Council meeting agendas are often difficult for people to navigate. Filled with jargon and legal requirements on how an item must be listed, it can be a challenge to determine what Council members are actually discussing or deciding on.
What follows is a staff interpretation of the agendas.
The official published agendas and supporting materials can be found here: http://agendas.provo.org
This meeting will be conducted as a hybrid meeting, with some in-person components as well as continued virtual meeting access. The meeting will be available to the public for live broadcast and on-demand viewing on YouTube and Facebook at: youtube.com/provocitycouncil and facebook.com/provocouncil. The in-person meeting will be held in the Council Chambers. For information on how to view the meetings and how to contribute public comments without attending in person, click here.
PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Work Meeting Agenda
12:30 pm, Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Work Meetings are designed to be a less formal venue for discussion among Council Members. Generally, no public input is taken during the meeting.
Policy Items Referred from the Landmarks Commission
A resolution adding the structure known as the Milner-Wright Home, located at 1115 East 640 South, to the Provo Landmarks Register. Provost Neighborhood. (PLLN20210394)
Cindy Caldwell has nominated their house located at 1115 East 640 South to be placed on the Provo Landmarks register. City staff and the Landmarks Commission review these types of nominations for compliance with the requirements and standards set forth in Provo City Code 16.05.020. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the documentation for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with the “Criteria for Designating Historic Properties to the Provo Landmarks Register” per 16.05.030(3) recommended approval.
Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission
An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 15 regarding the process and requirements for appeals related to impact fees. Citywide application. (PLOTA20210273)
Recently, it was realized that the Provo City Code has no criteria under which an appeal of impact fees may be heard. The attached amendments are intended to clarify this deficiency. The proposed changes to Sections of Chapter 15.08 include new language to reference and concur with Utah State code, to develop a process for a developer to adjust or challenge an impact fee, to establish regulations for review of fee adjustments, to establish criteria for a department or the Mayor to grant an adjustment to the fees, and to clarify appeal rights for such actions. Planning Commission recommended approval.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Class. of approx. 1.10 acres at 669 S 1600 W from the A1.1 (Agricultural) to R1.8 (One-Family Residential) to create four residential building lots & authorizing a development agreement. Sunset Neighborhood. PLRZ20210383
Andy Jones is requesting approval of a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.1 zone to the R1.8 to create a four-lot subdivision for property at 669 South 1600 West. This property is currently vacant land. All the adjacent properties are zoned A1.1, with the only exception being a one-acre section of R1.10 across the street to the west. The land uses surrounding this property are single-family homes, some with related agricultural uses. Planning Commission recommended approval.
An ordinance amending the Zone Map Class. of 1.39 acres located 46 W to 90 W 800 N from Residential Conservation (RC) to Campus Mixed Use (CMU) to allow for a 62-unit apartment complex & authorizing a development agreement. North Park Neighborhood. PLRZ20210112
Tim Metler is requesting a zone map amendment from the RC (Residential Conservation) zone to the CMU (Campus Mixed Use) zone for property at 90 W 800 N, in order to build a 62-unit apartment complex as part of a phased development plan. This proposal comes as a request to change the zoning on a total of 1.39 acres of property which includes a phase one concept plan of .77 acres and a later phase to replace the existing Foxwood Apartments. The redevelopment of the Foxwood Apartment piece would come at a later date but is shown to illustrate how the two developments could work together. Planning Commission recommended denial.