Foothills/University Gardens parking permit plan.  The Foothills neighborhood has had enough of students parking all over creation to put it simply.  They are having problems with the Belmont Condo's and Arlington as well.  The neighborhood submitted to the City a program which would require permits for overnight parking.  They would be available to owner occupants, as well as tenants in properties that have approved Rental Dwelling Licenses.  The problem places, like Belmont, would be excluded from purchasing permits.  In essence, they are going to use parkiing to force these places to tend to their "knitting."  The details and city response were heard during study session, and moved forward.  October 16th is the scheduled date for the public hearing.

Lakeview North area development plan for area between Geneva and I-15 by 2000 North.This is a general plan change that offered a specific "layout" of 130 single family homes, one multi-family area on a well-traveled corner, and industrial nearest I-15, along the frontage road.  This area was annexed a few years ago.  2000 North is the boundary of Provo and Orem in that area.  This one was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.  Dave Gardner, development consultant, owns part of the north 19 acres.  He stated that a majority of the folks have signed a letter of agreement within this area.  Some didn't (wanting to maintain agricultural use).  Home designs were shown, and all have side entry garages, and will have shared driveways.  An HOA (Homeowners Association) will be set up to take care of those things.  Condo's are the plan for the multi-family.  26 acres are planned for Commercial Development.  Sherrie Hall Everett, the neighborhood chair pointed out that the property east of Geneva is "basement capable."  It is high enough to justify moving the commercial to the other side of Geneva.  She pointed out that the designs were very positively received for the Multi-family housing.  In the voting at the neighborhood meeting, no one was against the development plan.  The homes are faced away from both 2000 North and 1680 North, which will be  a positive because of truck traffic from the industrial area over to Geneva Road.  The vote to approve was 6-0, Steve Turley absent. 

PODS ordinance:  Provo, like a lot of communities has been invaded by storage containers.  The city crafted an ordinance for regulating how long these things can sit in residential, and residential agricultural zones.  They also become prohibited on vacant lots.  Provo already has rules for outside storage like "Tuff Sheds," but not for portable units.  Didn't take action due to some ambiguity.  Continued for a future date. 

Parking Permit Enabling Language:  quick--this was just enabling language telling how things are to proceed in the future.  6-0.  Turley absent.

Provo showed up to vote in pitiful percentages, which isn't much of a surprise.  Many of our precincts, especially downtown, have a lot of registered voters who are long gone.  Apathy and candidates lack of drumming probably explains the rest.

So, in the City wide race, it is Turley vs Porter, as expected.  A quick glance at the precinct results tells us that Turley won the Westside, Grandview, and the NE.  Porter won most of the downtown precincts, and a line of precincts up University Ave.  Interesting results.  Turnout will probably be much larger in the real election, and the Voucher issue may bring more voters than normal. 

Up in district 4 (NW side of town), it wasn't a good day for Barbara Sandstrom.  She won 2 precincts, including her own.  Howard Stone won 2 others in Grandview, and Sherrie Hall Everett carried the other 5.  So, it will be Sherrie vs Barbara.

District 3 was pretty heavily on Midge Johnson's side.  She and Melanie McCoard will face off. 

Along with that race, we'll have Mark Sumsion and Cynthia Dayton (incumbent) facing off in District 1 which is the north end of town. 

Friends,

Today is one of those days for you to get out and vote.  Each of the City Council races except Dayton vs Sumsion have a primary.  Make sure your opinion is known. 

In the NW, you've got a choice between Barbara Sandstrom and Sherrie Everett.  Very different gals, and I hope you've checked each out. 

The City Wide race is Coy Porter, Steve Turley, and Christopher Stowe.  Stowe is a BYU student, and today was the first day I've seen any of his signs. 

In the SW or SE, you've got Midge Johnson, Melanie McCoard and Bryan Smith.  At this point, it appears the first two are serious about running campaigns. 

Here are the websites I can find for each of the candidates.

www.coyforcouncil.com  (Coy Porter)

www.steveturley2007.com

www.votestowe.com (Christopher Stowe)

www.voteforsherrie.com

(Can't find one for Barbara Sandstrom)

www.howardstone.org

www.midgejohnson.com

www.provo  (Melanie McCoard)elections2007.blogspot.com

http://briansmithprovo.googlepages.com  (Brian Smith)

The election season has begun, and we have two serious contenders this year.  (One BYU student who has no chance).  Those two men are Steve Turley and Coy Porter.

Steve Turley has been on the City Council for 3 1/2 years now.  He is often the odd-man out, and is responsible for more 6-1 votes than any other member of the council.  (see previous blog entries for voting results) Most of the council's work is on zoning and developments.  He is very consistent in voting for the cause of developers, realtors and an extreme view of property rights.  He is not the neighborhood-friendly candidate.  He has been at odds with the Mayor multiple times, and has been an "expensive" member of our Council.  You might ask what I'm talking about...

Remember the dispatch incident where a young man called 911 and they couldn't find him, since he called on a cell phone.  Turley anxiously politicized that event, and did a great job of making sure our cities failures were well publicized to the media.  For good or for bad, he did a great job of making sure the lawyers for the young man's family had all the ammunition they needed to push for an expensive settlement.  Simply put, he cost us money, and I'm not talking about the meager salary received by Council Members.

He does have one thing I have to respect him for, which is voting against I-Provo.  Under our current business model, where the state restricts our city to being a wholesaler, I-Provo is going to be a perpetual problem.  I'm not sure we had a realistic business model in the first place. 

His opponent this year is Coy Porter, our former Fire Chief.  Coy has lived in Provo for 45 years, and is no stranger to our city, and its government.  His father was actually a member of the City Council years ago.  Coy is definitely Turley's opposite in terms of his support for neighborhoods, and revitalization.  He wasn't on the council when i-Provo so I can't give you a comparison there.  He does have a solid record of being able to work as a team player within the City, and will likely be more effective in leading instead of just opposing.  His previous position has given him experience at the budget process, and management. 

