin neighborhood, trust the zoning process and ordinance that was established in conjunction with the city and neighbors that has been in place for many years for our neighborhood? High density allowed above 500 north and residential conservation south of that. can we trust that you believe the residential conservation Zone is really and I quote from the city ordinance designed to encourage conservation and preservation of existing housing unquote or are those just words in a zoning ordinance and on a zoning map until somebody wants an exception Can we as residents trust you are elected officials to support and follow with the city and the citizens in this neighborhood have agreed upon as far as zoning and protecting the existing housing in our neighborhood. Trust. And as a side note, the idea of having this being a place for families with no yards, no green space, no gathering for barbecues, no porches, you're not going to have neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, David.

I'm Julia Black. I'm a resident of Provo. To me, I'm about to graduate BYU in about a year. And I'm not going to lie, the future freaks me out. I mean, my friends joke every single day that we're going to be moving to Kansas because it's the only place that we can afford a house. And so watching Taryn as an owner, that she's willing to take a property that's been in her family for 50 years and make it into something that's going to benefit my family's future is so impactful and touching to me. And I'm so grateful that there's people like Taryn willing to put a project underway so that I don't have to move to Kansas. I've lived in Provo and was born here my entire life and I love the community. It's been like who and I am and I want my kids to have the same opportunity. But buying a starter home feels impossible and feels like something I won't be able to complete until 20 years down the road. It's nice to know that I'm not just going to have to buy an 100-year-old house that has a bunch of problems that are unforeseen that I'm going to just have to be pouring money into my entire life. And so I just am so grateful for the opportunity to buy a newer home that's been redone and is almost catered to my needs. And so, yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Julia. And there's probably somebody here from Kansas, by the way.

Dorothy in Kansas. I grew up here in Provo, just blocks from this project right by the BYU stadium. I have been outside of Utah for 15 years. I have watched the transitioning of my Provo during the hard times and the good times. We used to go to Foxfield and the Fox Theaters. We went to the Knothole, through the BYU Stadium. I've watched Proverb Center businesses struggle, and the businesses and things look pretty broken down, and things struggle for so many years. I'm so grateful for projects like this that are well thought out and provide housing for our kids to raise their kids here, and for even more thoughtful, beautiful additions that make the city feel revived, cultured, and beautiful. City Planning Commission and denial of this project is not really fair to a real estate owner that has cared and weeded and restored and replaced projects and processes over and over again on different properties. I have several of my family members own business, own properties in this community, and it is very, very difficult to keep everything up. But we've spent our whole lives here, but I've moved and come back. And after I've moved back, I just feel like such a gratitude for the beauty and everything that you have all done and what other people are doing to make Provo look like a whole new place. And I think it's really productive and honored for me to see that change. And I think this project is exactly what we need, where it's not just one big giant home that looks beautiful. It's a very beautiful structure. And I loved what Taryn said about the different types of buildings that come for the architectural nuances. I think that's very powerful.

Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy.

Hi, my name is Daniel Winch. I am a current Provo resident. I've been at BYU for the last three years and I was recently accepted into law school and I plan to be here for the foreseeable future. I love Provo. I feel at home. It is my home. And truth be told, I wish that there was options like this for me to purchase. I was also recently married and my wife and I, we went through the painful process of trying to find a rental or even just a house, just to even just a space to live in that's close enough to campus where we can both commute, where both of our schedules can make it work. She's also studying at BYU and our schedules are very different. And quite frankly, there's just no options. And we just got married and we're starting a new life and I would love to be able to move into a new space to call my own, to start that new identity fully, but there's just no options. And I would love to be able to purchase something like this. And I honestly think it's an excellent idea that you should go forward with this. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel.

Lee Adair, I'm a resident of Provo. In fact, I live kitty corner from this development, right off where the map was. What I'd like to address is the vital integrity of the residential conservancy zone in the walking neighborhood. I was involved in the development of that clear back when it was called SCAM, if that rings some bells. The RC zone was probably the most democratically developed piece of legislation ever put into place here in Provo. Hundreds of residents and council members and Neighborhood chairs and landlords got together, hammered it out, worked through it, discussed, debated, argued with each other every so often to finally come up with a plan that really made sense. Higher development, north of 500 North, closer to BYU, walkable, usable in that way, while preserving the heart of Provo architecture right downtown. And this falls right in the heart of that heart. It was designed to preserve old homes just like mine. My home was built in 1905 by Arthur Sutton. It's half as old as this country. It was a rental that was in the kind of shape that these rentals have been allowed to drop into. And over the past 30 years, we've rebuilt it. We've replaced walls. We've done plumbing. We've done electrical. We've done everything we could to turn this old house into a home. And it's a home my kids love to come back to. And I've watched as my neighbors around my block and around my area have done exactly the same thing. I know we're talking about affordable housing. I heard the term market rate. I don't know if that makes these things affordable. I know it makes them a cash cow when you can throw 12 of them onto a space where four are. Maybe they should sell them to a family like mine was. Who wants to put the time in to redevelop these things and love them. Maybe they can take that money and go develop their thing in their neighborhood, I'm sure that their neighbors wouldn't mind. Thanks.

Thank you, Lee.

Hi, my name is Jessica Sanger, and I'm in the city of Orem. I'll just echo some things that have already been said, so I'll keep it brief. But my husband and I have been married for almost two years and have been thinking about housing for a while. And kind of echoing some previous sentiments, it's really hard to find anything. And everything is so expensive, especially like larger properties. And so we've also joked a lot, like we're not going to be able to stay in the state by our families. So kind of joking, kind of not, but would love to be able to. And so hearing about projects like this that also look really beautiful, where we wouldn't have to move into some really ugly, crappy place that we'd be ashamed of. Sounds really awesome. So we're in favor of the development. Thank you.

Thank you.

good evening my name is paul washburn i'm also a resident of orem i've been in the development business for the last 35 years and i've looked at the two homes on these on the existing property one was built in the late 1800s the other one was built in the early 1900s i've been involved in developments where we have been forced or required to try and refurbish older homes it's not just paint and a carpet you go in and you find out that the plaster all needs to be removed because that's how you get to replace the electrical that is nearly a century old and needs to be upgraded when you get to taking the plaster off you find out the plaster and all the insulation behind it has got asbestos in it got to replace all the plumbing all of the other parts of the structure by the time you get done you can easily spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars per structure and you still have a 150 year old house it doesn't make sense i don't know what the answer is i like the project they're presenting a zone that says you can't replace anything you can't build anything is people need to have a place to live so thank you thank you Paul

hi i'm jannie johnson and i'm in provo and i'm one of the three speakers that happen to live like right there that would be involved with this i too was around and helped participate in this camp and i'm very concerned of what this change in zoning would open up in terms of what other buildings could be it is a lovely project i don't I think it's lovely. But the issue is, it doesn't match the real architecture of the neighborhood. Does it keep that downtown atmosphere? The other thing too, folks, is we have never controlled the parking. So they say that they might be able to control the parking, but the parking is not controlled down there. I would invite any one of you to come stay with me for a week. Once September hits, because you can't control the parking, they may have a garage that may do one or two cars, but there's no room for guests. I don't have enough room for guests that come to my house to visit me after school starts. And not only do we have BYU, we have UVU, we have Rocky Mountain College, we have all these folks living down here. I just would like you to consider to continue to. Protect these homes in this area down there down where I live in South walking. The other thing too, is we've had a lot of construction with the asphalt and everything going. This would put the whole neighborhood out. and having to figure out reroutes when, if it were allowed to be built, it would put out us for a while while it was built. So if you'll just consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Jenny.

Hi, Council. My name is Will Stanger and I live in Provo. I live at 318 East 300 North, so one block north of this. And I live there with my wife and we have two cars. Back in the day when I moved to Provo, I lived in a little house with a front door and a back door. And this was in like 2018 when I was starting school. We kept the front door unlocked and we kept the back door unlocked. And we still do sometimes. So it's still a beautiful and safe community. But eventually thinking 10, 20, 30 or 40 years from now is what I want to consider when my children are coming to BYU or my children are going to UVU, wherever they choose to go. I don't know what the future is going to look like, but I know what it looks like now. Right now in Provo, I have an alarm on one door and I have alarm on the other door. I have to lock both doors at night. My friend who lives one block away from me, one block east and one block north of this site, they've had their bike stolen twice. I passed six flock cameras on the way to get here. Flock cameras are automated license plate readers used for crime and surveillance. Provo is evolving and changing. I want to consider what Provo is going to look like 100 years from now. So if we can make certain restrictions and set precedents that this doesn't automatically open the door to other developers just taking advantage of our occupancy crisis. I study economics at BYU. I've studied it for a long time. There's a buyer's market and there's a seller's market. I would love to take the watch that my dad gave me as a kid and sell that for a lot more, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to make everybody else's life better. It just means it's going to make cars more expensive. It just means it's going to drive the price of these properties up. So buyers and sellers don't always make better conditions.

Thank you, Will.

Hi, my name is Mack McIntyre. I live between 2nd and 3rd North on 2nd East. My wife and I bought the house that we're in. It used to be the Fitz Royce. He was one of the first music professors at BYU back in 1915 when it was built. When we bought this, we became developers. I renovated it. I have replaced the electrical, the plumbing, and a lot of the rooms, upgraded them. And so it's been a joy to do that because the people that lived there before put some effort into it and made Provol. And so what I'd like to do is keep Provo here and not lose the spirit of Provo. New developments are great. But I think that in this case, it sort of feels like I was a school teacher, Centennial Middle School, Jim Pugh, when I had a class of 50 students when I should have had a class of 25. When you compact more students in there, it makes things more difficult, always has been. And I dealt with that and it was a lot more difficult. In fact, we had some things that we could not figure out. So I'd like to say that market value right now, it looks like on town homes, two bedroom, 285,000, three bedroom, 399,000. Is that enough to make it affordable to people? it depends on on who's talking one last thing um when i go every day which i did today with my granddaughter luna who's 10 minutes old and i go through the neighborhood trying to get her to sleep when she's really upset it makes it difficult to do it when there's an increased amount of traffic we go on fourth east Second North, those are collector streets. I understand. I try to avoid those, but more traffic means more difficulty for a little kid as well as families. So that's one of the things that I think is what this zone is for, and I'd like to keep it. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. How you doing? My name is John Keller. I actually live in Park City right now, but I grew up in Orem and I actually lived in the triplex that we're talking about here. And back when I was in college in the late 90s, I lived there and I managed the triplex. And I can tell you that it was falling apart back then. Like about every month we had to bring in a company to snake out the sewer lines. electrical is knob and tube and it's like a hazard it's like asbestos it's just a complete disaster there so i can only imagine how it is now all these years later it's an eyesore and i think this project is perfect It's a like when I was watching the presentation, I was getting the chills. It was like beautiful. It was like, couldn't imagine anything more beautiful than that. And I just think as city council, even though these zone restrictions are in place, I feel like it's your responsibility as a council to make adjustments when they're necessary. A lot has changed in the world since 2014. We've had COVID. We've had accelerated pricing and you know it's out of control i think that it's in your it's your responsibility at this point to make adjustments when it's necessary and i feel like this is necessary so i encourage you to approve the project thank you thank you john

Good evening. My name is Tanya. I'm also, I reside in Park City, but I lived at this property for three years as a college student. And then I lived at the triplex also for three years as a newlywed. So I've experienced this neighborhood firsthand and I truly loved it. It is an awesome neighborhood. One challenge that always stood out to me about this property was the lack of privacy. Like they said, it's surrounded on all sides by the Apollo apartments, but there was a little backyard behind the triplex and we'd always want to go do a little barbecue back there or have some fun outside. But there was just dozens of the Apollo units overlooking the backyard and it just felt like you were in a fishbowl back there. um our windows and outdoor space were in direct view of so many neighboring apartments that we just felt like we were so exposed the lack of privacy is a real problem in that area if you want to have a house um or even in a triplex area but even with that we did love the neighborhood we eventually outgrew the triplex And but there weren't a lot of opportunities in that neighborhood for homeowners. And so we ended up leaving. But that's one of the main reasons why I support this Tuscany Townhomes project. I think it provides a housing opportunity for those people just ready to take that next step from renting to owning. And it's just the perfect step to do that. And then they don't have to leave the neighborhood in the community that they already know and love. It's there. So I totally support this project. And I ask you to do the same. Thank you so much, Council.

You're welcome. Thank you, Tanya.

Hello, good evening. Thank you everybody for sharing this time with us. My name is Jenna. My family lives in Provo. I also lived at this residence in my first years of college and loved it loved the neighborhood loved the area but i also believe that of course growth is inevitable but how we choose to grow is something that we should have a say in we have an opportunity to be proactive about what we want this community to look like and to support development that is thoughtful that is beautiful and respectful to both the land and the character of the community that we love. Wouldn't we rather see a property owner who cares deeply about this neighborhood thoughtly develop their land and create something that truly adds value to this community? Rather than waiting for a large outside developer to come in someday, which would probably happen down the road, they would have very little vision for this property. I believe Tuscan All-Town Homes gives us an opportunity to embrace this growth while still preserving the character and the sense of community that makes this neighborhood so special. Thank you.

