City Council Meetings

Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Redevelopment Agency of Provo Regular Meeting Agenda 5:30 PM, Tuesday, March 11, 2025 Council Chambers Hybrid meeting: 445 W. Center Street, Provo, UT 84601 or https://www.youtube.com/provocitycouncil Roll Call THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT: Councilor Becky Bogdin Councilor Craig Christensen (remote) Councilor Gary Garrett Councilor George Handley Councilor Travis Hoban Councilor Katrice MacKay Councilor Rachel Whipple Mayor Michelle Kaufusi Deputy Mayor Isaac Paxman City Attorney Brian Jones Council Executive Director Justin Harrison City Recorder Heidi Allman Conducting: Chair Gary Garrett Prayer – Rachel Breen Pledge of Allegiance – Councilor MacKay Presentations, Proclamations, and Awards 1 A recognition of Provo City by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance as a 2024 Visionary Digital Inclusion Trailblazer (25-007). 0:06:57 John Borget, Director of Administrative Services, presented. He invited Josh Ihrig, Division Director of Information Systems, to join him. Mr. Borget said Provo City was recognized by the National Digital Alliance as the 2024 Visionary Digital Inclusion Trailblazer, marking the fifth consecutive year the city has earned this national honor. This award celebrates Provo’s ongoing efforts to bridge the digital divide by promoting digital literacy and providing broadband access to underserved communities. He emphasized that the city’s guiding directive envisions a future where every resident can easily, safely, and affordably access and use digital resources. Mr. Borget highlighted a statement from Mr. Ihrig, emphasizing that without digital equity, people face barriers to fully participating in key aspects of society such as employment, education, healthcare, and civic life. Mayor Michelle Kaufusi reinforced this point, underscoring the need to ensure all residents have access to essential digital services. Mr. Borget thanked key community partners supporting these initiatives, including United Way, Google Fiber, Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, the Provo City School District, Provo Library, the Recreation Center, and numerous volunteers. He concluded by expressing appreciation for the collaboration and the benefits it brings to Provo residents. Chair Garrett expressed appreciation to the department for their contributions in earning this recognition and for their continued service to the community. 2 A ceremony for the pinning of police badges. (25-025) 0:09:43 Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 1 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chief Beebe delivered a heartfelt address during the badge pinning ceremony, honoring a long-standing tradition in law enforcement. He emphasized that the badge is more than just a piece of metal, it represents a deep commitment to justice, public trust, and service. Pinning the badge signifies the weight of responsibility officers accept, not only for themselves but also shared by their families. Chief Beebe highlighted the badge as a symbol of the trust the community places in its officers, who are called to make selfless sacrifices to protect and serve. He closed by affirming that wearing the badge is truly an honor. The officers honored and pinned were Ian Zemp, Cameron Reagan, Garrison Williams, Tyler Vanderstel, and James Grant. Heidi Allman, City Recorder, administered the oath of office to the new officers. Public Comment 0:22:32 Chair Garrett read the public comment preamble. He then opened the public comment period. Lindley Richards, of Provo, expressed her desire for improved parking availability along Seven Peaks Boulevard between 300 North and 700 North. She noted that the current two-hour parking limit and the restriction from 2 to 5 a.m. create challenges for students, guests, and nearby permanent residents. These limitations often lead people to park in nearby permitted neighborhoods, reserved spots at King Henry and Belmont, and private business lots like Little Caesars and VASA Fitness. Richards emphasized that the street has wide shoulders and believes adjusting the parking rules would greatly benefit the surrounding community. Maeve Boyack, of Provo, voiced support for Lindley Richards' comments and added that the current parking restrictions on Seven Peaks Boulevard contribute to the perception of a wider road. This, she noted, may encourage speeding, which could pose a safety risk to pedestrians. Atlas Goodrich, of Provo, echoed the concerns shared by the previous speakers, emphasizing that the lack of overnight parking on Seven Peaks Boulevard pushes vehicles into nearby residential areas, creating a nuisance. He also stressed that pedestrian safety is impacted, as the absence of parked cars on Seven Peaks leads to faster driving. In contrast, nearby streets like 420 North near King Henry see slower traffic due to parked cars, which helps protect the many pedestrians crossing in the area. Chair Garrett closed public comment. With no objections, the Provo Municipal Council adjourned and reconvened as the Redevelopment Agency Governing Board of Provo City with Chair Whipple conducting. Redevelopment Agency of Provo 3 A resolution approving a services agreement between the RDA and Provo City. (25-039) 0:25:36 Motion: An implied motion to approve 2025-RDA-03-11-1, as currently constituted. Brian Jones, City