I encourage you to ask them questions, learn more and really evaluate these two men.  Find out which one really matches your views about the future of our city.

The Council tonight was presented with an amendment to Provo's General Plan for the SW corner of town on property that Andersen Development seeks to develop for residential use.  The land is currently zoned residential/agricultural, and the roads are few and relatively unconnected  to the rest of town.   Getting in and out of the area is already tough and as Gary McGinn, the city's head of Community Development said, the roads are already at their environmental limits.  They can't handle more houses, with an average of 17 trips a day. 

The developer in this case is not the favorite of the Provo City Council.  A lawsuit is still on file against the city for not approving this property previously.  Some powerful individuals are a part of this company, including Greg Curtis, the current speaker of the State House of representatives.  He hasn't hesitated to push pro-development items in the state legislature in the past, and all members of the council were aware of his involvement.  George Stewart even joked to Midge Johnson (who didn't appreciate the joke) that if she voted against this, she wouldn't be invited to various social events at that level. 

The vote was 4 to 2, in favor of changing the General Plan.  That simply means that Provo's "vision" statement for the area is now ok for developers.  Of course, it doesn't mean that the Council must approve the rezone request when it comes. 

Midge Johnson and Cindy Richards voted against the amendment to the General Plan.  Both felt that neighborhood concerns and lack of connectivity were too much of a problem to ignore.  Midge was downright "testy" about publicity on this, and felt to some degree that the die was already cast. 

Steve Turley, remarkably, chose to abstain from voting on this issue.  Why?  Because he is a signed partner of this very development company on another project in Provo on the NE Bench.  That didn't stop him from voting on General Plan issues for the NE earlier in his term.

George Stewart, Barbara Sandstrom, Cindy Clark and Cynthia Dayton felt the change was appropriate.  Several of them emphasized that a vote for this change wasn't a vote for a specific development. 

I imagine that Mr. Curtis and his partners will shortly be pushing their development proposal at Provo City.  Will they now drop their threatening lawsuit?

The other development proposal for changing the general plan of the evening was near the west end of Center Street, and will be called River's Edge.  It is a Planned Development, with lots of open space built into it, and many of the homes will be "clustered" together in groups of 2 , 3 and 4 on common driveways.  John Dester, a Provo resident of the west side, is the developer.  He has experience, and took his design, which even included separate RV parking, from a development called Amberleigh in Seattle.  Neighborhood chair Margaret Rasmussen felt that the project was a win/win and called it a brilliant design. 

One outspoken Provo resident took the occasion to hammer some strong questions at Midge Johnson--about why she voted against a larger minimum house size for the West Side.  She also asked about whether the Impact Fees are sufficient to cover the pumping stations and things that keep the west side from being a swamp.  The Mayor responded that the fees aren't adequate to cover those costs.  Lakeview North Chair Sherrie Everett also spoke in favor of the development.  One of the current land owners, Tom Halladay, spoke about how difficult it was to farm out on the west side these days.  He spoke of problems with the City encroaching, inability to keep trespassers out, and how economically, farming just doesn't work in this location.  The vote was 7-0 in favor of the amendment.  The development proposal will follow. 

The council also voted to spend 70K+ on wrapping up the Provo Arts Center, 7 to 0. 

The council had to vote on the 200 North property of Action Target.  The city was authorizing financing to pay for it until it was purchased by NHS & Jones paint and Glass, once their development plans are approved.  6-0. 

Well, Provo City just accomplished something along the lines of getting the rendering plant out of East Bay, only this time it was moving an industrial business out of a fully developed neighborhood. 

Action Target, a manufacturer of target ranges, has been located on the west side of the Dixon Neighborhood for quite a while.  It has a mobile home park to the north, and residential homes to the East.  On the south sits Jones Paint & Glass.  To the west, empty land, and ultimately, Independence Ave.  The business is successful, and has completely outgrown its property, and in the process, driven the neighbors crazy.

The problems:  really smelly paint fumes, semi's idling for half the night on residential streets waiting to unload, and more zoning problems, fire code problems than you can imagine.  They own land that is 1/2 zoned M1, which requires all operations happen inside, and no outdoor storage.  The other 1/2 is zoned RC, meaning Residential, and they use it as an outdoor storage unit.  They lost a big battle with the Planning Commission over 2 years ago when they tried to rezone the RC land into M1.  The vote was unanimous against them.  The story is long. 

But, the City Council members representing the area had the vision, and pushed for a solution.  In last year's budget, they allocated $1,000,000 of Federal Home Money towards purchasing land for housing.  They all knew what it was intended for.  The same occurred this year.  The negotiations were long and protracted.  In the end, it was truly a win, win. 

Action Target will move to much improved facilities capable of handling their operations (and painting) properly in the Provo Mountain Vista Industrial Park, and the land they previously occupied gets purchased by the City for 2.5 million.  Then, it will be sold in two pieces to Jones Paint and Glass, and NHS of Provo.  30 new homes for families will be its replacement.  Jones will also be able to expand their operations as needed.  A street will divide the two.  (200 North)

The vote was 6 to 1.  Steve Turley voted against the project.  He felt it was too good for Action Target.  I find that interesting given that he told Kyle Bateman, owner of Action Target, that he'd do anything he could to help them.  That's one issue.

What about the other issue--freeing a neighborhood from noxious paint fumes and an industrial menace?  (Those fumes regularly can be smelled as far away as Dixon Middle School, where half of Provo's 7th and 8th grade kids go to school)  Especially given that the difference in what the city will receive from Jones and from NHS will be covered by Federal Housing dollars which are meant to accomplish this very sort of thing. 