Thank you, Jenna.

My name is Jaden, and I'm a graduate student at BYU right now. But when I graduate, I probably will not be living in Utah because I'll be priced out. For me, it's mostly a question of essentially dignity. The price of a home being more than half of my current income is in some ways the community telling me to get out. The current price of housing that was mentioned before, the market pricing, really represents the voice of people that want to live here but that are being pushed away. a lot of references were previously made to you know previous zoning plans and how democratic a process it might have been but you know a large group of the people that actually are going to end up living here were not represented in that sort of process people that actually want to be here right and so the basic economics of the issue really turn it into unfortunately pitting the young against the old No matter your intentions, it's just facts of it. If you don't increase the supply of housing, then that's just going to be what happens. You're telling young people that want to come and stay and live in Provo to leave.

That's what I'll have to be doing, unfortunately.

And I would rather not, and it's projects like these, it's zoning for higher density, that's gonna make that happen. Even if it's high income housing, if it costs a lot, just one way or another, the economics of it work out that increasing supply will lower the cost of housing for people that are actually trying to enter.

Thank you.

like his comments by the way uh cam harris um live in american fork but uh my occupation we we finance um residential homes across the country um i'm a data guy councilman whitlock mentioned data as i think about data i'm sure you guys are well aware of a lot of provost data i think home ownership as a whole is 39 percent roughly. If you look at surrounding cities, it's closer to 60%. As I hear the proposal and the fact that they're providing more housing, I like the economics lesson that we got. More housing means more families can move in. They're offering to have that be owner occupied, which means you get more residents. As you look at the census since 2014, We've actually seen a decline in population in Provo. And I think it's because there's a lack of supply. I don't think it's a lack of demand. You have one of the greatest universities right here in the city. And so providing a way for a lot of these kids that wanna stay here, wanna stay close to families, Sure makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. You know, day in, day out, we're trying to find ways to finance more affordable housing. And unfortunately, a lot of that has to be unit, you know, count. You know, I would love to have a backyard and all of these, you know, great amenities that I think Provo was used to, you know, years and years ago. But for these kids to be able to stay here and for these families to be able to grow, you have to have supply. It would be great to see that 39% bump up, to see that population growth bump up. And I think you could do it by reinvesting and having people interested in reinvesting in the community. So thank you, guys.

You're welcome. Thank you, Kim.

Brooklyn Lawrence. I live on 200 South. I started attending these meetings occasionally back in January because I was curious to know what the council is doing to solve what feels to me like a very overwhelming housing crisis. I experienced a 14% rent increase the last time I renewed my contract and the price I pay for rent is almost the same as what my parents pay for their mortgage. And I can only sustain that maybe one more time before I'm out of Provo. And I have very difficult time searching for other places to live. This feels like one of the more pressing things that the council should be putting attention to. I was confused at the start of this agenda item because I thought that the council was saying 12 homes, that's barely a dent, but you could fit 25 there. And I thought, that's awesome. Yes, let's put 25. I would way rather live somewhere in Provo than somewhere far away and have a backyard. I would way rather be here and have something than somewhere else and have nothing. And so I see the proposal of high density housing and 12 more houses and think, yes, that is barely a dent in the problem that we have right now. But to me, it seems like a beacon of hope. It seems like a way of changing the culture towards something that is going to make it a dent eventually. So thank you.

Thank you, Brooklyn.

Wow. I should have let her be last. My name's Terry Bishop. I live in American Fork, but I own a property just in that block, just to the east of where this is happening. I came tonight basically to find out what really was going on. I have no idea or no intention to get up here and say anything, but I also have a little property in another place that's going through the same scenario almost. I believe this is a really good project. I think it improves the neighborhood and I think it will improve the value of the older homes as well as the new homes. The concerns over the development agreement I think is a non-issue in my own opinion. I think that we have great city attorneys that are taking care of the business. They're making sure that our everything is in order and that they were the city's going to be covered for that with that development agreement. Terry Rector- Providing and limiting the amount of homes that are there and or and units, and I think that will be ongoing very few people will 20 years down the road tear down a really beautiful home or to to try to improve it by a few units so. Terry Rector- Thank you for your your time and I appreciate the time and effort that they've put into to try and improve that neighborhood.

Thank you Terry.

Hi, I get so nervous when I come up here. My name is Joni McIntyre. I'm a member of the Joaquin neighborhood and I've lived there for 37 years. I came as a student and we did not plan on staying, but we found a home that we loved and we bought it and improved on it. I think the number one thing is that we need to follow the residential conservation zone. That was put in place. And to me, that's what we need to follow. yes does it need to be improved obviously to make some some changes right because there are some things that um that people want to change in the neighborhood but as of right now i think we need to follow it um and then also i had some clarifications on what had been said earlier um you had asked about parking in the tusconal townhomes um there's actually only three guest parking spaces for 12 units um and every and there's the two bedroom i'm sorry the two one bedroom townhomes they only have one parking space. So you can see that on there. I think it is a beautiful project. It's lovely. I would love to see it be brick instead of stone. I don't see any stone in our neighborhood and I don't think it would fit in. um and then um lastly and I don't have much time um the idea the idea of not having yards or porches I think is really important that's what brings us together that's what the old homes have that's what we have we have a porch you sit out on the porch you see your neighbors walk by these homes these town homes don't have porches they don't have yards and that's thank you Johnny

hi hi again uh isaac lowe resident of provo i actually live about five blocks from this i did not come here for this today i was confused by there's so many people at city council and now i know why um but having listened um and and living close by i do feel like i'm seeing a pattern of it feels like a lot of people who are for this seem to live far away but own property nearby um as opposed to the people who live there seem to be opposed um in majority is what i'm noticing and i i feel like there is a clue there of another solution to the housing problem that we have right of not enough affordable housing which is um people who perhaps own property but do not live there um and that does tend to also make housing really unaffordable and there are solutions to that that do not involve really expensive new homes um being built in locations that the residents do not want them um so that that's all thank you Isaac

David Keller, I'm usually known as a longtime resident of Joaquin. And yes, we bought our house when one of the neighbors died and the family needed to sell the house. So just keep waiting for somebody to die and you'll eventually find the house of your dreams. We love Joaquin because it's historic. neighborhood and those three row houses from the Victorian era are one of only two remaining sets of row houses in Provo. And I hate to see them go. I also hate to see a project that's taller than the than all the other things in the neighborhood except for a couple of buildings that got built after a mistake that a previous council made. So I've been trying to find stuff which is no longer on the Provo website. But I found in the 2020, 2002, 2004 update to the general plan, they talked about the history of it. And they said in 1977, the original 68 general plan, city leaders sought to increase the retail base, establish new industrial centers, and revitalize older neighborhoods through high density development. Well, we saw what happened. By the 1980s, the city council was trying to walk that back. So this is a beautiful project. It does not match any style, and the style guidelines have disappeared. But I wish Karen well, but I still say it doesn't belong. Thank you.

alberto polo and i live in pro for about 40 years i came to school like many of you and made a wonderful lady and then i got married and never left we were the house like about 10 years after we we got married it wasn't easy it's not like we came out from college and wanted to have a house We wanted to, but we couldn't, so we had to wait. Well, I lived in the house for over 30 years, and I witnessed many things that were really overwhelming. When I moved over there, you can hardly see many cars over there. now i see four times more cars than i've seen before so we are getting extinct extinct from there and that really made me sad because i raised my family in there my kids and i don't think that i will raise a family for where to be like is becoming okay um like to say you know i i did buy an old house and sometimes feel offense and i'm also a landlord okay and i i work very hard in my house i replenished we took walls we you know predicted totally it looks nice if you want to see him by any chance one for you know johannes And I'm just an engineer. So I did have fun doing that. I did have a lot of fun and kind of resent to, you know, to people when they said, you know, it's an old house, you spend so much money. No, that's incorrect. And also as a landlord, I learned that if you don't put money on your house, that you are renting then you're going to add up a bunch of money many years after so that's i don't think any excuse and i think that this apartment is going to be will be nice but it's going to be a touch of my heart that it's not going to be a far afford thank you

Be quick, I promise. My name is Jacob Wixom. I live here in Provo, about five blocks south of this. I actually wanted to share a couple of thoughts that are more about the RC Zone than this specific project. I went to the planning commission meeting and noticed some patterns in the conversation there as well that I think are worth taking seriously. I get the sense, I've only lived in Provo for like eight months, so I definitely wasn't here when the RC Zone was created, but I get the sense that people that are lucky enough to live in a place like downtown Provo can tell that they have something special and that's disappearing. And that we don't yet have the language around what that is and how to preserve it, how to create more of it rather than letting it slip away. And that our sea zone was kind of built to preserve what we have while we figure that out so that we can be thoughtful about that going forward. And so I would just throw out there that maybe it's a job half done, but that I would hate for the result of whatever direction you go on this specific question to be to one extreme or the other. Right. That like nothing is ever going to be done. The community is not going to be allowed to evolve. Right. Or that this is just untenable and we have to let anything go. I am lucky enough to live in like a really really beautiful part of the city and i love the walkability and the community and the block parties and all those things um but i i also would love for more people to have that opportunity and would just encourage you to um i guess maybe whatever direction this goes push toward finishing that job so that we can make more of provo feel the way uh joaquin and maser and the surrounding area feels thank you jake is there any other public comment

it was wonderful to hear from so many of you and helpful as well as council members we value your input and your comments thank you to all of you we'll close public comment at this time then and bring the item to the council for discussion councillor bogdan i do excuse me excuse me becky i actually meant to make one other comment Taryn, thank you for your work as well. We've heard from many people here. Was there anything that was said that you felt like you would like to correct? We value everyone's opinions, but was there anything that was misstated that you would like to correct?

No misstatements. I love everyone's thoughts and opinions. I just did want to add two things. 24% of Joaquin neighborhood members actually own a home. And so I wanted to make sure to make that addition. And then along with the fact that this development, I have decided I want it to be a safety hub. We talked with the police chief quite a few months ago, and there was a mention of bike theft in that neighborhood. It is the highest bike theft in the Joaquin neighborhood, actually, in all of Provo City. And so we have talked to the police chief about setting up a little hub there where there's cameras that link directly to the station where they can watch that neighborhood more closely. And how nice would that be to just feel a little bit more protected? Thank you.

Thank you, Taryn. Councillor Bogdan.

Okay, Bill, where's Bill? Okay, so from what I understand, the Waukee neighborhood has the highest amount of people in the state within that neighborhood, is that correct?

Yes, the highest population density, yes.

And from what I understand, when you guys did this neighborhood plan, the neighbors are not necessarily against high density housing. They were very firm, and they came up with a really good compromise that below fifth north, am I correct? Correct me if I'm wrong. Below fifth north would be preserved, and above fifth north, that's where the density would be. Even with that, this is the highest population in the entire state. So to me, when you say we need more housing, we need more housing, we need more housing, we are putting more units here than anywhere in the entire state. So I am very appreciative of the time that the Joaquin neighborhood has spent on this plan. I also know that we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. We love students. We love where they're at but we also love our people and the one thing that i did learn from this whole thing i did not realize that the joaquin neighborhood was really historical preservationists That's amazing. I think that's amazing. I do realize that if we don't keep up on our housing, that our housing does diminish. And it's important, especially in those neighborhoods that we keep up on the housing, whether it's rental stock or whether it's home ownership, that we do keep that housing up. Because once that's gone in that neighborhood, it is the highest population in the state, right? And it's gone. And I don't blame them for wanting to preserve what's there. I don't blame them for wanting to preserve those connections that they have. So I just wanted to bring that up, that we can't really judge them too harshly, in my opinion, because they have compromised very, very well and said, this is the line in the sand. This is where you can build. As far as I remember, that campus housing right there, Bill, can go as high as they want to. We don't have limits on how high it can go.

There's no cap on density. I believe the building height is 75 feet. Do you remember that? I believe the building height in the campus, excuse, our campus residential zone is 75 feet.

Okay. So see, you can go pretty high and tall. They've allowed for a lot in that neighborhood. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you, Councilor Bogdan. Others? Councilor Whitlock?

I have some questions that came up while listening to public comments. One question, perhaps this is for Brian Jones. How does enforcement on deed restrictions work in practice?

Well, it's an excellent question because so far we haven't had to do one because it's such a new concept. But the template that we've employed, what it actually does is it – because one of the issues, one of the concerns about this idea of – not the deed restriction itself, but the CC&Rs, right, is that the HOA can always get together and vote later to change the rules. So that's only as good as placing the rules for when the HOA first starts. So one of the things that we've done with our template is actually require that that can't happen and granting Provo City an enforcement right so that Provo City itself can enforce the non-owner occupancy violations by not granting rental licenses. So the deed restriction gives us the right to not grant a rental license to someone who shouldn't have one under the deed restriction, and then we can criminally prosecute them for renting without a license. So that's the enforcement mechanism that we've devised for this situation. We have not yet employed it. I feel pretty confident that it's pretty sound in the sense that we do already enforce against people for renting without a license. So that's an established tool that we already know how to use. This just gives us a mechanism down the road for how we would use it.