Attorney, presented. He gave a brief recap of a recent work session presentation regarding the relationship between Provo City and its Redevelopment Agency (RDA), which are legally Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 2 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. separate entities but governed by the same City Council. He explained that the two have an existing services agreement outlining support the city provides to the RDA, such as meeting space and accounting services. He said the current agenda item involves appointing a new RDA director, who is already a city employee. The proposed resolution would amend the services agreement to have the RDA reimburse the city for 80% of that employee’s compensation, reflecting the portion of time and resources they will dedicate to RDA duties. This is a change from the previous agreement, which had the RDA covering 100% of the salary, aligning with a reduction in the employees’ RDA responsibilities. Chair Whipple opened public comment. With none, she called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Board Members Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 4 A resolution consenting to the appointment of the Provo City Redevelopment Agency director. (25-006) 0:28:41 Motion: An implied motion to approve 2025-RDA-03-11-2, as currently constituted. Mayor Kaufusi enthusiastically recommended Melissa McNally for appointment as the Director of the Provo City Redevelopment Agency. She praised Melissa as a talented, trusted, and detail-oriented member of the Development Services leadership team, with a master’s in public administration and extensive behind-the-scenes experience on RDA projects. The mayor highlighted Melissa’s dedication to public service and her proven ability to see projects through to completion. Expressing full confidence in her capabilities, Mayor Kaufusi asked the council for their support in confirming Melissa’s appointment. Chair Whipple shared her strong support for Melissa McNally’s appointment, highlighting Melissa’s excellent work managing Provo’s CDBG funds. She praised Melissa’s careful and meticulous approach, especially in handling complex reporting and accounting as a pass-through agency for grant funding. Chair Whipple emphasized that Melissa’s attention to detail and competence will serve the city well in her new role. She also recalled a personal interaction at a city blood drive, describing Melissa as delightful and expressing her gratitude for Melissa’s willingness to take on the position. Board Member Garrett expressed how impressed he was by the strong turnout of coworkers and staff showing support for Melissa McNally’s appointment. He noted that their presence is a clear reflection of the high level of respect she has earned. Chair Whipple called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Board Members Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. With no objections, the Redevelopment Agency Governing Board adjourned and reconvened as the Provo Municipal Council with Chair Garrett conducting. Consent Agenda 0:36:43 Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 3 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chair Garrett discussed the purpose of the consent agenda and asked if there were any public comments on either of the items. With none, he asked any council member wanted to remove an item from the consent agenda. Councilor MacKay said she was fine leaving the current items on the consent agenda but expressed a general preference against using consent agendas in the future. She noted that grouping multiple items together, especially when there are many, can be confusing for members of the public, particularly those attending their first council meeting. She emphasized the importance of providing full explanations of each item to ensure better public understanding. Chair Garrett called for a vote on both consent agenda items. 5 A resolution approving the appropriation of $20,115 in the general fund for a contractual sales tax increment post-performance payment to The Shops at Riverwoods. (25-026) 6 A resolution approving the appropriation of $84,784 in the general fund for a contractual sales tax increment post-performance payment to Parkway Village. (25-027) Vote: The motions passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Action Agenda 7 A resolution approving an interlocal agreement between Provo City and Utah County regarding funding for the Provo Municipal Airport terminal expansion. (25-020) 0:37:35 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-7, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Isaac Paxman, Deputy Mayor, presented. He shared that Airport Director Brian Torgerson was absent because he had been invited to present on the Provo Airport at the American Association of Airport Executives conference—highlighting the airport’s growing recognition. Paxman announced that Utah County has offered a generous, unprecedented contribution of $78 million to help fully build out the airport’s 10-gate expansion. He expressed the city’s excitement and gratitude for the offer and welcomed any questions from the council. Councilor Christensen requested a brief explanation for the public about how the city reached this point with the Provo Airport project. He emphasized the significance of the county’s $78 million contribution, calling it a remarkable and generous gift, and asked for more context