Well, my apologies for the exceedingly long delay since my last post.  Life changes, and mine has too.  Time becomes my most precious resource. 

Well, as all of you know, the battle of St. Francis is lost.  The building is down, torn down by the Diocese and the Developers.  I'll leave the "Why's" to other conversations.

Now, the real issue becomes what next?  Does Provo really want to preserve its character, history or become just another town in the midst of suburbia?  Issues you should ask candidates for City Council this year.

A proposal has been made by Scott Bingham, the Timp Neighborhood Chair, which will require that any project that seeks a demolition permit must have approval on the building/project that would replace the structure.  In other words--no rezone for new projects unless the new zoning and project has passed muster.  This wouldn't prevent run down properties from being replaced by something that falls within the rules of their own zone though. 

Next report--we'll take a look at the candidates for the City Wide seat.

Forgive the title, but nothing else quite fits.  It was quite the evening, and pretty much anything else the council dealt with was secondary to this issue.  The 60 day waiting period was up, time to put up or shut up, and the sides came ready to chat.  (or you could use other terms).  Lawyers for the diocese, for the developer who has the option to buy the property were there ready to strike.  The Historic Provo Preservation Foundation members came to explain progress and actions they had taken.  It wasn't pretty.  It came down to this:  The HPPF had taken a check for $50,000 and a letter offering to buy the property, but forgotten to bring the signed real estate contract to the Diocese on Monday.  The confusion was just an oversight, and their intention is to purchase. 

Enter Mayor Billings:  He could be seen moving around the audience, as well as defending various parties, and pushing various lawyers into making commitments.  In the end, he brought the parties together with a commitment.  The Council will take the Landmarks designation off in 15 days if the HPPF hasn't bought and paid for the property from the developer at that point, and the Developer who holds the option agreed to it.  The price--$1,250,000.  The council voted 7-0 in favor of it.  The only ones seen stomping out were Father Mike of the Catholic parish, and a few of its members.  They seemed to have wanted action immediately, regardless of the fact that the HPPF was ready to act. 

All in all, it was a great example of good government, and bringing parties together to solve a problem. 

They heard it again and again.  The Joaquin Village project was too big, too imposing, would cause too much traffic to be concentrated in one place, and the infrastructure of the neighborhood wasn't prepared.  The dozen or more neighbors that spoke at this meeting, the previous one, and at Planning Commission would have been better off climbing Mt. Timp and given their pleas from up there.  The Council's minds had been long made up.  Even when Steve Turley read an embarassing Memo from a city employee regarding the complete lack of planning that had been done regarding traffic abatement plans--it was brushed over by Gary McGinn with the "we deal with those issues later." 

That little moment was quite revealing.  Projects therefore are approved with no consideration of traffic, plain and simple.  The expensive traffic studies will have zero impact on whether or not the Provo City Council will say yes or no to a plan, because our beloved City Engineering Department will smooth out all the wrinkles. 

Bah, humbug.  The vote was 7 to 0.  Even the most devoted allies of neighborhoods were unwilling to amend, delay, or take a closer look.  It felt like betrayal.  The rest, as you would suspect, voted as normal. 

Grandview Hill residents would do well to ask their representative why she votes for every single development offered to Provo these days?  I myself have been wondering that lately.  Her voting pattern is very different than that of her first term. 

The other "issue" of the night was dealing with trying to override the Mayor's veto of the minimum house sizes on the West side.  This in some ways was worse.  The Mayor claimed he vetoed it because he doesn't like "mandates."  If he doesn't like mandates, then perhaps we should do away with building codes, safety codes, speed limits, and throw out the city code book while we are at it. Just an excuse to justify his support of his realtor buddies.  He also made the claim that we were getting bigger and better homes out there.  That is thanks to the council consistently insisting that developers build larger homes, not due to any change in the "market."  If he wanted a better ordinance, then why doesn't he make the suggestions?  Then came the voting.  Barbara Sandstrom, who represents half the west side, wasn't listening to the parade of west side residents speaking for this.  She herself has spoken for larger homes, but wouldn't vote for this.

Steve Turley did the same.  He has called for, in council, larger homes on the west side, but wouldn't vote for this.  Then came Midge Johnson who made a big mistake.  You see, she's up for re-election this year, and half her district is the SW corner of Provo.  She made plenty of promises to them in other meetings, and in other votes--but wouldn't vote for this change.  Obviously, there was no turnover of the ordinance.

Provo, it was one sad night.  What more can I write. 

Well Provo friends, our Mayor is on the prowl.  He chose to hide a "realtor and developer friendly" veto by lashing out at the practices of the Provo City Council's land use committee.  Its not the first time he's played the game in this manner.  Here's the scoop this time. 

The basic problem is that Provo has too many small starter homes, and rentals, and we lose a large number of families as they "progress."  They want larger homes, can't find them in Provo, so off they go to other cities, out of our schools and community.  The west side in particular has been developed in a manner that makes this happen.  The water table is too high for basements once you get west of Geneva Road, so that automatically shrinks homes.  The Council voted 4-2, (Midge Johnson absent), to raise the standards so minimum home sizes were larger on the west side.  Nothing radical for new homes--just 1800 square feet.  The average new home in Utah county is far above that standard.  The old standard was just 1000 square feet--the equivalent of 2 tiny bedrooms, 1 bath, a kitchen and a modest living room. 

But of course, the developers, and their henchman, Kevin Call, head of the Utah Association of Realtors, didn't see it that way, and he spoke out against it at City Council, calling it anti-affordable housing, citing Provo's median family income being 50 to 55k.  Of course, his stats are of all Provo's families, including all our many, many young student families (married with baby), and single students too, so his information is statistically flawed.  Perhaps a better question is what percent of homebuyers can afford an 1800 square foot home? 

The ordinance of course only applies to Single Family detached homes, not condo's or other forms of attached housing.  So, lower income buyers would still have options. 