Do you feel like, again, I'm asking you to make somewhat of a judgment call, so if you don't feel comfortable, that's fine. But do you feel that this mechanism will be materially more successful than enforcing against illegal ADUs, for example? Is there something about the nature of it that makes it easier to enforce?

Generally speaking, yes. I mean, there are still some challenges against both, right? I mean, the problem with enforcing against the illegal ADUs is we actually have to prove that there are two family units in the home, right? So it's less about – that becomes an issue less of – proving that there is a rental situation happening and more of a situation of having to prove the occupancy, which based on the city's family, the definition of a family means sometimes trying to prove that statements made to us about relationships are not accurate, right? So just proving that something is being rented when it shouldn't be is easier than that.

Okay, thank you. And then, Director Pepperoni, I have a question. That's okay. Just, I think this might have been asked previously in the Planning Commission meeting, but I don't really have my head around it. Why are these called townhomes and not condos?

So first to just add to what Brian just said. So I think ease of enforcement isn't so much the issue because either case it's going to require going through a court action, but our likelihood of success is probably going to be better under this new idea.

That makes sense.

These are townhomes, not condominiums because there's no one living above anybody else is my understanding, correct? One unit goes from floor to ceiling.

So they basically all have a plot.

They all have their own platted lot, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock. Other comments or discussion?

I have some.

Councillor Whipple?

Which shouldn't surprise you. First, I want to thank the developer for their very thoughtful work on this. They've gotten a lot of feedback and some of it has been really hard to hear and they have accepted that with grace and gone back to the drawing board several times to account for concerns that have been raised by the people in the neighborhood there. i also want to thank the many people who came to gift comment um you can see that there's a wide variety of opinions on this and everyone is valuing something really really important to them whether it's the existing character of the neighborhood which they define as you know these older historic looking homes or whether it's the opportunity to actually live in the neighborhood As we've, you know, 20 years ago, 15, 20 years ago, the city had the NeighborWorks program and Paint Your Heart Out. Other opportunities where there were these partnerships so that there was investment of grant money and other dollars into old homes so that they could be rehabilitated. And there were grants for people to help with their down payment. um sometimes they'd have to do sweat equity so people could get these older homes and live in the neighborhoods and i remember helping with the paint your heart out i had neighbors help me paint my house need to do it again but that's a different story um but all of these things built community and When we have a program like that, the RC zone can make sense because the RC zone froze the zoning, but it also wanted to freeze the structures in the houses. But unless we've got something that helps the community to reinvest in the structures the freezing of the zoning just means that they decay. And we've seen that decay with a lot of the housing stock in the Joaquin and the Mazur neighborhood. It's an issue in all of our pioneer neighborhoods, frankly. We need to have a healthy mix in our neighborhoods, a good mix of renters and owner occupants so that you have stability and vitality. So you've got like the energy from the new people coming in and And the anchor families who are there to help structure your schools and your church communities and everything like that. And I say this as somebody who lives just a few blocks away from this proposed development. I see this in my neighborhood, in the church community that I attend. These are real issues. And we benefit from having our young student families, mostly married students who are there. They bemoan the fact that they can't afford to stay in the neighborhood. They can't afford to buy a house in the neighborhood. When we're looking at calling this high density housing, I think maybe our language isn't good around that because we hear high density and we think like super tall apartments and that's not what we're really looking at here, even though that's how it's defined in our code. What we're looking at is going from four units to 12 units, three times the number of units in this area But instead of being rentals, these would be occupied by homeowners. That can change the balance of an LDS ward to have that many people come in and buy a house. When we bought our house, it was like we had put a target on our back for leadership callings. This will help the neighborhood if it's approved. It's unclear that the existing structure, if it were torn down and replaced with another three-plex and another single house, could actually be rebuilt on the property because if it were torn down to be built with a new unit that matched the density, the new one would have to match the new setback requirements and everything. And I don't know if that's feasible. That would be a question for our development services. But it would be hard to replace it with exactly what's there, but a new version of it. And it's really expensive to rehabilitate the old houses. We, a couple of years ago, put out a bid to completely redo our house, which was built in 1904. because the house is a sieve there's no insulation it's got lath and plaster all of these things needed to be upgraded from the sewer to the roof to everything everything basically and we were looking at over 300 000 then And I think it would be more now. It would be less expensive just to tear down our house and do entirely new construction. Although, again, we would have difficulty siting it on our lot because our house doesn't meet modern setback requirements either. Sorry, I'm having a hard time reading my notes because it's getting dark here. Right now, another concern, oh, so the council in other contexts has expressed significant concern about backyard privacy. that people need to be able to have their backyards and not have somebody overlooking into their backyard. And some of our public comment raised this concern as well. Right now there is an apartment complex right next to this. There is no way that any structures there are going to have a private backyard. And it seems, um, It seems that this kind of structure in this place would fit well with what is already there. Looking at the Joaquin neighborhood plan, It says that South Joaquin has uses just as diverse as those that are in North Joaquin, but it has even more varied residential types. One of the defining characteristics of this neighborhood at this point in time is the diversity of housing types of houses that have been built over the course of more than a hundred years, sitting side by side, so that when you walk through the neighborhood, you're walking through history and you're seeing the changes. We have some houses that are, you know, mid-century ranches next to, you know, little old ones that were built in the early 20th century. That adds charm and character, but we haven't been able to get a lot of new ones for the last couple of decades because of this essential moratorium we've had because of the RC zoning. And it's important for a neighborhood to be alive for it to have the opportunity to grow and change, to adapt to changing times and conditions. This plan does not preserve the old houses. And as one of our commenters said, this is one of two existing row houses that are left in Provo. A third one was to the east of Provo Peaks Elementary. It was torn down decades ago. And if this is torn down, then the only one we'll have is the one that's kind of behind the Fresh Market, which is adorable. Everybody should go look at it. I hate the idea of losing that piece of our Provo history, but I think it's more important that we build for the people who are here now, who don't have that home to live in, who want to invest in our community, who want to buy a house and are simply not able to. right now our neighborhood plan and program and the city council frankly are structured to really protect the interest of a small property minority instead of representing all of the people who live in our community joaquin only has 24 percent homeowner occupation I think going from 12 structures that are not homeowner occupied to another 12, or four that are not occupied to 12 that would be, may not change that percentage much, but it would be a move in the right direction and consistent with the council goals that we've had for a couple of years now. But I also have to recognize that my constituency because this is my district most of them are renters and most of them are facing that uncertainty and instability in their housing because their rent at most is a year contract and then it's raised when they renew or it goes month to month they have no stability they have no way of building that wealth by having equity in a home so representing them that big part of my constituency I have to say that I'm supportive of this even though many of my good friends are speaking against this project I understand their concerns and I think their concerns are valid but I recognize that there are different competing concerns and I think that this project serves that higher need. And with the new proffer that these would be homeowner occupied in perpetuity, that these would not be churned out, it's gonna make it a lot harder for them to turn into student rentals or things like that. This is a way to help stabilize the neighborhood and I'm supportive of it.

Thank you, Councilor Whipple. Councilor Christensen.

I love the home ownership that was proffered in this. I think that makes a lot of sense. We worked hard to get home ownership. The other thing that I have felt strongly about, so Rachel talked about things that you value. One of the things that I value is neighborhoods. And I do value, there was a comment in the public comments about going through this whole democratic process to make this plan. Yes, it is a democratic process. And we work together as neighbors. We come up with plans. We come up with things. And we do the very best we can. And that creates a social contract. And I don't think you just throw that away because someone has a better plan. I don't think it's appropriate for us to spot zone in any neighborhood. even if we can come up with higher goods or the ends justify the means, or we, we create more product, it it's, it's not like this is low income housing. We're talking about this. Like this is going to, um, like this is a, a welfare project. No, this could easily be turned into four very nice homes instead of 12. Now I understand the developer's motivation to optimize and market rates. That makes sense to me as well. But to bring this into a neighborhood where that we have agreements, even as imperfect as they are, I can't support that. I do value the process that we go through. Now, if that neighborhood decides as a neighborhood, let's change that and work together as city council, I'm all in. But no, I can't support spot zoning, even when it's a project like this, because I think it's important to respect the neighborhood and the zoning that's in place. And for that reason, I can't support this going forward.

Thank you, Councillor Christensen. Councillor McKay, did you have any comments? Okay. Councilor Whitlock.

Yeah, I have a couple of comments, but first, just one more question, if I may ask, Director Pepperoni. Can you remind me when the SCAMP plan was created and then when the current plan was updated?

I came onto the city in 2010 and SCAMP had been done four or five years ahead of that. The gentleman who spoke about that, does that sound right?

Yeah, it started in 2000.

And then what was your question? And then is that still the current plan or was it then re-updated into the Joaquin neighborhood plan?

It was updated to the Joaquin plan. The one thing that was most consistent about both is that they both said, let's allow North of 500 North to redevelop as high density student housing. Let's try to preserve what's below that.

And when was the current Joaquin plan completed and adopted?

About 2014. 2014.

So a little over a decade?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah, just some thoughts on this. If I'm being quite honest, I'm conflicted. I think there are some legitimate competing values here. uh one being a housing affordability issue and i think one of the commenters you did a good job that was one of the most articulately uh stated problems that we faced where that we have a younger generation that either was not living in provo or was not politically active when many of these plans were created and they're saying please help me find a place to live they're looking at a median housing price of 550 000 over half a million dollars you have to make a hundred and 50K to not be house poor and make that payment. So when I hear about a $280,000 charter home, while someone who has owned a house for a long time might say, well, that doesn't sound that affordable, that actually is the difference between being able to get into a house or not. Studies show when you're able to purchase a house, It stabilizes your financial planning. You get equity. You start to build wealth. As a community, we need to find ways to help younger families get into our community. At the same time, I also value input. That's obviously a critical part of the process. So part of me feels a little sad that there maybe wasn't more work done to try and find a compromise that clearly had more neighborhood support. And that's kind of maybe where I'm at here is like, I feel like maybe I love the owner occupancy proffered from Pepper Tutti. I think that's a great compromise. Thank you so much for doing that. I wonder if there are not a few more compromises that could be made, perhaps making it look less Italian and more Provo could maybe go a long way. And then we could get some neighborhood support and we could do this with you know, with unanimity here. And I really think there's a way we can make that happen, having talked to many of our constituents in that area. So that would be my encouragement. I'm curious if you have any thoughts on that.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock. I also remember the South Campus Area Master Plan that was introduced 25 years ago now under the direction of then Mayor Lewis Billings, who got this group together. And it was very encouraging to see the potential that there could be preservation in this residential conservation district and increased student housing. I would dare say that The outcome for that vision has not really materialized the way I think everyone hoped it would. But I value that plan and the group that was determined to preserve their neighborhood residential conservation area. Taryn, I love your project. It's beautiful. And your presentation was outstanding. I think developers should retain you to do their presentation. The one reality that we're seeing is outside investors, for lack of a better word, are sending their kids to school. They buy a home. and their child lives in it, and then they have two roommates, which is allowed. That's defined by ordinance as a family. And one such home in our neighborhood just changed recently. This is a family neighborhood purchased by an outside investor whose daughter and two friends live there. So I'm afraid that it's likely we would see that kind of arrangement in these beautiful townhomes as well. What I would like to see, the Joaquin neighborhood plan, 10 years is not a lot of time, but the economy has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years. And I would encourage the Joaquin neighborhood to come together and reconsider what their plan should look like. What are the objectives they're trying to achieve? They'd like families, they'd like homeowner occupancy. That's something that this project could offer. A young couple or someone just getting started with their home, um so i i would like to see neighborhoods take another look at their neighborhood plans given the economics of the last 10 years i agree with comments that have been made that it's not likely that someone can come in and take one of these beautiful pioneer homes and turn it into what it needs to be um and what we'd like it to be, and that hasn't happened. Many have been preserved, but it's hard to return those to that status that we've lost. We have in other... Regarding other policies in the city, we've respected and valued what neighborhoods want for their neighborhoods. We have... We've tried to take the position that each neighborhood can define and decide what they would like, knowing that they've invested in that neighborhood. So those are some of my thoughts. Anyone else? Councillor Hoban?

Appreciate the time that you guys put into this project. If I'm reading the tea leaves, I don't think there's support for it. So I guess I'm gonna make a motion that we continue the item. There's one more comment online. Oh, okay.

Do you wanna wait?

Yeah, I'll let them make that.

Councilor McKay, you can go ahead.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes.

Number one, I'd like to hear the response to Jeff's question about changing the design to a more Provo design. Did we get a response to that?

No, we didn't. Councillor McKay is asking if you could respond to my earlier question.

Councillor McKay, thank you. We have been willing to change everything at this point. So of course we would be willing to make that change. We are not set on any specific thing. We just have an Italian background. So we thought that might be lovely. But if that is something that is a game changer, we're certainly willing to look into that.