on the county’s support. Mr. Paxman explained that the $78 million offer from Utah County to fully expand the Provo Airport stems from years of collaborative funding efforts and has demonstrated success. Initially, the city worked to piece together funds with early contributions from the state legislature ($9 million) and the county, which attracted federal support and led to the construction of the current terminal. The terminal quickly exceeded long-term projections for flight volume, attracting airlines like Breeze and American Airlines, further elevating the airport’s profile. The city was planning a gradual expansion from four to seven gates when, following regional discussions through the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), a county representative unexpectedly proposed fully funding the 10-gate build- Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 4 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. out. The $78 million would come from the county’s tourism tax—funds already collected from hotel stays and restaurant purchases—which must legally be used to promote tourism. County leaders saw this investment as the most impactful use of those funds, benefiting both residents and the broader regional economy by supporting business, growth, and quality of life. Paxman emphasized that the offer was unsolicited and reflects the airport’s value as a catalyst for future prosperity. Councilor Christensen noted that as an entrepreneur, securing financing is always a major challenge, so having this project funded entirely through a visitor’s tax is especially impressive. He praised the administration and Brian Torgerson for their excellent work, emphasizing that the airport’s success is a major asset for Provo and a perfect example of the kind of amenity the city deserves. He described the project as a "home run" for Provo’s growth and economic potential. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he invited a council discussion. Councilor Bogdin acknowledged the significance of the county’s funding offer and the rare opportunity it presents for the city, recognizing that the financial risk is being taken on by the county. However, she expressed concern about the pace of growth at the airport, noting that it is not yet self-sustaining, as evidenced by a related agenda item requesting additional appropriations to cover expenses. Due to these concerns about expanding too rapidly, she stated that she would be voting no. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 6:1 with Councilors Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Councilor Bogdin opposed. 8 A resolution appropriating $19,500,000 in the airport fund, funded by a contribution from Utah County, for airport terminal expansion applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. (25-020) 0:44:45 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-8, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Deputy Mayor Paxman presented. He explained that part of the funding from the county includes an offer to advance some of the money immediately, which is especially helpful for the airport's needs. The city must act quickly to utilize federal funds that would expire if not used soon, particularly for the baggage and ticketing expansion. This immediate funding will help kickstart the project, including the necessary design work for the full airport build-out. He emphasized the importance of this initial funding and requested the appropriation to move forward. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, he invited a council discussion. Councilor Christensen likened the process of securing the necessary funding and grants for the airport to a game of Frogger, where timing and sequencing are crucial to success. He praised the team’s expertise in navigating such complex tasks, emphasizing the high level of skill required to coordinate everything properly. He described the county’s support as a remarkable and timely form of assistance, highlighting the talent involved in securing and managing the airport’s funding and operations. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 5 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 9 A resolution approving the transfer of $650,124 from the general fund to the airport fund for an interfund loan payment and an associated appropriation of $160,071 in the airport fund to pay for interest expenses. (25-029) 0:46:58 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-9, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mr. Borget presented. He provided an update on an interfund loan authorized by the council in April 2020 between the airport fund and the energy fund for land purchase near the airport. The loan, which had a 10-year term with fixed principal payments and a variable interest rate, started at $4.9 million. As of now, the balance is just under $2.5 million, with five years remaining. While the airport is currently not able to make the full payment, it is expected that by fiscal year 2027, the airport will be able to cover the entire payment. Councilor Whipple asked if the airport fund is paying for the interest. Mr. Borget clarified that the general fund would pay both the principal and interest, and once the transfer is made, the airport will reimburse the energy fund for both principal and interest. Currently, the airport is not contributing to the balance but will repay the energy fund when the transfer from the general fund is completed. Chair Garrett opened public comment. With none, and no council discussion. He called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 10 A resolution approving the appointment of individuals to various boards and commissions. (25-031) 0:50:37 Motion: An implied motion to approve Resolution 2025-10, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Mayor Kaufusi presented. She recommended Newell Daley, Christopher Meek, Stephanie Breinholt, Isaac King, and Nate Keller to the Arts Council and Greg MacFarlane to the Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee. Councilor Whipple thanked the mayor and her staff for providing detailed information about the individuals being considered for service. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to learn more about them and acknowledged their willingness to serve. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 6 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. 11 An ordinance amending the zone map classification of approximately 0.82 acres of real property, generally located at 4122 North Canyon Road, from the RA Zone to the R1.10 Zone. North Timpview Neighborhood (PLRZ20250003) 0:54:24 Motion: An implied motion to approve an Ordinance, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Jessica Dahneke, City Planner, presented. She said the proposed rezone to R1-10 would align the property with the zoning of neighboring properties to the east and south. She highlighted that the rezone is consistent with both the city's general plan and the Northeast neighborhood plan. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Bonnie Morrow, of Provo, clarified that the property being subdivided is part of an estate settlement for Rowena Glazier’s property, which has been in the family for nearly 100 years. The land is to be divided among seven heirs, with the final portion being subdivided. The parcel where Penny Glazier resides will be re-zoned to R1-10, while the southern part of the property will remain in Residential Agricultural (RA). The division will result in a quarter-acre lot for Penny’s property and a half-acre lot for the remaining land. The existing home, about 0.32 acres, will be included in the R1-10 zone, while the rest stays in RA. She emphasized that the subdivision was not possible into two RA pieces due to size constraints. Sharron Memmott, of Provo, pointed out that the map presented was not entirely accurate. She clarified that only the top portion of the property would be rezoned to R1-10, while the bottom rectangle, if drawn straight across, would remain in Residential Agricultural (RA). She also noted that this proposal was presented at a neighborhood meeting, and no attendees had any objections to the proposed zone change. Chair Garrett closed public comment. With no council discussion, he called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. ***Item was reconsidered at 1:25:00*** 12 An ordinance amending Provo City Code regarding the minimum lot size requirement in the Agritourism Overlay (AT) Zone. (PLOTA20240383) 1:00:05 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-17, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Dustin Wright, City Planner, presented. He explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the agritourism overlay zone code to reduce the minimum acreage requirement from five acres to one acre. This change would not impact any existing properties but would allow property owners with at least one acre to apply for the overlay zone in the future. If approved, the applicant plans to return with a specific rezoning request to apply the overlay to their property. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 7 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Councilor Hoban asked why the original minimum was 5 acres. Mr. Wright responded that he was not sure of the reason behind the minimum. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Peggy Case, applicant, shared that she purchased her property three years ago with a vision of creating a community-oriented, farm-to-table experience. She included an inspirational image in her handout to illustrate her dream. She is requesting a reduction in the lot size requirement to help make that vision possible. David Simpson, applicant, described the property as a long, narrow, and unique piece of land next to Steve Turley’s property, which Turley has expressed interest in buying. However, the Simpsons want to keep it for hosting family functions, which they have done without any neighbor complaints. He noted they have addressed traffic concerns by providing access from Center Street to 130 South and have ample parking available. Ms. Case explained that she has hosted several small gatherings, such as bridal showers, birthday parties, and family reunions, at her property, which have received positive feedback. People have asked to rent the space for similar events, but she has hesitated because she wants to operate legally and does not function as a full-scale event center. Instead, she envisions hosting small community-oriented events like dinners, educational classes, and workshops (e.g., wreath making, cooking). She believes her property would serve as a valuable resource for the west side of town, which currently lacks such venues, and noted that her location also acts as a buffer between a nearby neighborhood