Well, the Mayor didn't say anything during the meeting, but was happy to say plenty in his veto and attached reply.  He put his City Attorney to work crafting an 8 page document on why he thinks Provo City Council's land use committee is violating open meeting standards, etc.  Its nice to have an Attorney at your beck and call.   He griped because these meetings, held by a subcommittee of the Council, 3 people aren't noticed and open to the entire public.  He essentially was saying--these three always agree, they just have to find one other person on the council, and they get their way.  Nice innuendo, but far from the fact, a close look at this blog will show you that. 

George Stewart, former Mayor, and our current Council Chair, did not appreciate this one bit, and his comments and view can be read in Friday's Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune.  He is of course, backed up by the Council's attorney, Neil Lindberg.  Good articles.  Our beloved Daily Herald hasn't noticed the incident yet.  George points out, correctly, that the council has to notice any meetings where they are going to vote as a quorum.  That is the rule of the Open Meetings Laws.  But, when 3 or less members of the Council get together, they don't have any legal obligation to do so.  The Council also gives no formal, permanent powers to Land Use, and can change its organization at any time. 

2 years ago, the committee consisted of the entire council.  It was tedious, and proved to just be a forum for Steve Turley to push his "landlord & developer" agenda.  Since then, it has just been 3 members.  Those members are Cynthia Dayton, Cindy Clark & Cindy Richards.  They are each members elected by districts, and each has their own views.  They most certainly do not always agree.  The Meridian project on 900 East for example, demostrated that they have differing views. 

The Mayor's pot shot is indeed interesting.  He clearly isn't always getting his way, and took this example to fire a shot at the Council.  He really ought to stick to his own knitting though--since the Council is very adept at playing the same game and nit-picking apart his administration and their progress, or lack thereof on certain things.  He probably wouldn't enjoy each of them taking shots at the way he runs Community Development, or his Engineering Department, or the time it takes to get a development through these departments after the City Council has approved projects.  Or maybe they should hold more public hearings about the finances of IProvo.  Steve Turley, who has joined him on this issue, has been a vicious enemy of the Mayor on other issues, such as the handling of the Police Dispatch, 911 teams. 

Now, the question for the rest of us, since the Mayor has no power to change the Council's ways, is how will Midge Johnson vote when the Council reconsiders this ordinance change.  Frankly, she has spoken out many times in favor of quality development on the West Side, as well as larger homes.  I have a hard time seeing her vote against this in an election year when her district covers a lot of that turf.  All the "4" need is her agreement, and the Council can override the Mayor's veto.

Amidst some hard feelings, and unenjoyable moments, the Provo City Council re-examined their role as a bond "conduit" for charter schools in the City.  Freedom Academy, technically a public charter school, applied to have Provo serve as their "conduit," meaning that instead of using private financing or leasing a building from a private company, they would be able to issue tax-favored municipal bonds with Provo's name attached, and build a school.  Their request was made by Gary McGinn, who interestingly enough is also Provo City's Community Development Director. 

The Council members were primarily concerned about technicalities of these bonds, understanding liability, or the lack thereof.  They aren't General Obligation bonds, and have no claim on Provo City's tax revenue.  If the school were to default on their obligations, the property purchased with the bonds (the former GRA park) and the school building are the security for bondholders.

This fact didn't make the members of the Provo School Board too happy.  After putting in years of effort on Master Planning, then Open Houses, etc to convince the entire city to vote "yes" for their last request for a bond issue, this process felt very unbalanced to them.  They also expressed legitimate concerns about this schools effect on enrollment in certain Provo City Schools.  They already are considering closing Grandview elementary after the new elementary is built on the westside of the freeway. 

Of course, the parents of this school expressed great affection for the school and its methods, and a steady stream of them came forward.  An interesting group, with no shortage of the wealthy.  As public comment ended, and the Council began speaking, it was apparent that the Council was deeply divided. 

Midge Johnson stated that though she had a great sympathy for her School Board friends, she felt that this was the path the State Legislature had set, and the Council really didn't have a great deal of choice.

Cindy Clark expressed her confidence in the school and its contribution, but was not comfortable with the precedent set by this conduit financing.  She also read a report on current legislative action which would provide funding parity between traditional public schools, and charter schools.

Cynthia Dayton admitted her son attended the school, and expressed her support for school choice.  She felt that the school has a positive contribution to Provo, and had confidence that there was no risk financially to Provo City.

The Mayor chimed in at this point to sort of clarify what the "real issue" was as he saw it.  Of course in the process he pointed out that all his children had gone to public school.  He did admit that the debate over charters and vouchers was perhaps needed, but stated that this wasn't the place or time.  He felt the school had shown a track record, and had a competent staff, and there was no financial risk to Provo.

Mr. Turley wasn't sure what delaying this (as some School Board members would have preferred) would accomplish.

Cindy Richards spoke about her own situation and how school choice was valuable.  But she pointed out that she dislike the funding structure and the situation the city was being put in.  "I don't know the harm if any, but I don't know the help, if any."  She also pointed out something very poignant in stating that the entire Provo School District only bonded for $35 million, while this bond, for one school was for $12 million.  She stated that she has a real concern about Provo's citizens "separating themselves from eachother."  "When the leaven leaves the loaf, we have a problem for all Provo."

Barbara Sandstrom spoke briefly about the effect this school would likely have on enrollment on the schools in her district. 

George Stewart stated that his views followed the Mayors.  The ultimate vote was 4 to 3, with George Stewart, Steve Turley, Cynthia Dayton, & Midge Johnson voting for the bond conduit, and Cindy Richards, Cindy Clark and Barbara Sandstrom voting against it. 