Yeah, I think if you look at the Joaquin neighborhood plan, it does talk about certain design standards that kind of fit in with the historic nature of this neighborhood. And I think that would be highly valued by the residents.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

I love that. That is important to me. I'm extremely torn on this decision. I value the neighborhood plans. I value neighborhood input. I've been to every neighborhood meeting about this, and I go to every neighborhood meeting that I can attend. And at the same time, I'm also value. And it was huge that Taryn is offering homeowner occupancy in perpetuity. That is a game changer for this part of town. It'll change wards. It'll change schools. It'll change community. It will absolutely be a game changer. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Brian. I believe that with our new sham transaction law that we've done, that parents could not buy the home and put their child in it. that they would need to have the home the mortgage all the things that we set out in the child's name which makes it a much more complicated situation is that correct but they put them on the title

Well, I'm trying to think this through back with regard to Councilor Whitlock's earlier question about ADUs versus this kind of issue because it would certainly, our ordinance would certainly prevent parents from buying a home and then allowing their children to live there and then their children renting out an ADU in the basement and qualifying for owner occupancy. The problem here is that the method for this kind of thing that we have devised in order to enforce owner occupancy is really prohibiting rental rather than actually enforcing owner occupancy. And so That's where we're going to run into a conflict because the idea of a parent buying one of these and giving to their kids is not going to violate the no rental restriction. It's only going to violate the owner occupancy restriction, which is the one that is much more difficult to enforce. So I think it's... I think it's feasible. I think that would require changes to the template that we've created to do this because we now have to account for enforcing two different things where we were previously only trying to enforce one.

That's what I need to nail down. The reason I'd vote for this is 100% because of that, the homeowner occupancy in perpetuity. And I need that nailed down so that we know that ended up being successful and then this neighbor by our lack of enforcement and their fear of that they have a fear can't go into this without being in question anything else counselor okay counselor okay thank you catrice counselor whipple

Yeah, I think Catrice is hitting on a really good question there, and that is if a parent buys it for their college-age student, then they shouldn't be able to also rent it to two other students to get that. Three family. I suppose if they wanted to let two other students live with their child for free, that would be legal. But if they're charging rent for their BFFs, then we have a problem. Is that right? Is that what you're bringing up, Catrice?

Yes, the whole benefit of having the owner occupancy is the stability of the neighborhood, communities, churches, schools. But it's also in the pricing. When you keep investors out, when you keep the California money out, the investors who have the money to throw, you know, hundreds of thousands down for their kids to live, that's where the prices go up. The only way we're going to keep prices down and truly motivated by investors is to have this airtight.

Yeah, I would, I would like to be able to explore that, Brian, it'll take a little bit work on your, your template to make that happen. Um, one other thing that I noted was, um, Jeff had asked earlier about the residential conservation zone being temporary. And the documentation I found for that was in the temp neighborhood plan, where on page 14, it does say that the RC zone was intended to be temporary, but it's been kind of difficult to actually rezone that area, much like Joaquin, because you have such a diversity of uses and housing types within it. that if the zoning reflected the actual uses of those properties, it would be a very bright patchwork quilt of many, many different things. But it would help everyone to see what the actual uses are for those properties. But I think it's important to to recognize for this neighborhood as well that the RC zone was intended to be temporary for us to catch our breath and to figure out what type of development and structures we want in here going forward. And I was looking again at the the walking plan and it recommends, you know, creating this essentially a style guide for it and i don't know that we've we've necessarily done that um and so those were were the additional comments that that i had i did want to thank my fellow counselors for like all of their thoughtful consideration on this too this is a hard thing because the different competing values that we have are both really really good and really important thank you counselor whipple

I do want to apologize. There appears to be an online participant with a hand raised. And if your hand was raised during public comment, I apologize for missing that. Now we're ready for a motion.

yeah um i guess my thought is i think if we had to force a decision today i think there's some questions that some council members have to that they want answered before they would be able to vote um so my motion would be that we continue this to give an opportunity to potentially come back with a different design that might be more amenable to people and also explore the owner occupancy and enforceability around that which is disappointing that we don't have to figure it out. Cause I kind of thought we had figured that out, but, um, I mean, why are we talking about it today if it's not even enforceable, but in any case, and then potentially even looking at the, um, residential, uh, conservation aspect of this. So I'd make a motion that we delay this, not indefinitely, but that we come back in. Well, whenever we can get it on the schedule, my motion.

I'd second that motion.

We have a motion by Councillor Hoban to continue the item to answer the questions that he has posed with a second by Councillor Whitlock. I'll call for a vote.

How about discussion?

Discussion on the substitute motion?

Yeah. Yeah, just really quickly, a lot of the comments that we've gotten recently have been about the design and not matching historical character of the neighborhood. And so I just wanted to mention to the developer, we have really great architectural examples, like the old Mazer School. and some of our buildings downtown. I think that there could be design elements from those, you know, early 20th century buildings and late 19th century buildings that could be the new skin for this project that would hit those design concerns for the neighborhood that wouldn't necessarily require a complete revision of the entire plan. That was all I had for the discussion.

Thank you, Rachel.

My other discussion on the motion was just to make clear that we understood, at least from the city's side, what questions we had for Brian. I feel pretty good about that.

yes great any other discussion okay now i'll call call for a vote excuse me gary gary christensen um i i could certainly see the value in um continuing this it sounds like there's been a great deal of flexibility on the developer's part I would love to see the developer and the neighborhood come together with something that both of them felt like could work. So to me, it's not just the skin, it's also the density, it's the parking. I mean, it's the whole thing. So if we were working towards something like that, I would be in favor of continuing.

Thank you, Councillor Christensen, Councillor Hoban.

Yeah, I guess I clarify that too, that, you know, your job between now and the next meeting would figure out how to make this work for the council members and the consideration that they take, give to the neighborhood plan and feedback from the neighborhood and such. You just reiterate what Craig's saying.

Thank you. I'll call for a vote. Councillor Christensen?

Yes.

Councillor Whitlock? yes councillor bogdan yes councillor hoban yes councillor whipple yes councillor garrett yes councillor mckay yes so that motion passes by a vote of seven zero to continue the item uh in hopes that there could be more neighborhood unanimity thank you thank you taryn And thanks to all of you who came to share your support and comments with us. Next, we're going to move to item nine. We're going to skip items seven and eight for now because item nine really has a bearing on how we treat seven and eight. I'll read in item nine. A resolution approving an interlocal cooperation agreement between Provo City and Springville City to share net benefits from the Springville Rising development. This will be presented by our Economic Development Division Director, Cody Hill. Cody, welcome.

Thank you, Councilman Garrett, and thank you, city council members. Really appreciate the opportunity to present this item. As mentioned in the work session, I think this is a really great opportunity for cities to, two cities to work together. A lot of the time you see development come and have cities play off each other and say, who can offer me the best benefits? Who can offer me the tax breaks? And I'll make my decision on who, you know, where I'm going to get the sweetest deal. And I really like to see Clyde Company approach Springville and Provo and say, hey, we have a development that is Provo on your southeast border and Springville on your north border. And we'd love to see a development here that benefits everyone equally. So a little bit about the background of this development. It's like I said, it's in Southeast Provo, right on the border with Springville. And it contains a mix of residential and commercial. The majority of the commercial retail and office is in Springville with all of the Residential being located in Provo, and it's about 35% condos and then the rest are townhomes. So 65 units for townhomes and 90 units for condos and then a little bit like 10,000, about 10,000 square feet of retail for the Provo side. And we've been working with the. city manager and and the city manager over there uh troy fitzgerald in springville city has been working with me and his council to to figure out an interlocal agreement whereby we can share net benefits from this development and so we discussed terms of this development in the work session um some of the terms that that we would probably want to to reconsider and amend and i've spoken with brian jones who has a couple of amendments already to that agreement ready to to go with amended motion from from you and so I'm happy to discuss any questions that you may have or if you want to refer to Brian on those amendments as well any questions for Cody

Council. Okay. All right. Okay. Brian, let's turn to you then.

Yes, please. Thank you, Councillor Garrett. Kevin, can you put that red line up and we'll just show them the two changes. So there were essentially three issues, my understanding, discussed in the work session. I've made edits to two of them that I think address the concerns. Then the third one is the one that would require some more time. And so it's really a question of how you feel about that one. But Kevin, if you scroll down, keep going. This is the introductory document. OK, the exhibit is the agreement. And then right there in paragraph 2b, I proposed changing the end date to 2057 instead of 2042. So that would make it a 30 year agreement instead of a 15 year agreement. I did confirm that state law prohibits interlocals from being more than 50 years. So that's the outside max. But based on some of the comments in the meeting, I propose changing it to 30. We can obviously change it to whatever number up to 50 that you'd like. And then down in section four, Kevin, can you turn on all changes so we can see the red line? Up to the left where it says simple markup, if you'll change that to all markup. There we go, thank you. So down there in section four, one of the concerns I had was that the trigger required 90% of both sides of the project to be built out. And I said that the nightmare scenario is they build 85% of the residential and we have 85% of the cost, but we never trigger the revenue sharing. So based on the email that Cody had exchanged with the Springville City Manager, I propose changing this to, it goes into effect as soon as a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one building within Provo City and one in Springville City. So as soon as there's one building on each side, we go ahead and start. And based on the email from the Springville City Manager, I believe that that would be acceptable to them. So I think that's a much better trigger than the one originally. So the one comment from work session that none of this addresses is whether or not you're comfortable with the calculation of what our costs are. And so there was a lot of discussion about that. This version of the agreement just focuses on public safety costs. There were various comments in the meeting about whether there really were other costs or not and how much they would be. So that's just an open question for you. I think this addresses two of your concerns. And if those two concerns are the most important, it would be feasible to make a motion to accept these changes and approve it tonight. which, as Cody said, I think puts us in a pretty good position with Springville because we're actually sending them back. It's kind of like a purchase agreement where we're sending them back a counteroffer that we've already approved. They just need to accept it as opposed to kind of continuing back and forth. But the other question about the cost calculation is something that you'd have to decide whether you were comfortable with or not.

Great. Thank you, Brian. Questions for Brian? All right. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Cody. We'll open this item for public comment. If there are any here who would like to speak, and this is, for now, it's just the interlocal agreement between the two cities.

angie carter and the neighborhood district chair for the east neighborhood district we discussed this at our meeting last week this project and things did come up related to the interlocal agreement that i think would be interesting some of the things that came up that i don't see in this agreement are infrastructure costs things like water sewer those kinds of things that would need to be built out if that's not included in here those are going to be some of our costs Also, there's going to be costs for schools. So these are going to be homeowner occupied, most of these, and we will have children that are going to school here. So we need to be thinking about what does that mean? Well, right now, probably trying to decide if they're going to close some schools, but if we get more students, then there could be the possibility of having to increase the amount of schools that are, or the capacity of schools around them. Not sure, you probably need to talk to the school board, maybe Jennifer Partridge, for instance, is in this neighborhood and find out what the capacity is at Provost, Pro Peaks and Spring Creek that are all elementary schools in that area. There are no middle schools or high school in that area. And so everyone's saying you need to be bused, which then puts infrastructure road issues on what you're dealing with. And then you have interchanges in terms of roads, in terms of The businesses that will be there, it splits there. So some of that would be Springville's cost. But up on State Street, I guess that's UDOT. So somebody's going to have to build better roads there for this. And then You know, we're talking about property tax, but what about sales tax sharing? I haven't read the whole interlocal agreement, but is that included there? And have you defined what a net benefit is? What does that even mean in terms of this agreement? How do you calculate each other's costs and how do you calculate, you know, what the revenue is and who's getting what and making sure that we're both being honest with each other? Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you, Angie. Others?

I'm Lynn Sorensen, Pleasant View neighborhood, and I was born in Sedgwick, Kansas. I'm concerned about what seems to be a trivial matter, but I used to write headlines for the Arizona Republic, and naming is very important. I am not pleased that this development, whether it goes through or not, is called Springville Rising. That leaves Provo out of it altogether. So I would like very much for someone to come up with something so that it doesn't stick forever. So if you want to remember things that have stuck forever, Watergate, Obamacare, Summer of Love, whatever, once it gets going, there's no getting around it. Now, obviously, some places have solved this problem. Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, it's Twin Cities. Dallas, Fort Worth, using both names. There's got to be a way that this cannot seem like it is solely belonging to Springville, notwithstanding that they're getting all that tax revenue. I mean, I have concerns in many ways, but at this stage, I really think we need to be submitting to the people who are putting this together some form of a name. I don't know if that's Proville or what it might be, but there's got to be something. Please consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Lynne. Anyone else? If not, we'll close public comment and bring the item to council for discussion. Councillor Whitlock.

Yeah, so I appreciate those comments, particularly from Angie. Just to answer that question about net benefit, for those who are interested, essentially the way the formula works is it's the revenue, which is a function of sales tax and property tax, minus public safety costs, and that's the net benefit. And then essentially, whoever has the highest higher net benefit then pays a 50-50 split of the delta. And that's how it would work. So to answer your question, I still have the concerns I expressed in the work meeting. Again, I'm a little less strong on that opinion. I don't know if Director Pepperoni's here. A little less strong on that opinion, given the fact that we don't have as many roads as I assumed. But there still are pretty large cost categories that we'd be responsible for that would not be accounted for in this formula. I mean, we'd have to get more of the details about sewer, stormwater, parks and rec. sanitation i the thing is i don't think like our sanitation costs fully cover our are not fully covered by the fees i think they're partially covered by taxes right so anyway i but but again you guys could push back i just i'd like to understand that better my understanding of how the way like a suburban suburban works is the street and sidewalks maintenance is only just a part of the overall set of services you're getting from the city Yeah, please respond. Yeah.