and a diesel mechanic shop. Councilor Bogdin asked why the commercial zoning was not explored instead of Agritourism Overlay. Aaron Ardmore, Planning Supervisor, explained that when Ms. Case approached Development Services, they discussed potential zoning options. While a general commercial zone was considered, it was deemed too broad and potentially problematic due to fewer restrictions, such as on noise and hours of operation, which might raise neighborhood concerns. Instead, they agreed that pursuing the agritourism overlay zone would be a more appropriate and limited approach that aligns better with Ms. Case’s goals and is less risky from a community impact standpoint. He also noted that while the general plan designates mixed use for the intersection nearby, her property lies just west of that area. Councilor Bogdin expressed a preference for using a commercial zone rather than applying an agricultural tourism overlay to a one-acre property. She believes commercial zoning would resolve her concerns, prevent inappropriate uses from entering residential areas, and still allow the applicant to proceed. She noted that even a neighborhood chair had suggested commercial zoning as an alternative and pointed out that the area already includes commercial establishments like Family Dollar, making commercial zoning a more logical fit. Councilor Christensen expressed concern about the unintended consequences of changing the agritourism overlay zone requirements citywide for a single exception. While he supports the idea of commercial use for this particular property and sees it as a good fit, he is hesitant to alter zoning standards across the entire city, as it may not be suitable for every area, including parts of the west side. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 8 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chair Garret closed public comment. Councilor MacKay reflected on whether reducing the agritourism overlay requirement to one acre might actually help preserve more open space. She noted the proposed project includes significant open space and that agritourism comes with stricter regulations like noise ordinances. MacKay also mentioned her interest in supporting micro farms, as discussed by the agricultural advisory group, and emphasized the potential of small lots for meaningful farming use. Councilor Bogdin expressed concerns about the use of residential zones for agritourism, noting that the primary purpose of an agricultural residential (RA) zone is to allow farming and animals. She also questioned whether the parking would take up a significant portion of the lot, potentially leaving insufficient space for the barn and the proposed agritourism activities. She noted that the applicant seemed to want to use most of the lot for agritourism, rather than just a third of it as originally intended. Mr. Ardmore clarified that the current discussion is focused on reviewing a text amendment, not a site plan or rezone request. He emphasized that the details of what may come afterward can be worked out later, and he was not prepared to answer questions regarding those specifics at this stage. Councilor Whipple appreciated the clarification from Aaron regarding the guidance towards the agritourism overlay, noting that it was intended to be more considerate of the neighbors by placing more restrictions on events. She found it interesting that the property currently is not being used for agriculture and expressed understanding that the applicants were not intending to use the property for agricultural purposes themselves but instead wanted to create a small event space with a country vibe. She acknowledged that the project could bring in agricultural elements from outside the property, such as food-to-table events, and was satisfied with the staff's reasoning for directing the applicants toward this path. Councilor MacKay emphasized the importance of ensuring that the applicants can achieve their goals with the agritourism overlay on this property. She questioned whether the agritourism option would be sufficient for their needs or if they might require a commercial zoning. She highlighted that if the agritourism option does not allow them to do what they intend, it would defeat the purpose of the rezone request. Councilor Bogdin asked if the one-acre agritourism overlay could be made specific to the block of Center and Geneva, like how they have handled other zoning cases. Mr. Ardmore explained that the overlay can currently be applied to any agricultural zone, so it couldn’t be restricted to just that area. However, he noted that it might be possible to write such a specification into the overlay zone. Councilor Hoban expressed hesitancy about making the property commercial, as it could allow for uses that might negatively impact the surrounding residential area, like industrial activities. He also acknowledged concerns about applying the agritourism overlay citywide, as it could lead to unintended consequences with more properties eligible. While he did not want to open the door to commercial zoning, he asked Mr. Ardmore for guidance on how to help the applicants achieve their goals without expanding the zoning too broadly. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 9 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Mr. Ardmore acknowledged that he did not have all the answers but believed that the agritourism overlay was the best path forward for this particular applicant. Mr. Wright clarified that the potential change would not apply citywide. Instead, it would modify the text to allow an agricultural property (not residential agricultural) to apply for the agritourism overlay zone through a rezone request. Therefore, the change would not impact properties citywide but would be applicable only to specific agricultural properties requesting the overlay. Councilor Handley stated that the overlay zone is property-specific, meaning it can be applied where deemed necessary. The main question is whether reducing the lot size to one acre makes sense. He expressed support for the idea, suggesting that applicants could return with a rezone request. He also appreciated the flexibility the overlay provides, allowing the council to review each request individually and deny those that do not meet established requirements. Councilor Christensen expressed uncertainty about the proposal, stating that there are still many aspects that are not clear to him. While he likes the idea, he emphasized the importance of making a well-informed decision. He suggested the possibility of continuing the discussion for two more weeks to ensure the council makes a thoughtful choice and gives the applicants the best possible outcome. Motion: Councilor Christensen made a motion to continue for 2 weeks. Seconded by Councilor Bogdin. Councilor MacKay inquired about the specific clarifications Councilor Christensen was seeking and what he hoped to achieve during the two-week period. Councilor Christensen expressed that he was unclear about the situation, having heard several different perspectives. He wanted to ensure there were no unintended consequences being overlooked. He acknowledged that others may be more certain, but he wanted to be sure before making a decision. Councilor Whipple expressed support for moving forward with the vote, believing that the shift towards small-scale and urban farming is necessary. She viewed the tool for smaller agricultural lots as useful, especially for properties like two to three acres, and emphasized that no properties currently have the overlay. She noted that any requests would still be reviewed for appropriateness in the area, addressing concerns about proximity to residential zones. Overall, she felt that granting this additional flexibility would be a good idea, as the current acreage requirement might be too high for practical use. Councilor Bogdin expressed discomfort with the current wording of the proposal, particularly in allowing future councils to make decisions without clear guidelines. She raised concerns about allowing business activities within residential areas, suggesting that more parameters should be set for residential uses. Specifically, she proposed that properties in residential zones follow home occupation license regulations and be restricted from having event spaces unless they met certain criteria, such as offering bakery services. This would make her feel more comfortable with the proposal. Chair Garrett called for a vote on substitute motion. Vote: The motion failed with a vote of 2:5 with Councilors Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple opposed. Councilors Bogdin and Christensen in favor. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 10 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the implied motion. Vote: The motion passed 5:2 with Councilors Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Councilors Bogdin and Christensen opposed. ***Mr. Jones clarified a procedural issue, stating that there was a mistake in item number 11. He explained that the exhibits to the ordinance were faulty, specifically that the map and the legal description in the second exhibit were incorrect. The legal description mistakenly included both parcels when it was only supposed to include one. He suggested that, to correct this, someone from the winning side make a motion to reconsider the item. If seconded, the motion to reconsider would undo the item as if it never happened. The item could then be continued to the next meeting to fix the exhibits. Chair Garrett invited a motion to reconsider the item. Motion: Councilor Whipple Motion to reconsider agenda item 11. Seconded by Christensen. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Chair Garrett invited a motion to continue item 11 to the next council meeting. Motion: Councilor Bogdin made a motion to continue item 11 to the next meeting, and that they are the first action agenda item. Seconded by Christensen. Chair Garrett called for a vote. Vote: The motion passed 7:0with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. 