The other item of interest which took some of the Council's time was regarding whether or not to allow Assisted Living Centers to be allowed in the Central Business District.  Before the vote, Provo didn't have a "zone" which expressly allowed these centers, which was probably contrary to federal housing laws.  Previous efforts by developers to place them in or near single family residential zones had encountered a great deal of opposition.  The CBD, as it is called, is near the hospital, close to many services, as well as freeway access, and has some positives.  The negative was expressed by Cindy Richards, who called for a modification.

Her concern was that many parts of the CBD weren't commercial at all, but very much residential, and more a part of the historic neighborhoods surrounding downtown than a part of downtown.  She pointed out that without modification, parts of the Provo Historic District would be eligible for "tear down" under this change.  She pointed out that developers always seek the least expensive land, and that would be the furthest out (closest to the neighborhoods).  Current CBD rules have no height limits, and have very little Council control, unlike other zones. 

The council agreed, and with her suggested "map" as a limitation, the ordinance was passed unanimously. 

Last night, the Provo City Council tackled a no win situation.  The Catholic Church had applied to have its former Chapel at the SE corner of 500 West and 200 North in the Timpanogos neighborhood removed from the Provo Landmarks Registry.  They want to sell the building, and their buyer wants it removed from the Landmarks so it can be torn down once they take possession.  The buyer has an option on the property that lasts until April 26th.  The option isn't just for the chapel, it is also for the other 3 houses the Church owns just east of the Chapel. 

So, here's the situation--a room filled with people, either Catholics from all over the county, or residents of the neighborhood or Provo.  The Catholics were eager for the money from the Church to finish their building in Orem.  Their priest, in one of his better performances, pointed out that the Catholic Diocese hadn't received proper notification of the meetings that put the property on the landmarks and had expressed concerns in a well known letter.  His points were well made, though he sounded just like the lawyer he is.  He had the instant sympathy of George Stewart who had been Mayor when all of this happened.  George obviously felt like what had happened wasn't fair, or right, and should be corrected. 

Of course, it wasn't quite that simple.  Tearing down that historic building would eliminate the last Spanish Mission style building in Provo, and one of only two in Utah County.  (The other being the Springville Art Museum).  It also would open up the property for a developer to immediately apply for and receive a demolition permit, and as is well known, developers love tearing down buildings like this before they apply for permits, rezones, etc.  The portion of the property where the Church sits is part of the CBD zone (Central Business District), and doesn't require the City Council's approval for new development.  Only Planning Commission approval would be needed, and no height limitations.  Say hello to more high density housing, or if you were really lucky,  a medical office building.  The back half of the property though, is in the RC (residential conservation) zone, and wouldn't allow that.  Any change would have to be approved by the City Council.  On the other side of 200 North are historic homes, owner occupied, and the nearby residents are not eager to see it replaced by high density housing. 

2 plus hours of people speaking in 3 minute intervals.  Great points, and some less than great points.  The council took the time to literally interrogate Stephen Hales, the Landmarks Commission Chair, as well as a couple others.  The worst of the bunch--a police officer from Orem who told the council that vacant buildings were notorious for being the site of sex crimes, drugs, and all sorts of crime issues, and that this was no different.  Her bias was so blatant it stunk.  Especially since the neighborhood police officer had told the neighbors that he'd only had 2 incidents in 4 years at the property. 

Provo residents and neighborhood lovers pushed hard for reprieve, and time to try to save the building.  George Stewart wasn't too kind to them.   He literally chewed them out for not being more understanding toward the plight of the Catholic Church's need for the money, etc.  His words were not carefully chosen.  Perhaps he was feeling guilty because it was his administration that made some mistakes to begin with.  Regardless, other Council members didn't agree.  Midge Johnson pointed out that these Neighbors have gone through a lot, and had their neighborhoods torn apart by apartment buildings, and have literally been "wronged" by previous city council's decisions.  She and others felt some kind of a reprieve was worth giving. 

George Stewart made a motion to remove the building from the landmarks.  Then, after much comment, it was replaced by a substitute motion by Cynthia Dayton which continued the decision until the first meeting in April--in effect giving those who wish to do something to save the building 54 days to put it all together.  The time period would allow the Council to then act on the proposal before the Church's option expired.  Cynthia Dayton, Cindy Clark, Cindy Richards, and Midge Johnson supported this substitute motion.  Steve Turley, Barbara Sandstrom, and George Stewart took the alternative view. 

In the end, the Council made a bit of a Solomon's baby decision.  Their choice harms no one, and it gives time to the Neighborhood to attempt preservation.  If nothing can be accomplished, the Catholic Church will get their wish, the building will be removed from the landmarks, and Provo will lose another historic gem. 

Senate Bill 194 is Curt Bramble's latest attack on anything non-Republican.  He has decided, and created, a bill which would force anyone who wants to run for their local school board to be nominated by their political party.  So--no more can a PTA mom just sign her name and go for it.  No she has to pay homage to the "party Gods" of either the Republican or Democratic Party, and be formally nominated.  And judging from the current balance of power in our state, I think his intentions are a little too obvious.  He claims he is just seeking more candidates to run, so we don't have as many unopposed candidates.  But of course, he makes statements about  "School Choice" (his code word for Vouchers) at the same time.  He's trying to introduce state level partisan issues into local school boards.  This is the wrong way to find more candidates. 

The introduction of party politics into local school boards is completely unnecessary, and the wrong place for it.  The goal of our local school boards should be to make sure that our children are well educated, not to make sure that party "bosses" are happy.  Do we really want to push out the independents from this process, where their real concerns are schools, not Republican vs Democratic issues?

His bill also makes changes in how the State School Board is organized and makes it a partisan body also.  I would agree that some changes are needed there, but is the necessary change "partisan" politics, or creating a system where State School Board members represent districts?