Yeah, so you are correct. Not every single cost is covered. It's just public safety. The logic behind that is just because the public safety takes up the majority. If you were to look at all of the services that a city provides, public service takes up the largest percentage of a city's budget expenditures, and they're not covered by any type of. Um, you know, additional fee, the more fire, the more police you use, the more you would be charged. That doesn't exist. Whereas, you know, it exists in other utilities where we have enterprise funds that help cover the costs for additional uses for it. Um, I'm sympathetic parks and recreation. There's going to be, um, a lot of homes here. A lot of kids, they're going to be using using parks and recreation resources. Um, and those costs are not covered in this agreement, like you said. And so the question is just how granular do we want to get in encapsulating all the costs that are going to be borne by the city from this proposal, from this proposed development that are not covered by additional fees like utilities or by the public safety consideration of the equation.

I mean, if there's one one theme that I picked up from my first budget cycle, it's that we have a huge maintenance backlog. I mean, we just heard it today. How many million dollars of sidewalk ADA backlog? We have this massive maintenance backlog that's not covered by the taxes we collect from our single family home residences and essentially the way that we water. Right. We're having to raise our water rates because we have this huge deferred maintenance backlog. And so all those, so I hear what you're saying when you're saying that like on a marginal cost basis, safety maybe is the easiest to calculate because it's like you're using a per call assumption. What I'm saying is we're taking on a bunch of long-term maintenance liabilities that are maybe harder to calculate on a marginal cost basis, but nonetheless will be real. Whereas I feel like when you look at the development, what is it? 60% of it is on the provo side, 40% on the, roughly on the Springfield side, they're taking on a lot less infrastructure and then getting the majority of the tax revenue benefits because of sales tax. And the way that this agreement is structured, like I said, is if it's a low sales tax year, you could imagine a world where we're actually slightly ahead on that benefit and then we end up paying to them. So that's my fundamental concern with the structure.

Yeah. And I'm not opposed to that. If we want to add transportation, maintenance and parks and rec costs to the equation, I'm totally fine with that. And then I think one thing that hasn't been said, but I think it's important is the additional revenues that we receive that are in that equation are just property tax and sales tax. So impact fees, which are used to cover future infrastructure projects, are not considered in that. So any impact fees that Clyde plays to Provo, that just goes into our impact fee funds to support facilities, future facilities. And that's fair.

Yeah. In fact, Councillor Whitlock, if you don't mind, if I piggyback on that, again, not opposed to anything you're saying, I do think the one caution i would say is i think we need to be really careful that we don't include any costs that impact fees should be going for because i think it will undermine our impact fee study and actually subject because we would then be getting money yeah that's a good point against impact fees that we're presuming that the study is based on us not getting so to the extent that i really like that you were focusing in on future maintenance because i think that that is something that that isn't accounted for uh but in you know you're talking we've talked about sewer and infrastructure inside the development the developer themselves will be paying for that so the city is only paying for things to connect it that would not otherwise be required without it right and that's a lot of what many times the impact fees are going for that same with parks and rec a lot that we've got a parks and rec impact fee so again maintenance i i totally get Anything else, we just need to be really careful that we're not doing something, we're not incorporating a cost that impact fees are supposed to be going to.

So purely focused on maintenance.

Jeff, I'm not as worried because our sales tax, our property tax, we haven't really raised it. It's because we do get that, what is it, 12% now return on utilities back to the general fund.

For power.

Power, sewer, water, garbage, all of it comes back. So I'm not as concerned about that because it seems like that's going to be protected with the housing tax. But to Angie's point about the schools, we did talk about the schools, and the mayor had a very good perspective on that. And we can't negotiate for the schools. If the school district needs to negotiate with Nebo School District, then the school district needs to take that on. We can negotiate for Provo City and, again, Springville City. It is sad to say, but if that's what Jennifer's worried about, she's going to have to reach out to NEVO and have some kind of agreement or something like we have ours. But the mayor can, before I get to the mayor and let her address that comment. Gordon, we did ask in work meeting about the utilities. Are we providing water, sewer, stormwater, and electricity to this development?

Yes, excuse me. Yes. And so I did hear about that, the question. So we in this development, the developers and putting all the new infrastructure. So there's no actual dollars the city is putting in this. They're also doing a lot of improvements on on State Street for UDOT. So they're required to put sidewalk along the curb and gutter and really make that a lot more with the trail along there as well. So they're also building part of the Spring Creek Trail that we don't have to build. So those are all things that are coming. The maintenance is an issue. A lot of their roads are private, so that won't be a significant issue. For water, stormwater, transportation, we collect the normal fees that we'd collect from all the residents. With road, we also get, CDBG is, I think, based upon linear roads and population base, so those will incrementally increase through some process that the state organizes.

Is this still CDBG?

So the CDBG funds are based upon the gasoline tax, other taxes, but the state distributes it based on your population, a formula that's for population and road miles. So as you increase your population and road miles, then you get additional funding.

Are we talking community development block grants?

No, CDBG, or excuse me, I did say CDBG. I meant BNC road funds.

Oh, BNC, okay.

Too many alphabet letters this late at night.

right i'll let the mayor adjust that okay so what i brought up was that when we talk about um it's not with you but um when we talk about the schools um i don't want to put words in their mouth but they the way that they get funds from the city is through property tax so any improvement to property does give them more revenue they do worry and have uh sometimes have concerns if there's going to be a tax increment financing scheme, because then that takes away from, especially if it's housing, because that takes away from what they would be getting to cover the cost of those extra students that might go in. However, when there are just new students that come to an area a housing subdivision that comes to an area that has students those costs are covered by the weighted people unit and mechanism at the state right plus they get that increased property tax increment or that increased my ad is an increment they get that increased property tax um revenue and so it's actually good for the schools to have students move in especially where we are decreasing in students and they are losing that funding concerning busing if it's more than um i'm gonna get it wrong but if it's more than a certain distance that's usually covered by the state but i can't that's back when i was on the school board i don't want to speak for them at all but that's kind of like some of those concerns for having a new development with students coming in, I don't think that those are gonna be concerns in this particular case.

Any other council discussion?

I'd like to make a, let me ask, Cody, I think it's very clear from the council that we like this agreement. I'm purely pushing for us to get the best deal we can get. And I think both Springville and Provo want this deal to happen. I personally think this is a better deal for Springville. That's my assessment. The council may disagree. So what I'm curious is, if we were to continue this item for you to go back and negotiate a little bit, is that going to put this whole thing at risk? Or do you think that the timelines could line up?

don't know that there's a need to continue i think if you feel obviously feel strongly about including more costs and i think you can add that as as an amendment to the motion and push it through and get a vote and then we can add that language in and then hand it over to springville for them to consider and i know troy fitzgerald has been so this amendment so this agreement has already been adopted without our amendments by springville city council and they've given um troy fitzgerald the city manager um some leeway in altering that that agreement, as long as there's not significant substance of changes to that agreement, and still enter into it. And so when we make our amendments, approve it, give it back to them, then the balls in their court, whether our changes are significant, or they're not so significant that they can't just sign it. So I often administratively that I've Yeah, I think that would be my preferred direction for you to go. Okay. In that case, I think we could go that direction.

So I'd like to make a motion to approve this agreement, this interlocal agreement with the amendments that have been made to the current document with the additional direction that Cody goes and tries to negotiate a slightly more favorable cost formula, pro-provo.

Is there a second?

I'll second that. Thank you, Councillor Whipple.

Any discussion on the motion? Councillor Bogdan?

I would still like it to go to 50 years instead of 30. I think if we're looking at a more favorable for Provo, 50 years is more favorable than 30. And that pushes it to the max of the limit, and then we've got it for that long.

So that would still fit within what Councillor Whitlock has. I would agree with that as well.

Yeah, for the record, I agree with that. That's a great point. We don't want to see Provost sinking. Should I update the motion, Brian, with that?

Well, yeah. Let me clarify one thing about your intent, though. With regard to the cost proposal, you've essentially said you're delegating it to Cody to negotiate the best deal on that that he can and whatever he gets is approved. Same thing with the 30 to 50, like you want him to ask for 50, but it's okay if they only agree to 30, or is it you're only approving it if they agree to 50?

I actually think substantively, Councillor Bogdan's right, that that's probably a more financially substantive ask for us, to be honest.

So in that case, I would say make that part of your motion that it is approved contingent upon the trigger that's on the screen, 50 years, and the best cost calculation formula that Cody can negotiate.

Okay. I make a motion that we approve this interlocal agreement based on the changes showed on this updated document. and contingent to getting 50 years as the duration of the agreement and a better, more favorable cost calculation proposal.

I'll second your substitute motion. Thank you, Councillor Bogdan.

Any discussion? Councillor Christensen, did you have a comment earlier? No. Okay. I'll call for a vote. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan?

Yes.

Councillor Hoban? Yes. Councillor Whipple?

I would be okay if it were the 3250. I'm willing to say yes to this, but I think 50, I don't want that to kill it. So I'm yes with that understanding if that's helpful for Cody at all in his negotiations.

Okay. Thank you. Council Ripple. That's been noted. Councillor Garrett. Yes. Councillor McKay. Councillor McKay reported that her signal is in and out of service. So we'll excuse her vote at this time. Councillor Christensen.

Yes.

That motion passes by a vote of 6-0. Brian, having passed that, do we move to 7 and 8 now?

um yes with this caveat um so i mean i think you should hear the presentation on seven and eight um we do not at the moment have a binding interlocal agreement and so the question becomes do you really want to approve either the general plan or the rezone without one um you could We could do, there's a few options here. One is you hear them and get the developer's input presentation, ask the questions you have, and we're ready to move forward later when we hear back from Springville with nothing and just continue it after the presentations. We could... Well, the other thing that occurred to me that now that I'm going to say it because I already said there were three things, but I actually don't like this one. So the rezone is not effective until the development agreement is signed so you could instruct. The interlocal agreement? Well, the development agreement.

Okay.

Right? So you could approve both and then… ask the mayor to not sign the development agreement until the interlocal agreement has been approved. That's a weird way of doing it. So the better way of doing it would be to actually add language to the resolution saying that it's not effective until both the development agreement and the interlocal cooperation agreement have been fully executed. And so if we get to the point where you're ready to vote and you're satisfied with the development agreement, we could add that language.

Thank you, Brian. Are the developers here? Let's go ahead and hear the development and hear from the developers then. I should read in this item first.

And I would go ahead and read in both of them. I'm sorry? There's two more, right? Because there's a general point. Seven and eight. Yeah. Or eight and, oh, you're right, seven and eight, because we skipped and went to nine first. Yeah, so if you could read in both seven and eight.

So I'll read in these two items, an ordinance amending the general plan map designation of real property generally located at 3657 South Sierra Vista Way from the industrial designation to the mixed use designation in the Spring Creek neighborhood. and then the next one is an ordinance amending his own map classification of real property generally generally located at 3657 south sierra vista way from the pic zone to the medium density residential and general commercial zones in spring creek aaron and this will be presented by aaron ardmore

yes thank you council i'll be very brief so the developers can come up here and address some of the questions that have been asked so you've heard a lot about this already through the previous items let me just go through the the other legislative asks that they have on this to to get to the point where they can develop what's being proposed first is this general plan map amendment so to take it out of the industrial designation and move it into mixed use designation would be the first step That would enable them to then amend the zone map as well, to go from the planned industrial commercial zone as it currently is, to a mix of medium density residential for the majority of it, and then the general commercial zone for Provo's commercial portion of the project, which on their applications is called the Ironton Redevelopment Project, not Springville Horizon, just to note that. And then the concept plan here, you've seen this. This is condos up in the brown stacked units in the top right there. The yellow or the golden and purple units are townhomes. All of these would be for sale. Through the development agreement, they've proffered that only 25% of all the units could be rented at any one time. They've also proffered that there be an initial two-year owner occupancy requirement on each of these sales. And then there's some other elements that they hope to kind of work out with UDOT and UTA that they've identified in the development agreement that came up with planning commission discussion. So that's all I've got on this. Unless you've got questions for me, we can let the developers come up.

Questions for Aaron?

Thank you, Aaron.

Thank you. We'll hear from the developer.