13 An ordinance amending Provo City Code Title 14 regarding group quarters in the Professional Office (PO) Zone. Citywide application. (PLOTA20240386) 1:28:42 Motion: An implied motion to approve Ordinance 2025-18, as currently constituted, has been made by council rule. Hannah Salzl, City Planner, presented. She said this item is a text amendment, not a rezone, to allow “Group Quarters” (e.g., dormitory or boarding house-style housing with private rooms and shared facilities) as a permitted use in the PO zone, but only for properties fronting Center Street and not on the historic registry. This type of housing, though long listed in the land use code, has been unused for years but may now help address modern housing affordability issues. The proposed amendment would apply to a limited section of Center Street (between 200 and 400 East). A follow-up project at 256 East Center is planned, converting a former assisted living facility into male-only housing for 20 tenants with 20 parking spaces. It targets young professionals and entrepreneurs, particularly those associated with BYU and the local startup scene. The location is close to transit and amenities, and the project is seen as an adaptive reuse that supports 14 general plan goals. Staff chose to amend the PO zone instead of rezoning, as no other zones currently permit Group Quarters. Concerns from residents about transient Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 11 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. housing were acknowledged, but short-term rentals are not permitted in the PO zone, and standard one-year leases are planned. She added that staff supports the amendment as an appropriate fit for the area. Anders Taylor, applicant, explained that the project involves converting a former 34-bed assisted living facility into dorm-style housing with 20 private rooms. This required adding “Group Quarters” to the zoning. The concept targets a mix of students (e.g., Sandbox, Crocker Fellows) and young professionals, emphasizing long-term leases and affordability. The building is ideally located near downtown and transit. The proposal would reduce density compared to previous use and includes sufficient parking. They also plan a homebuyer education program for residents, potentially applying part of rent toward a down payment. Taylor acknowledged neighborhood concerns—mainly confusion over the term “Group Quarters”—and clarified it is not transient or shelter housing. Bathrooms will be shared but private and well-maintained. He emphasized their excitement for the project and its alignment with the area’s character and needs. Chair Garrett opened public comment. Sariah Hillam, of Provo, shared that while some neighbors are optimistic about the project and trust the developers, many are concerned about long-term impacts. Residents worry about what could happen if ownership changes in the future, especially with shared bathrooms and communal spaces potentially attracting less stable tenants. The neighborhood already hosts several supportive housing facilities and low-income residents, and some fear this project might further strain the area. The main concern is how the property will be managed over time and whether it could contribute to ongoing neighborhood challenges. Councilor Christensen pointed out that since the building already exists, converting it might improve the situation or at least not make it worse. Ms. Hillam responded that while the former assisted living facility was quiet with minimal traffic, the new use could bring more activity and visitors, which is a shift in neighborhood dynamics. Christensen asked what the neighborhood recommends. Hillam said there is no clear solution, only concern, especially since the vacant building is currently used for police training to deter homeless squatters. The fear is that if the project fails, the building could deteriorate and become a greater problem. Chair Garrett closed public comment and invited a council discussion. Councilor Handley expressed strong support for the project, highlighting the homeownership training as a particularly valuable feature. He praised the developers for their track record in Provo, especially their work at the startup building, and said he had high confidence in the quality of residents the project would attract. He appreciated the right of first refusal as a safeguard, addressing long-term concerns. Handley views the project as a significant benefit to downtown Provo, the business community, and local housing needs, especially by offering smaller, more affordable living options that some residents specifically want. He described it as a "great win" for both the city and the developers. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 12 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Councilor MacKay expressed support for the first right of refusal in the event of a sale, noting it likely was not widely known by the public and could help ease concerns. She also raised a hypothetical scenario, asking what recourse the city would have if the property became a nuisance, referencing a past situation where a problematic event center had its permit revoked. Ms. Salzl explained that making the use conditional rather than permitted is a viable option, like how the city handled the event center by tying conditions to its business license. While the current proposal is for a permitted use, transitioning to a conditional use would not significantly delay the project if coordinated with other permits. The developers are also open to additional review through a concept plan presentation to the Planning Commission, which is not typically required but would add oversight. She also clarified that making it a conditional use would simply require amending the language of the proposed amendment to place it under the conditional use section instead of permitted uses. This change would give the city more long-term authority, including the option to revoke approval if the use becomes a significant nuisance. Councilor Bogdin asked whether, under a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission is required to approve the application if it meets the