If the Senator is truly concerned with the numbers of candidates for local school board positions, perhaps he should consider offering them a pay raise.  Putting in large numbers of hours for something that pays almost nothing isn't too appealing for most people, and we live in a world with less and less time for things other than making a living and raising our families.  How many of us have around 20 hours a week to devote to a school board for a couple thousand a year?

Last night, a 40 acre portion of the Rock Canyon and Pleasant View Neighborhoods (located just north of the Temple) was the focus of the council's time.  One resident decided to make an application to make at least 27 illegal basement apartments "legal" by having Provo's "A" overlay zone extended to their area.  The area has 109 structures, so the illegal apartments seem to abound.  They had a large majority of residents sign a petition to this effect, but that wasn't enough.  They had a few things against them.  First, their area isn't the entire Rock Canyon or Pleasant View Neighborhoods, and any action taken affects the rest, and the "rest" wasn't in favor.  Both neighborhood chairs were against this move.  The next strike was the testimony of other Neighborhood Chairs about why this area shouldn't go down this path.  Then the citizens began to speak: some highlights

The "A" overlay was created in order to downzone large portions of Provo from high density to single family.  It was a political compromise.  The proposed use of it would be an "upzone" of the area, in effect doubling its occupancy.

Fred Wright:  Was for the proposal so the city wouldn't have to take DNA tests to make sure the residents were his grandchildren.

Mrs. Joseph W. Brown:  "A City without zoning is like a ship without a rudder.  We built our home secure in that we were in a single family home."

Eric Hyer:  "A" overlay ultimately means declining school age population and closing of neighborhood schools.  The area was planned as a single family area.

Ray Christensen, Wasatch Neighborhood Chair:  Told about the differences between the side of his neighborhood that has accessory apartments and the side that doesn't.  He pointed out that 4 families with children moved into the "S" overlay homes (ones with accessory apartments), and 19 moved into the non "S" overlay homes. 

Phil Goodson, Wants to do with his home as he pleased.  "Wants things to stay as they are, and I've never seen anybody yet who didn't need the rent."

William Christensen, 4 year resident of this area, stated that the renters have been great residents so far, but was concerned about the transiency that would occur if the "A" overlay came.  "We feel more comfortable knowing who lives around us as parents."  Made the contention that Provo is very flexible in its zoning options and the Council should protect the rights as given.

John Dester, 22 year resident--stated that he didn't like this process, and that this process of the illegal basements had sped up.  He felt it was important to protect the property rights of those in the r1-10 zone, and didn't like the concept of people picking and choosing which ordinances they like and which ones they don't. 

David Wright, long term resident, BYU professor, "If the law had been enforced rigidly 22 years ago, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem today."

Steve Nelson, Concerned about the creeping element.  People who are very moral are very willing to break the law and call themselves honest.  The next step, someone from California buys it, puts a child in it, and it will be a duplex.

Connie Nelson, I don't feel a home should be used as an income source.  Looking at Utah's bankruptcy rate, that is a dangerous trend.

After all this listening, the council began talking, and they didn't hesitate. 

Cynthia Dayton:  "Provo is 60% rentals, does Provo need more rentals?  50% of our land is rental housing?  Voted against the change.

Cindy Clark:  "I would be amiss if I didn't continue this philosophy of protecting the neighborhood."  Voted against the change.

George Stewart--voted against the change.

Barbara Sandstrom:  "Very concerned about the undeveloped property in this neighborhood.  Voting to deny is voting to protect property rights."  Voted against the change.

Midge Johnson:  Tonight is the opposite of the Wasatch situation, the neighbors want it.  The process is a little flawed, but it is on our books.  The baby boom has left an empty nest boom.  Voted in favor.

Steve Turley:  Grew up in this area, saw valid points on both sides of the argument, so he decided to do more research.  He challenged the Council and the audience to learn the true benefit of accessory apartments.  He cited the American Planning Institute and their support of accessories, because they were such "affordable housing."  Cited 136 studies and "embracing non-traditional forms of home-ownership."  He claimed that the overall health of neighborhoods comes from a diversity of choices.  Contended that these apartments prevented urban sprawl.  Claimed that he couldn't find a downside in any of the studies.  Voted in favor of the rentals. (no surprise there.)

Cindy Richards:  Pointed out that the decision was about policy, the long term best interest of the neighborhood, and that the term used by Mr. Turley "affordable housing" is the Federal government's phrase for rental housing.  Reminded us that Provo is a 2 college town, and it has a draw to many kinds of residents.  We have larger families than most college towns, and average 18-22 car trips per family per day, which is a lot higher than the national average.  She pointed out that the last census doesn't count the "A" or "S" overlay accessory apartments as rentals in their statistics.  Provo is only 2% of the county's land, but has 55% (at least) of its rentals.  "We are the hallmark of affordable housing for Utah County, Utah, and perhaps the West."  Stabilizing a community is like an eco-system.  Different places for different things.  We have a diversity of choices in our neighborhoods.  Voted against the proposal.

So, the vote was 5-2 against the proposal.  The council also voted 7-0 to request a proposal from Community Development to change the "A" overlay ordinance which allows these petitions, etc. 

Well, if not, you've been driving with your eyes closed.  It seems to be all over the place.  In the Council's study session, they asked for a report on it.  The Police Chief and his expert came to provide the information.  The last 4-5 months have been particularly bad according to them, and it seems to have no boundaries in terms of neighborhoods or locations within town.  Parks, in particular, seem to have been really hard hit. 

Who is doing this?  Approximately 10% by gang members, 80% by "Taggers" looking to make their mark and decorate.  They recently arrested a young adult with over 260 cans of spray paint in his possession, and a fire extinguisher that he had converted to hold paint, and pressurized.  How comforting......