Thank you, Council and Mayor, for having us tonight. We're excited about this development. Could you tell us your name? Oh, yes. Sorry. My name is Spencer Warren. I represent the Clyde Companies, and I'm part of their development team. You've already heard most of what you need to hear about this, both zone changes or the amendment to the general plan and the zone change. Primarily, I'll just address the comments the Planning Commission gave us and then happy to answer questions. The Planning Commission did approve this and they had generally three comments for us. The first was to buffer the industrial zone so that the residential and the industrial had a little bit of space between them. And as you can see on the site plan here, there's been some green space added where you see a top left from my perspective, you see detention basin that green space buffers the entire West side of this development from Sierra Vista way and the. The commercial or the industrial that's directly to the West of that. the second uh ask from the plan commission was to put a structure within the setback on main street inside of provo this plan or this site plan does not show the update there but in the upper right corner of parking lot b we've proposed to put a 16 by 16 foot monument sign to address the need for building to go there And then the third ask that they had was to consider the pedestrian experience. And so, as has already been discussed, there's some extension of the Spring Creek Trail. There's added, let's see, art walk is what we term it, but there's some desirable features to see for a pedestrian, we'll call it that. And so those comments have been addressed in this updated site plan. What questions can I answer for you?

so Spencer to the earlier comment so the housing portion of this development is being called what the Ironton that is a great question it doesn't have that official name at the moment okay the name of the entity is Springville Rising right name of the neighborhood area is Ironton so those those are its nicknames for now okay but that could clearly be designated with welcome to Provo signs on the appropriate roads yes and entrances yes and then maybe a community name yeah I I mean Proville that's a good one I hadn't heard that one yet um but yeah this we have not given a specific name okay okay other questions for Spencer or Clyde companies counselor Bogdan

I like the project. What gives me a lot of heartburn, a lot, a lot of heartburn is there is no perpetuity in your homeowner occupancy.

There is for the 25%. There's a two-year deed restriction for the entire place, the entire development. And then there's a 25% restriction to rentals. So 75% of that will be permanently homeowner occupied. Only 25% will be allowed to go into the rental pool. And that 75% is in perpetuity.

So are these sold or are these on rentals?

No, these will be sold. They're all for sale.

So how would you enforce that 25%?

the same as what was discussed earlier through the application in the development agreement, or the template, excuse me, in the development agreement, as well as through the HOA.

I like that you have 25% rental. But for me, I have a hard time that you don't have perpetuity in your homeowner occupancy on the deed restriction. I think that's really clear to somebody that's going to buy it. I think that helps it be more enforceable. I do like the 25% as well. But for me, I would also need that strictness of every time it's sold, people understand that they have to own that place and stick in that place a year or two.

that that is the intent of our hoa and and uh restriction through the development agreement is to keep it so that 75 of those in condos and townhouses will always be owner occupied right i get that but i would also appreciate it as a restriction specifically in perpetuity yeah thank you counselor whipple

Yeah, I think Proville is much better than Springo would be. I was wondering, so this project, would it have to meet our gateway standards that we have for Provo for a monument sign or for other design elements? That may be a better question for Aaron than it is for the developer.

Aaron is nodding his head yes.

Okay. Did the developer know about the gateway design standards? Did I just spring something new on him?

No. Well, on me as an individual, perhaps, but not on our design team.

Okay. I just wanted to be sure that those would be met because I really like this project, and I like that this gives a really great entrance to Provo and a wonderful transition between Provo and Springville. And I think doing kind of the monument sign and our gateway standards will help – to mark and kind of celebrate that common line that we have with each other. So I'm excited about it and I'm really happy that you're here to do this project.

Thank you, we are too.

Councilor Whitlock.

Echoing some of my comments from the last item, I love that all these units are for sale. I love that there's condos for sale. That's not a product we see very often. Condos are the new starter home. That's just the reality that we live in, as we've discussed. And I'm really happy that there's going to be 90 families that can buy these and live close to dining retail i think that's amazing i also appreciate all the green space there's a lot of parks in this development so i think you guys have done a wonderful job thank you i really appreciate it and i like i love this development i want to make happen great thank you very much

I also am encouraged by this project, Spencer, and appreciate the commitment that Clyde Companies has made to develop this part of our city. It has great I-15 access from there. 1400 South is underutilized. But to see life in this part of our city will be great. If there's no other comment, or questions for Spencer or discussion, I'll call for a vote. Thank you, Spencer. Thank you.

Chair Garrett? Yes. I just wanted to, well, let's see, are you doing the general plan one first? Yes. Okay. My comments are about the reason, not about the general plan.

Would we need to add the stipulation to the general plan that you suggested? Or is that just on the rezone?

Well, I suppose. I guess that's up in your discretion. The general plan doesn't grant any vested rights, right? So if you approve the general plan and then the whole deal falls through, you can just undo the general plan and you've not given anybody any rights because it's just discretionary. It's just a guideline to begin with. So I'm less concerned about that one, but we can certainly add it if you want so that you don't have to go through the step of undoing it afterwards.

Seems easy.

Yeah. Can you, Kevin, can you put up the ordinance then for the general plan? Let's see. And then scroll down. I would suggest that in subparagraph C, I would add right there where it says immediately after. I would add the words if you're able to edit it or you had a PDF. I would say this ordinance takes effect immediately after the interlocal, what did we, let's see, what's the agreement called? Interlocal Participation Agreement, Cody, is that the name of it? After- Cooperation. Cooperation. After the relevant interlocal cooperation agreement with Springville has been executed by both parties and yeah and so with with that change that makes it so yep that's just one more trigger before it's effective so it would just so if that meets what you're expecting then we would want a motion to add that language and then a subs and then a second vote on the amended uh ordinance

All right, I'll make a motion to update the implied motion to make an ordinance text amendment to the general plan for the property located at 3657 Sierra. You're scrolling, Kevin, while I'm reading. Sierra Vista Way, subject to the amended language that this is contingent upon the interlocal cooperation agreement being executed.

I'll second that.

So we have a motion by Councillor Whitlock with a second by Rachel Whipple. We will open public comment for this item at this time before we vote.

You can tell we're getting tired.

It's been a long meeting, I'm tired too. I'm Angie Carter, the East Neighborhood District Chair. And again, this came up in our meeting. The residents are generally supportive of this, but as you know, our area struggles with a lot of over rental of the area. So Becky Bogdan's concerns echo our concerns. How will you enforce owner occupancy in this area And we would recommend that it not be approved until there's some pretty strict enforcement of that here. Otherwise, we're just going to end up with even lower owner occupancy in our area than we already have. We think that interlocal agreement will take care of some of our concerns about most of the sales tax revenue going into Springville, but that is a concern that we have as well that Provo seems to be getting all the housing without the tax revenue to support all of that. So it sounds like some of that's been addressed, but I would like you to know that that came up in our meeting as well. That's all that we have. But I just wanted you to know that. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Angie.

To that point, can you speak just in more detail how it will it be in the So basically you're making HOA, correct, for this? And then you're going to have the 25% rental being forced through the HOA?

Yes, as well as the application that was discussed with the prior development.

So is the HOA board going to be, like, will Clyde be on the HOA board? Do you pretend to have control over the HOA?

If Clyde owned all of the houses, then we could. You can't. It has to be owner. We'd have to rent them to be able to do that, which we're not going to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Spencer. Sure, Garrett. If I could just clarify. Let's in case there was any confusion about this. I think that we have open public comment for both 7 and 8 right so that we're not. Let's not do separate public comment for the general plan and for the reason, but thank you Brian.

OK, so I won't close public comment yet until it's clear that this public comment applies to both items 7 and 8. on the same project one relative to the general plan map designation and the other to the zone map classification seeing no other public comment I'll close public comment and we'll continue with our vote on item seven the general plan map designation Councillor Bogdan so Jeff I think

the homeowners and the homeowner association, they can change that 25% in their CCNRs, can't they?

Yes, but they've, I think what may not be clear here is that I understand now, let me back up and talk about how this is done. So they have given us a draft, okay? The way, and I'm skipping ahead to number eight, but the rezone item does not approve the draft they've submitted it says that the mayor is authorized to negotiate a development agreement consistent with their representations in this meeting. So the key here is that if there's something that you want that you wouldn't vote for the rezone unless they promise to do it, you need to make sure that they promise to do it on the record here in this meeting, and then that'll get included in the development agreement. Now, I'm understanding from the comments that they've already made that they are not just relying on the ccnrs and the hoa but that they are willing to do the same deed restriction process that we talked about in the previous item so i i believe they have already made that proffer and that that would be part of what we would put in the final development agreement can you specifically say what that proffer would be is that in perpetuity two years in perpetuity or is that

What exactly would that be?

Well, they do need to clarify that point about the, but let's clarify again because it is a little bit confusing because the 75%, 25% thing. The 75% is already in perpetuity. Because they have said that they can't have more than 25% of it rented. So 75% of the units must be owner-occupied in perpetuity.

But I think the question that Councillor Bogdan asked was, what's the mechanism enforcing that? Because if it's just the CC&Rs, then the HOA board can change it.

Right. Right. Yes. That's fair.

And our response to that is that we'll plan to use the template as you've outlined that gives Provo City's law enforcement the ability to enforce that as well. Okay, perfect.

I just need to hear you say what that means.

That means that for the first two years, 100% of these houses and condos will be owner-occupied. That's what the two-year deed restriction is. In perpetuity after that, 75% of them will be owner-occupied, 25% of them can be rented.

And that's going to be on the deed restrictions?

That's as part of the development agreement, yes.

Does that work?

Yes, well, I want to clarify, because of Councillor Hoban's comment during the last one, I want to clarify, I think there was a misinterpretation of something I said earlier. I do think this works for rentals. My concern was that Catrice was raising something that, to my recollection, we've never talked about before, which is a unit that is not owner-occupied because somebody's living in it for free who is not the owner. That we haven't thought about before. But I do think that all of this works if the units are being rented.

Okay. So theoretically, it's going to be works and the city can enforce on it if 30% of those units are rented.

Yes, and we have done that exact model in other development agreements before with other properties. We haven't had a violation yet. In fact, I don't know that any of the developments have actually finished being constructed. But we have a deed restriction template. We have development agreement language. We have the language we need to be able to say that If any more than 25% of the units in this development are being rented, we can deny any unit above the 25% mark a rental dwelling license and then prosecute them for renting without a license. That's how we understand it as well.

How do you tell which ones by right can rent and which ones can't?

Well, I think our enforcement would be based on time. The first 25% would be the ones that we would give a pass to, and as soon as somebody above that rented, we would prosecute them.

Thank you. Quick question to follow up on that. So the people who get in on that 25% would be the order in which they apply for their rental dwelling license, if I'm understanding correctly. So if they were renting it out without the rental dwelling license, they wouldn't have their place secured in that queue or to be part of that 25% and they could just be enforced on. Yes. And would it make sense to have any penalties attached to the HOA as well? instead of just the original or the individual property owners? Because this is kind of a community enforcement thing if we've got this in the CCNRs. But if we're relying on that entity to be that first level of policing, would it make sense for there be penalties to that entity for failing to do that?

I think that's up to... the council. Yeah, we haven't done that in the past. I certainly, we are expecting the HOA to enforce and we would want them to be the first enforcer. So I don't know for sure what those penalties would be. We would have to actually build those somehow into Yeah, I'm not quite sure how to do that because... Yeah, that's why I was wondering.

We don't have the mechanism in place for that already.

Yeah.

Okay. I mean, that makes sense. And honestly, I think this would encourage anybody in that development to really be sure that they properly do their rental dwelling license application in a timely matter, because otherwise they're not going to have a chance to do that. Would we also be keeping track of Like if we drop down, like somebody doesn't renew their RDL, and so like could they lose the right to rent their home because theirs is expired and somebody else hops in with their application?

Good question. I would probably advocate for not doing it that way, but that would be something we would need to clarify or it's going to be up to enforcement at the time that it happens.

Does our enforcement generally send notices that, hey, your RDL is about to expire. If you're continuing to rent your property, you might want to fill out this thing to let us know that you're continuing to rent?

I don't believe so, but I don't know that for sure. That might be a... Malia is giving a thumbs up that they do do that.

Okay. Well, in that case, then they've got at least constructive notice that they would need to do it. So I'd feel okay about that.

Thank you, Councillor Whipple.

Thanks.

Okay. We'll call for a vote then on this, Councillor Hovind.

Yeah, I think some of these comments and questions, it just seems like we are creating a nightmare for ourselves. And I don't know how this is really, from a practical standpoint, going to be enforceable. But I have all the faith in the world that Brian can figure this out. But I'm worried about what we're handing off to the administration and what they're going to have to deal with. It seems a lot messier than some of the other ones we've done, but maybe it's just my perception. I don't know.

I don't think it's messier than, well, it's messier. Yes, you're right. It's messier than other ones we've done because we haven't done one before where we had this percentage. Before it was just, None of them can be.

Or a percentage of them can be.

We did do one with a percentage before. I think we're just asking questions we haven't asked before. You're right. I was actually having a text conversation with a former member of our office who's watching the meeting. The single greatest danger to enforcement here is lack of interest in the enforcement. This is a priority for the council now. And I am confident that this mechanism can work. Somebody at the city has got to make it work five years from now, 10 years from now. But the alternative is nothing, right? Because there's not some alternative out there. I mean, the alternative is to just not approve any deals. Ever.

Well, yeah. I mean, or just have the two years and then there's not a percentage after that.

Right. Right.

But even, even that's, that's easier to enforce then. I mean, if you know, for two years, there's no rentals at that place. It's a lot easier to enforce than, Oh, we're going to 25%. Okay. Now one's in and one's out and, you know, just managing that. And I just, I don't, all right. It doesn't seem like there's an answer, but I sure am good at finding complaints.