So, what can you do?  You can immediately call Provo City's Police Dispatch number and report any graffiti that you see.  The phone number is 852-6210.  Tell them the address, what it looks like, and if you saw who did it.  They'll pass the information immediately by email to Sergeant Besendorfer, who will visit the site, remove it if it is simple, or arrange for removal.  Their goal is to have it taken off within 24-48 hours.  This won't happen without reporting by you.  Don't worry for a minute about whether or not someone else has reported it.  If it is still there--assume it hasn't been reported. 

Today I saw a little bit of President Ford's funeral, with Tom Brokaw speaking.  He said something about how President Ford was part of a generation that served in WW2, then came home and "enlisted as citizens."  I hope you'll do the same and help make Provo a better place to live.

The council had one real item that occupied 2 hours of time.  It was quite a testament to the efforts of two dedicated co-chairs of a neighborhood, the desire of a neighborhood to achieve a goal, and a reasonable compromise to make it happen. 

The Wasatch neighborhood, unlike some of the downtown neighborhoods, has always been an "R-1" or residential neighborhood.  Part of it has what they call the "S" overlay, which lets owner occupants have basement apartments which can be rented out.  But of course, through the years, some homes seem to have slipped through the zoning rules--some illegally, and at least 6 managed to gain what is called "non-conforming duplex" status which gain them the legal rights to have duplexes, which didn't have to have any sort of owner-occupancy.  Most were just plain errors, in one way or another, and each had been well researched by the co-chairs. 

What they proposed was to take away that non-conforming status and have those homes come into compliance with current zoning laws.  Each of these would be given 3 years to do so, and could apply for more time if they could prove they needed more time to make up any economic loss.  If the home is sold, that time schedule would go with the house.  

Interesting things that were said:

"Make it fair for all by enacting this."

"Make the automatic 3 year period transferrable at sale."

"Many families could cloak themselves in the legal rights talk, but the general rule is that they want to make the neighborhood a better place and live by the ordinances."

"You would be making this illegal after the fact."

Naomi Udall, widowed at 45 with 6 kids, says she could have rented out part of the house, but didn't because the ordinances said no, and she wanted to obey the law.

JoAnn Hickman--Realtors need to clean up their act, they need to make things clear on what is really allowed.

Susan Daynes--"The Neighborhood Chair has the pulse of the neighborhood.  He doesn't single out people to persecute."

Roger Brown--Said that 1/2 of the State Supreme Courts that have ruled on this sort of thing didn't agree with this. 

"Natural Progression of achieving the goals of the General Plan."

When the Council was done listening and ready to move, George Stewart made a motion that they accept the version of the ordinance that the Planning Commission had approved, with a couple clarifications.  Comments from the Council: 

Midge Johnson:  Some of this felt like Monopoly with changing rules, but she commended the spirit of the neighborhood and the way they went about this.

Steve Turley:  Stated he could have supported an alternative version of this with a longer extension of the non-conforming rights.  He was worried about precedent.  "What if we were to do this in the RC zone?"

Barbara Sandstrom:  "this is protecting the future of the neighborhood."

The vote was 6 to 1 in favor.  Steve Turley opposing.

In other action, George Stewart was reelected as chair, Cindy Richards as Vice-Chair.

The Council met on Tuesday night, gave awards to those who were the best Christmas decorators, yelled appropriately for the Cougars, and then went on with their regular business.  Other than land use items--not much was on the agenda.

First, officially rezoning land just south of Utah Valley Regional Medical Center as PF (public facility) so the hospital can create more parking lots.  IHC has already bought all the houses, and most of the houses are currently vacant, so this isn't something they suddenly decided to do.  IHC fears they don't have enough space for the type of hospital they need to have--hence the buying.  Council members were falling all over eachother to make sure they expressed their "desire to be good hosts."  Only one of them, Cindy Richards, had the guts to ask what IHC's intentions were regarding the land between this purchase, and 800 North.  You see, there is a whole neighborhood of houses that sit there, and have been there since about 1950.  IHC has other options.  They can go north across Bulldog boulevard and work on acquiring the commercial land there, or start real long term negotiations with the school district for the land Provo High Sits on.  But, neighborhood consumption is cheaper, and more convenient for them.  IHC has to spend capital, they can't sit on it, or they start having problems with their tax-free status.  So, don't expect them to wait too long.  Their answer to Cindy---we don't know, we are about to start "studying" what we are going to need in the whole county for the long term.  Vote was unanimous in favor of the rezone.

Next item was a small redevelopment at 98 N 900 East.  A developer has proposed tearing down 2 rental buildings containing 5 units, and building 5 townhomes.  They would face 900 East, have garages under the structures, and a small play area for kids on the side, behind the units.  This was an S-Pro, so it was an attempt to get the Council's opinions.  Problem was, he had changed his designs dramatically since initially submitting them in response to feedback from Neighborhood Meetings and Planning Commission, and the Council hadn't had a chance to review them.  He did offer to place deed restrictions on the units so they have to be owner occupied, and include in the CC & R's of the Townhomes restrictions also.  Feedback was generally positive, but Council continued the item to give itself time to review the new plans.  Good concept though--getting rid of worn out rentals and getting nice new owner occupied housing with deed restrictions.

The last real item was called the "Brentwood Condominiums" and will be located at the corner of 900 East and University Ave.  It has an L shape, with one end extending to University Avenue.  This had been continued from a previous meeting, and wasn't terribly different this time.  They had shrunk the design some, and increased the parking ratio.  The developer agreed to some occupancy restrictions that would permanently be in place in the Pro-Zone so it wouldn't end up like other previous zoning enforcement disasters.  It is surrounded by student housing, and a good place for student housing.  This one is designed for married student housing, and will serve them well.  Council's real concern was the possibility of conversion in the future into Single student housing with inadequate parking, etc. Interestingly enough, the Mayor, Lewis Billings, just couldn't help but chime in on this one--a lot.  No surprise there.  The landowner/developer is an old friend of his.  The bias was a little too unusual not to be noticed.  The vote was 5 to one in favor of the project, Cynthia Dayton opposing, Cindy Richards absent.  Perhaps the surprise to me came from Cindy Clark. She stated something so true--Provo doesn't need any more apartments, and then something else about legitimate concerns she had, but she still voted for it.  What was I missing?

When presented with the opportunity, he just can't resist.  A libertarian think tank based in Los Angeles gave him the opportunity by "evaluating" iProvo and finding all sorts of fault with it.  Of course, their organization finds all sorts of faults with almost all government involvement with anything they think the "private" sector could do.  That includes airports, security issues, and even public utilities. 

So far, 8100 of Provo's households have subscribed to the services offered.  Not enough for break even on the bonds, but solid progress.  Turley couldn't resist bragging about his opposition in the Herald.  He voted against a fund transfer to help iProvo pay its bond payment last year, and evidently feels it makes him the "fiscal saint" of Provo. 

Being "against" at this point won't solve anything.  The bonds were already sold, the system already installed.  What solutions does Mr. Turley offer to improve or speed up subscription rates?  A quick read of the study, versus the comments of the Mayor and others tells you that there are two very divergent stories here.  What I see is political posturing, not problem solving. 

History teaches us a few lessons.  Public utilities were not quick successes, and it wasn't always easy to see their benefits.  But, for those systems that were managed well, things can work really well.  Compare Provo's electric rates to those being paid in other areas under other systems, and you'll see what an incredible system we have.  Provo almost got a company to move hear last year because of cost differences in Utilities. 

iProvo's system capabilities are superior to Comcast or Qwest, and the prices usually better.  Many of those who haven't moved from those companies to iProvo have seen price cuts thanks to iProvo's existence.  Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to condemn what a "public" system is capable of. 

Last evening featured a couple of land use issues, along with a few other things.  First of those was the annual employee bonus.  This year, according to John Borget, the city's finance man, and the Mayor, they earned a 2.5% bonus through savings on the operational side.  Here's how it works.  If the city saves a dollar on operational costs, the employees get 50%, and the city keeps half for other uses.  The formula doesn't include any unexpected increases in sales tax or other revenue.  The vote was 7 to 0, no drama other than Steve Turley's customary "wish" that he could exclude himself and other Council members from this bonus.  Sorry Steve, aren't you an employee, working for the City? 

In land use, the first of the battles was a developer with no friends.  City Staff was opposed, Planning Commission was opposed, as was every single city department asked.  The project was another housing developement on the far west side--way out by the boat harbor on Utah Lake.  It had multiple enemies, for many reasons.  The water table being too high, too close to the airport, it being a project that wasn't even "in" Provo City entirely, and it was leapfrogging other undevelopped sites--something that is a no-no in Provo's views.  So, not surprisingly, the vote was unanimously against it.  It will be awhile before that 96 acres is going to get developed. 

The next project was at the corner of 880 North and University Avenue, (west side).  Technically in the Northpark neighborhood, it sits very close to BYU and is surrounded by other apartments.  Currently the land is an older, well maintained bungalow on that corner, and an apartment building behind it that they would like to redevelop.  The developer wants a dense, married student housing complex.  Each unit would be 2 bed, 1 bath, and he wants to provide 2 parking stalls per unit, or 1.75 per unit, and .25 visitor spaces per unit.  They will be condo's and sold.  Originally, with a covenant amongst owners that restricts things.  Problem is--its so close to campus, it is inevitable that change will occur, and investors will likely see those as great places for putting single students--which means inadequate parking.  The council talked a long time, but the problem was they were looking and talking about his preliminary plans, and he had supposedly changed them.  I don't think he was even clear on what his plans were by the way he kept looking at his designer/architect.  Steve Turley made a motion of approval--which was probably doomed, then after the realization they had inadequate information had fully set in, George Stewart made a motion to postpone the decision until December.  Frankly, that developer got a reprieve to get his ducks in a row.  Accurate drawings, etc would probably help, but he may not succeed without an increase in the parking ratio. 

After 9 months of work, the council, in essence, threw up their hands and said--"we give up," on definition of the family and all the associationed issues.  It seems, in reality there are no end to the attached problems that come with what makes up a family, whether or not Provo residents should have the right to have boarders in a single family zone, whether or not mother-in-law apartments should exist in these zones, and if they do, should anyone but family live in these zones.  I won't even try to go through the arguments.  I think what killed the changes proposed was the fact that it would make "de-facto" accessory apartments virtually ok for any one who didn't have a house full of people already.  See-you just can't have family plus 2, as well as 2nd kitchens and rules against accessory apartments.  Current rules say no 2nd kitchens without an signed agreement with the city that you won't have anyone live with you who isn't family.  The City's community development department said it was fairly simple to enforce.

On a more positive note, the council passed 7 to zero a change to the lot-coverage ordinance affecting the RC zone which restricts back-yard paving for good.  No more of these back-yard parking lots will be added, and reasonable limits on concrete and asphalt have been set.  25% of backyards, one of the sideyards, and no front yard space can be paved (except sidewalk).  Previous to the vote, Steve Turley expressed a typical, pro-landlord concern, that those who have applied for their Rental Dwelling License already should have the chance to pave the lots—fundamentally opposed to not letting those people finish their destructive work.  He made a motion—which died for a lack of a second.  Cindy Richards pointed out they have had 3 years to accomplish the tasks needed for their Rental Dwelling Licenses. (The ordinance was passed in 2003)  Neil (Council Attorney) says the moratorium let existing apps finish any work already in progress--but new applications wouldn't receive that ability after the lot coverage ordinance was changed.  Neil also pointed out that landlords are deemed to be buying income property, and to be a sophisticated buyer by Utah's "buyer-beware" laws, and need to do their due diligence.  Surprisingly, Mr. Turley voted for the ordinance.  You just never can read that fellow.