Okay, we'll call for a vote on the motion. This is item seven, amending the general plan map designation. Councillor Bogdan?

Yes.

Councillor Hoban?

Yes, to the new development called Hoban Rising. Yes.

Councillor Whipple?

Yes.

Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor Whitlock?

Yes.

The motion passes 5-0 with Councillors McKay and Christensen excused.

now on to item eight which is the ordinance amending the zone map classification of the same development brian did we need to do a second vote um that's how we've normally done i mean jeff's motion did imply approval but normally uh based on our rules we would have considered that motion to only add the the red line to it and now you're voting on the amended So you're voting on the implied motion as amended by Jeff's motion for number seven. But you don't need a discussion. You just vote on that.

OK.

We're voting on item seven as amended. Councilor Bogdan? Yes. Councilor Holman?

Yes.

Councilor Whipple?

Yes.

Councilor Garrett? Yes. Councilor Whitlock?

Yes.

The vote passes. The item passes 5-0 with Councilors McKay and Christensen excused. OK, now on to item 8, which is amending the zone map classification.

Can you put it up, Kevin? Because I'm going to make you go through the whole entire same convoluted procedure, except that there's an easier way to do this. So Kevin, if you can go to part 2 in the Word document of number 8. OK. Okay, if you scroll down to part two, that last sentence, zone map classification change described in part one is not effective until the date of final execution of the development agreement and the relevant interlocal cooperation agreement with Springville. Okay, so based on our prior discussions, my suggestion would be that someone make a motion to add that language And then after that motion passes, you'll have to vote on the as amended ordinance.

OK. So I'll look for a motion then on this resolution as amended. To amend it. To amend it. Yeah.

All right, I'd like to make a motion that we update the, we pass the ordinance amending the zone map classification of the property located at 3657 South Sierra Vista Way from the planned commercial industrial zone to the median density residential zone and the general commercial zones. And subject to the updated language requiring that the interlocal cooperation agreement with Springville be executed.

Thank you, Councillor Whitlock. Do we have a second?

I will second that.

Councillor Bodden. Thank you. Is there any discussion?

A quick discussion. It's fun hazing you, Jeff.

I'm the only freshman.

All right. I'll call for a vote. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan? Yes. The motion passes by a vote 5-0 with Councillors McKay and Christensen excused. We'll now vote on the implied motion as amended. Councillor Hogan?

Yes.

Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett. Yes. Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councillor Bogdan. Yes. That motion also passes by a vote of 5-0 with Councillors McKay and Christensen excused. We'll now turn to item 10 on our agenda, a resolution approving the appropriation of $14,171.11 in the general fund for a contractual sales tax increment post-performance payment to day's market presented by Cody Hill.

Thank you again, council member Garrett and council members. So this budget appropriation request is to fulfill our obligation today's market. We entered into an agreement with them in 2019 for the remittance of sales tax increment. Their base year value is about $39,000 of sales tax revenues to Provo City. And the formula is that we take what we have collected in a year, subtract that base year value, and then half goes to Days Market and half goes to Provo City with a $100,000 cap. And that $100,000 was used to cover costs associated with improvements to Days Market. And We've definitely seen an impressive return on that, adjusting for inflation, as we discussed in the work session. We've seen 111% increase in the amount of sales tax revenues to the city. And so, as calculated, this $14,171 would fulfill that obligation. And I estimate that they will reach that cap next year, even though it will be done two and a half years early.

happy to uh great thank you cody we have any questions for cody thank you this item is open for public comment if anyone wishes to make a comment if not we'll close public comment and invite council discussion counselor wedlock

I'd just like to make a comment that I love to see a small neighborhood grocer be so successful. And I hope we can get more of them in Provo.

Thank you. If there's no other discussion, we'll call for a vote. Councillor Whipple? Yes. Councillor Garrett? Yes. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. And Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

That motion passes by a vote of five to zero with councillors McKay and Christianson excused. We'll now move to item 11 of resolution appointing an executive director for the Provo municipal council. Rachel, do you know who's presenting this item? Cause it was supposed to be our council chair. Who's out of town. We were sad to lose our executive director last month. Justin served our council for four to six years, I think, and was outstanding in every way. He accepted a similar job back in Nevada, where he was before coming to Provo, but really served us well. After much, we opened this position to, uh the public and we received many applications which were screened the council as a whole participated in interviews of top candidates and unanimously we selected Ezra Nair who is actually here Ezra we can wave stand and wave Ezra previously served on the council for Vineyard and also is employed by Utah County. He brings with him significant experience in council government and municipal government and with an influence by county service as well. So we're grateful to have him with us. We will, is there any discussion regarding this motion to appoint him?

just pointing out that it was uh we got a lot of really great applications and we interviewed a number of them and it was a hard decision but not that hard we're very happy to have you it was it was a hard decision okay i'll call for a vote then a counselor garrett yes counselor whitlock

yes councillor bogdan yes councillor hoban emphatically yes councillor whipple yes so that motion passes by a vote of 5-0 with counselors mckay and christiansen excused welcome ezra we look forward to working with you and trust that you'll help us find ways that we can make our council meetings shorter Item 12, an ordinance amending the zone map classification of real property generally located at 1804 North Geneva Road from the one family residential zone to the specific development plan, SDP zone. This is in the Lakeview North neighborhood presented by Dustin Wright.

All right. Thank you very much, Council. So this property here, it's a 10 acre piece of land over on Geneva Road. The applicant is looking to create a single family residential subdivision here and looking to rezone the property. Here highlighted in red is the proposed subdivision layout of this land, single family residential lots, 8,500 square feet and larger. There we go. So here is the existing current zone is the single family R120. And our general plan has a designation here for this area to be the SDP4 zone. And that's what they're requesting and it fits with what that map there shows as far as units go or lots just the configuration of the street network is has changed. But other than that, it's generally going to be the same there. So pretty straightforward. Any questions you'd have for me. I'd be happy to answer those.

Any questions for Dustin. Okay, thank you, Dustin. We'll open this item for public comment. There's the developer here. Would you like to come forward and make any comment? And then we'll see if we have any questions for you. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Jay Henry. I live in Orem, about a mile from the property. We've owned the property for about six years and just looking to develop it. We bought it with the intent of developing it. We've had to wait for about, well, six years now with the sewer and water to get to the property so we could. But we tried another plan here about four years ago of twin homes, and we were turned down on that. And so we went back to the general plan, and so our plan here has been explained, is directly in line with what the general plan is. In fact, if you look at our property there on the bottom, and you count the number of lots, there's 34 lots in the general plan, and there's 34 lots in our development. So we look forward to moving forward with it. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Jay. Any questions for the developer, for Jay, Councillor Bogdan?

In the planning commission, they recommended having a walking path open. Have you talked to Ben about this?

To who? Ben May. Ben May. You know, I've met several times with Ben May. I don't know as he would have. I didn't discuss this item. He had several concerns.

Right. I know.

About it. And to my knowledge, we've ironed out all of his issues and concerns. I didn't know he was involved in this specific one.

No, he wasn't. But knowing Ben, and I'm trying not to speak for him, that's why I'm asking if you asked him, I can imagine if he doesn't want a stubbed road to go to his property, he doesn't want pedestrian access. To me, that would create more trespass opportunities. I can imagine Ben would strongly object to having a pedestrian path.

Oh.

stubbing at his property. And that's why I'm wondering, did you chat with Ben about that?

Oh, I see. Okay. The issue was the path to the church property, not to Ben's property. But the planning commission was suggesting we have a pedestrian path to the church property. At least that was my understanding.

Where would you put that path exactly?

Yeah, it's on our, the church property is below probably lots 10 to the end of the street. But yeah, you can see the church property right there. Ben's property is one right to the south and the west. The church property is that one on over. Where it says zone R120. Not that one, but the other side. Yeah, right. So it would be back there. That's the church property.

That was my biggest concern. There's not been a church there for years, right? They took it down, and there's not been a church there for years. I don't know what it will become in the future. But I would think that if it was still going to be a church, they would have kept it intact.

Yeah, one issue is providing a stub road down to the church and one to Ben Mays. Ben said that he didn't want it, like you say. And the church, they wrote them a letter and they said that they're using it. They want to retain the property for religious assembly purposes is the word they used. so that they didn't want a stub road down there. Now the planning commission suggested, you know, maybe a pedestrian path down to the church. And so I wrote the church again, at least my contact with the church, and I heard nothing back from them. But I can't imagine them wanting a pedestrian path back to the back of their church property either.

I can't control the Planning Commission, but I did want this conversation to be had publicly so that they don't always know the ins and outs of things. Sometimes it's just a great idea. And then when property owners are like, no, I have a different purpose for my property and having stubbed off pedestrian pathways would create more trespassing opportunities. I think that's a valid point to bring back to the Planning Commission for any

Yeah, maybe. You know, we looked into it, and I've seen paths through the church, through other properties in the chain link fence, and we don't have a HOA board there, and so I don't know who would manage that. So that seemed to be, you know, we don't think it's a good idea for the neighborhood.

Okay.

And Councilor Bogdan, if I could just mention that With regard to that, my understanding is that the way the Planning Commission report is phrased, that they phrased it as they approved it with conditions. They don't actually have the ability to impose conditions. And all they are doing is recommending to you. So what I've actually suggested in the past, what they should have done is recommend denial unless the following issue is addressed. Anyway, that's a separate issue, the point being, The ordinance as written right now does not contemplate a development agreement. And if you don't require one, then the zone is just changed. And anything that the Planning Commission recommended that they do is just a recommendation.

So they have no leeway with the concept plan or anything?

Not unless the code requires it.

All right, I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that I'm kind of standing up for Ben and for those other things, because I know him, and I don't think he'd be okay with this.

I've known Ben for a long time. We're neighbors. We're in the same kind of neighborhood.

I've known Ben for a while, too.

He's a good man.

He is. He's a very good man. And so is I. She's a good woman.

I know his father very well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jay.

Thank you. We'll open this item now for public comment, if there are any here. who would like to speak to this item, you can approach the podium.

Okay, I'm looking at that map and maybe I'm just misunderstanding about where stub roads and walking paths and stuff would go. But in my neighborhood, we do have a walking path between one set of houses and another. And it's actually very helpful to break up that long section of neighborhood, I guess, so that you can get from In our route, it's 360 south over to 300 south and then walk to church rather than having to go all the way down to about 1080 east or 1350 east when the church is at 1289 east. so you know i've been listening to your discussion about having you know a path to get to the church through those homes it seems like you could move homes over rather than having us a road that ends at somebody's property you could put them down a little bit and have a little road there anyway just giving you some suggestions to deal with your issue I know there's no church, but there could be one. And then it would be in place before you build a bunch of homes and then it goes in because now there's a bunch of homes and now they need to build a church. Just, you know, forward thinking for y'all. Thanks.

Thank you, Angie. Any other comments? We'll close public comment and bring the item back to council for discussion. Any additional discussion? All right, then we'll call for a vote. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan?

Yes.

Councillor Hoban? Yes. And Councillor Garrett? Yes. This item passes by a vote of 4-0 with Councillors McKay, Christensen and Whipple excused. We'll now move to item 13, a public hearing for a substantial amendment to the Home ARP allocation plan presented by Melissa McNally, our Community Grants Administrator.

Welcome, Melissa.

Thank you. Good evening. So this is Just a public hearing for this substantial amendment, which is required by HUD anytime there are big changes. This is for our home ARP funding, which is the Home American Rescue Plan. It's a one-time source of funding. And we have a subrecipient who received a substantial amount of funding for tenant-based rental assistance. and their wish was to transfer some of that tenant-based rental assistance funding, 260,000 over to supportive services funding, because they feel like they'll be able to better serve that population that is experiencing homelessness or near homelessness with that funding change. So do you have any questions about the substantial amendment?

Any questions for Melissa? Thank you, Melissa.

Thank you.

We'll open this item for public comment. Any public comment? If not, we'll close public comment and bring the item to the council for discussion. Any discussion?

Then we'll call for a vote. Chair, there's not a vote on this item. It's just a public hearing for the purpose of public comment.

Thank you. Item 14, a resolution approving an urban deer control plan. This will be presented by Nicholas Muehlstein, the assistant. This will be presented by Brian Jones, our city attorney, and Greg Hook, BYU Managing Director of Operations and Grounds.

I'm a nicer boss than Bill, and I sent my people home. Just kidding, Bill. So you've heard this before in work session a couple of times, and you're aware of it. This is just an issue where... The state allows some programs to take, in other words, euthanize, capture and euthanize urban deer with very strict guidelines about when that can happen and how it can happen. It's a plan that can only, it requires a submission of a plan by a municipality to DWR who then approves the plans, issues a COR it's called. And then the city can go on and implement this program. Well, BYU has come to us and they have asked us to submit a plan on their behalf so that they can run a program on their campus to take urban deer. So what you're voting on here is a resolution approving that plan that's already been approved by the state. uh there was also so you know an agreement executed between byu and the city where they acknowledge that it's their plan that we've approved for them on the state and they're gonna they're doing all the work they're they're indemnifying the city against any potential risks and it's this is just uh one of those steps of the city authorizing something that we have control over so that they can do what they want to do Do you want to add anything to that?

No, you said it very well. There's just there's a lot of deer on campus and the body of this deer, they live on campus year round and they continue to to breed. And there's a lot of deformities and other problems that happen because of it. And we were just looking to thin out the herd and bring it down to a more manageable level.

Any questions? Yes, counselor.

I think we asked some variant of this question previously, but if I may ask again, just because I heard some public comment on it, did we look or evaluate options for relocation as opposed to euthanasia?

Yeah, that's a great question. From what I understand, a number of years ago, there was a relocation program that the DWR worked in conjunction with BYU. There became a problem with chronic waste disease a number of years ago. And at that point, DWR stopped trapping and relocating. They didn't want to spread that. Can you just explain what that is? From what I understand, chronic waste disease is a disease where these deer slowly just start to kind of die, lose strength, lose muscle strength, and I don't know.

So essentially, the relocations were failing as the deer were dying through this disease, and DWR said it's actually less humane to transport them or relocate them.

They actually don't want it to spread. Oh, it spreads to other herds.

It's also for the health of the sort of non-BYU-based herds. Correct. You got it. Thank you.

Good question.

Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, Brian and Greg.

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll open this item for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this item? If not, we'll close public comment and bring the item to council for discussion. Any additional discussion council members? Okay. We'll call for a vote. Councillor Bogdan.

Yes.

Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Garrett. Yes. And Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Thank you. That item passes by a vote of 4-0, with Councillors McKay, Christensen, and Whipple excused. Item 15 is a resolution adopting an Americans with Disabilities Act transition plan. This will be presented by our engineer, David Michelson. David, thank you for your patience hanging out with us tonight. Yeah, you bet.

Appreciate it. I'll be quick tonight. So the Americans with Disability Act or ADA is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. For local governments, Title II applies to our programs, services, and activities provided by the city. Accessibility improvements can range in cost and scope, while others may be addressed through changes to policy, procedures, or how services are provided. The city cannot address every issue at once, and so the ADA requires a transition plan to be established, how accessibility barriers will be addressed over time. So our transition plan does not create the city's ADA responsibilities. Instead, it provides a framework on how to identify, plan, and track accessibility barriers and improvements. Finally, this is not a one-time document. It is a living document intended to be updated as new assessments are completed, improvements are made, and projects are finished. The goal is continual process towards compliance. And ultimately, the ADA establishes the requirements while the transition plan just provides the roadmap of how the city will work towards meeting those requirements. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, David. Any questions for David? Yes. Councillor Bogdan.

So I'm curious. The mayor did comment that we still have a lot of work to do. We still have to have every single department in this. So do we come back and the council ratifies each amendment to this thing, or how does this work?

That's a good question.

yes it's i mean we don't necessarily have to do them separately but there will be updates to this in fact it's it's like many documents the general plan and many other documents this is intended to be a living document that should be getting frequent updates anyway so we're setting the baseline here tonight there will be updates and those updates will be coming back to the council for approval

So are we going to just like wait until we get a couple of departments in or are we going to just like every single department that finishes, we're going to come back and

We actually got a, I mean, we have an ADA committee in the city. We actually spoke about this about director's meeting, in director's meeting this morning, and we are implementing monthly check-ins on the department's self-evaluation and update process. So hopefully those updates will be coming back to you fairly soon.

You're chairing that committee, right?

I am on that committee, yeah.

I think Scott Henderson is actually the chair.

Oh, Scott's the chair, and you're on that committee.

Yeah. I'm currently one of the ADA coordinators, as well as Travis Savage from Facilities.

That's right. My preference would be that you would collect munch and come back, rather than once a month come and not if I eat one of them.

For sure.

Does that put us in?

I think that's the plan. As long as we're, you know, If some things are more, we might have a couple batches. Maybe we'll have five departments that are really easy and a couple departments that are hard. But yes, we would not intend to come back to you 10 times for every department.

Thank you.

Thank you, David. We'll open this item for public comment if there's anyone here who would like to speak. Thank you for your patience tonight.

You're welcome.

I'm Jonathan Handy from Provo.

Just on the topic of sidewalks as they apply to ADA, one thing I would like to bring up is the problem of places being inaccessible due to sprinklers, sometimes private sprinklers, sometimes city sprinklers, where the sprinklers are throwing water onto the sidewalks, onto the paths. I don't know about you guys, but I don't particularly like getting my groceries soaked when I'm bringing them home from the grocery store. So I would like to see in some form or another some effort be put towards ensuring that sprinklers that are watering the grass

stay on the grass and stay off of the places where people are walking thank you great thank you Jonathan appreciate your comment anyone else we'll close public comment and continue the item with our Council for discussion any discussion counselors counselor Jeff

I just want to say thank you for the effort the city's putting into doing this sounds like we've had some liability for a while for not having this and i'm glad we're taking care of it, and I know it's a big project, thank you.

Yes, Councilor Bogdan.

I just want to address. We can make all the laws we want to, but sometimes laws are really hard to enforce. And I think a sprinkler law would be very hard to enforce. Somebody is going to run over it the wrong way. I just think it would be really, really hard to enforce that within the city. So just keep that in mind when looking at that, because I think, you know, there's a lot of people that don't want to get wet. And then sometimes you're really hot and you do want to get wet. But I think it would be really hard to enforce.

Thank you, Councillor.

All right. I'll call for a vote. Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

Councillor Garrett. Yes. Councillor Whitlock. Yes. And Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Thank you. This item passes by a vote of 4-0 with Councillors Christensen, McKay and Whipple excused. Move to item 16, which is an ordinance regarding a general residency requirement for boards and commission candidates. This will be presented by one of our policy analysts, Tanner Takuchi.

Yes, good evening Council. Thank you for hearing this item. This is an issue item sponsored by Councilors Bogdan and Christensen. And currently there is no general residency requirement in Provo City Code, meaning that these are the five committees or boards that have some form of residency requirement and then all the others do not. So this proposal would change that to require all future candidates presented by the mayor for advice and consent to be residents of Provo. This would have the effect of allowing current, including recently appointed, non-residents to serve out their current terms. The two exhibits, B and C, also, as I mentioned in the work meeting, will carve out an exception for the FBO representative. On the airport board, they're required to be on that board and are not always necessarily going to be residents. So that was important that that be included as well. This will bring our residency requirement in line more with what other cities are experiencing and with their boards and commissions in terms of residency. And just for the visual for the public and for you, this is what will be required if this was adopted. There would only be four non-residents out of all the boards and commissions that would be allowed to be non-residents. Just to reiterate some of the considerations that were brought up during the work meeting, the only thing that I brought up as a potential issue is whether or not the talent pool will be constricted. In the left example here, that would be an example where the expertise required by, say, the Landmark Commission would impose a negative burden because that pool of potential people who are both residents and experts are small. I will say that Scott Henderson in the work meeting said that they had not had an issue finding people who fit the requirements for boards and commissions who require specific expertise who are also residents. So the reality of the situation likely resembles the Venn diagram on the right. uh and i will also note this is something that i think brian mentioned in the work meeting as well while this does require the executive to act in a certain way and it restricts their ability to propose conversely it would also not allow the council to entertain non-resident candidates anymore but if that is the priority is being put on covert residency which i think it is then that is not an issue thank you i'm open any questions

Questions for Tanner? All right. Thank you, Tanner.

Thank you.

Any public comments on this item?

Angie Carter, Provo. My concern is one that our presenter just mentioned about the expertise. I think for many of our boards, it makes sense to just have Provo residents. But I would suggest that maybe for a couple of the other boards, there be an option to have one or two members that could be out of city residents if there wasn't a city resident that had that expertise. Maybe there's something that you can add into this proposal that makes residents the highest priority, but then allows for an expert from outside Provo if there is not a resident that is an expert. I'm thinking maybe the Landmarks Commission Airport Board. um you know some of those boards that may need a little bit more expertise um i think we've got probably enough people for maybe arts council and library board and that sort of thing but i can see some other specialties that may need that and that could be a way to to balance what we're trying to do which is have more provo resident input because these boards do affect us but also i think it's important to get expertise from outside of provo um so we're not just circling the same ideas around each other all the time, there's benefits to having a greater pool of ideas too. Thank you.

Thank you, Angie. Tanner, did you say that this would not preclude the council from considering other candidates from outside the city?

It would because the mayor would not be able to submit them to you for your consideration. Okay. And I will say, based on that comment, this just essentially changes the default setting. If the council realized that the landmarks commission needed to expand its talent pool, they could, you could create in the land, in the landmark section, a separate section of code that addresses that on a case by case basis, but you can keep this as the default.

Okay.

Any other public comment?

if not we'll close public comment and continue with Council discussions I had I had actually one question for Tanner just quick clarification so there the there is one loan exception still and that's the airport board for the FBO position

That is part of this ordinance. And then the three seats that already exist on the Arts Council will be retained. And then the city employees who are part of the, what was it, the board that has city employees on it.

But on the Arts Commission or Council, apologies, when those seats are expired, are their terms expired, would it then revert back to requiring

residents that code will not change as part of this and so you can continue to have non-residents serve in that role until unless you decide to remove that exception that's currently in the arts council language so in your professional opinion is

I've heard the Landmarks Board now been mentioned twice. I think you mentioned it. I think it was mentioned by the public comment. Is that the one remaining board where you kind of maybe felt a concern about expertise being needed that might outside the city?

I think the Landmarks Commission is brought up most often as an example of that because it is one of only a few that currently have expertise explicitly required in it. You know, the mayor might, for the Energy Board, seek out people who have experience in the energy sector. However, it's not currently in statute that that person have a specific background, whereas in the Landmarks Commission, it is. So I think that's probably the most common example.

We require certain experience or professional based requirements.

I will say, if you look at the code section that governs that, there are specific requirements. However, the list is quite long. And so if you have professional experience in history or archaeology or interior design, those would all fit that qualification. So the definition in the Landmarks Commission in particular is, I think, quite broad. Thank you.

Jeff, we talked about that in work meeting, right? That we have a big enough talent pool with BYU professors and everything that lives here versus somewhere else. But to me, when you have a voting commission, And I've seen it over and over and over again. People that are brought in from out of area to vote on Provo things, it really leaves some salt. And people being on boards that don't live here brings in some salt because we do have a talent pool here. The arts board, from what I remember, because the Covey is so broad and they're trying to attract people from all over the county, that's where they wanted the three people from around the county so that it's not just attracting people here in Provo. It's about outreach. It's about money and different things that they do within the county, not necessarily here in the city. And that's why they wanted the three that was broader.

Thank you. If there's no other council discussion, we'll call for a vote then on this motion. Councillor Whitlock? Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Hoban. Yes. And Councillor Garrett. Yes. This item passes by a vote of 4-0 with Councillors McKay, Christensen, and Whipple excused. Our final agenda item is number 17, a resolution approving an interlocal agreement between Provo City and Orem City regarding funding for Orem 2000 South storm drain project and authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. This will be presented by our public works engineer, Danielle Dixon. Welcome, Danielle.

Thank you. I'll try to be really fast. I know you saved the best for last, though.

We did.

Okay. So this is an interlocal agreement for 2000 North or 2000 South in Orem City. So we have an existing agreement because Provo City owns the entire roadway up to the back of curb, and then north of that is Orem City. So we have an agreement on how the road is supposed to look and to allow utilities from both cities to be placed in that road. um the location specifically is between geneva road and the uta tracks so they'll end right before the uta tracks and it's a just a storm drain system that's going down the middle of that roadway I'm in the proposed agreement, we are the proposal is that publicity will pay for the costs to install a lateral off of that main. Because that would be our cost, the main is orange city's cost and the biggest thing the biggest stipulation within this new agreement is that warm city is not allowed to discharge. any city water, any of their city water into this system until they have an outfall into Lakeview Parkway. They can't put that in until they build their portion of Lakeview Parkway. So that is a stipulation within this new proposed agreement. here's the plans that they have for this project it's a large storm drain i believe it's a 48 inch storm drain main um again going all the way up to the uta just before the uta tracks and the section that's highlighted in yellow is the lateral and that they'll be connecting in to an existing sump that's in provost city so we're paying for that cost plus additional Overall costs that are with the contract. So the breakdown. Is there's an overall cost of 900,000 dollars. We're paying for the materials and labor costs to install the lateral and then we pay a. Portion of the overall contract, like the mobilization, the sweat costs and all of that in addition. So the total comes out 16,520 dollars and 49 cents. So, in summary, storm drain needs to go in so that Orem can have their master plan, storm drain system in place, and it will help with the future Whitestone Estates, which is on the Orem side of 2000 North. Both Provo and Orem City staff have agreed to the design and the agreement and the contractor, and then work, it says immediately will begin. Work has already begun.

I've seen those big 48-inch pipes already being cut and put in. So I was like, what?

Yeah, they're trying to beat the asphalt deadline. So they went ahead and got started. Any questions?

Any questions for Danielle?

No, that was my big question is I know they're doing road work on 20th North right now in that spot. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. We'll open this item for public comment if there is anyone who would like to make a comment. If not, we'll close public comment and ask for council discussion. Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. Councillor Bogdan?

Yes.

Councillor Hoban?

Yes.