established criteria. She also asked whether the proposed language would limit group quarters to only the specified three-and-a-half block section of Center Street if changed to a conditional use, and whether the Planning Commission would still be required to approve it if it met the conditions. Mr. Ardmore explained that most conditional uses are reviewed in administrative hearings, though controversial items often go to the Planning Commission. He clarified that the Planning Commission can only deny a conditional use permit if there are unmitigable health or safety concerns. He also confirmed that if the use is moved to a conditional use category, it would still be limited to the designated Center Street area. Councilor Hoban asked what the occupancy limit would be for the buildings, specifically, how many people could live there and what determines that limit. Ms. Salzl explained that there is currently no occupancy limit set in the zone, as the standards were kept minimal to help the project move quickly due to upcoming lending deadlines. However, staff is not concerned because the area affected is very limited, essentially just this one property. She added that as the city rewrites the zoning code, more detailed parameters, including occupancy limits, will be built in. Councilor Hoban expressed concern about the potential for widespread conversion of commercial properties in the three-and-a-half-block area to high-density housing like the proposed project. He questioned whether the city would want to incentivize replacing office space with residential units housing significantly more people, noting that such a shift could be too broad in scope. He concluded by stating he would likely vote no on the proposal. Councilor Whipple, representing the district, acknowledged hearing a range of neighborhood concerns, including strong opposition from some residents who fear the project will harm the area. She noted that these concerns often overlook the zoning limitations already in place. Most worries focus on the potential shift toward transient housing. She observed that the current PO zone does not allow hotels, short-term rentals, or apartments, only group quarters would be permitted as residential use. She concluded with a question about where “Group Quarters” is defined in the code. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 13 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Ms. Salzl explained that "Group Quarters" is not currently defined in the code. As part of the ongoing code rewrite, new standards and definitions will be introduced by summer. She acknowledged that delaying the process to include these definitions could slow things down, but emphasized the importance of adding them soon to ensure clarity. Councilor Whipple expressed support for the project, noting that the definition of "Group Quarters" could be adjusted to limit density to 20 units per half acre, addressing Councilor Hoban's concerns. She clarified that most historic buildings in the area could not be converted into Group Quarters, even if the applicant desired to do so. She emphasized the protections already in place, such as the right of first refusal for adjacent property owners, which would prevent the project from turning into a dorm managed by an unrelated party. Councilor Whipple also shared her personal positive experience with a similar urban dorm concept, mentioning that it offered privacy and a sense of community. She believes the adaptive reuse of the building would provide better housing options for people in the city and is supportive of the project. Motion: Councilor MacKay made a substitute motion to amend the ordinance to make group quarters a conditional use. Seconded by Councilor Bogdin. Councilor Handley asked if there were concerns from the applicant. Mr. Taylor expressed concern about the timeline, noting that their due diligence period ends next week, and they are trying to wrap up the process before that. He asked for clarification on how long it would take to change the zoning to a conditional use and inquired whether both processes could be handled simultaneously. Mr. Ardmore stated that changing the zoning to a conditional use should not cause any additional delay. The applicant would still need to go through building permits and other processes, which can be done concurrently within the same timeline. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the substitute motion. Vote: The motion passed 6:1 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Councilor Hoban opposed. Chair called for a 5-minute recess. Mr. Jones explained that he made adjustments to the exhibit by removing the subsection four language and replacing it with language from subsection six, which outlines conditional uses. He indicated that the exhibit now accurately reflects the substitute motion, and that the council could proceed to vote on the amended ordinance. Chair Garrett called for a vote on the implied motion as amended. Vote: The motion passed 6:1 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Councilor Hoban opposed. Motion: Councilor Hoban made a motion to request planning staff to come back with definition of density limits for group quarters as soon as possible with a text amendment to be brought forward. Seconded by Councilor Bogdin. Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 14 of 15  Please Note – These minutes have been prepared with a timestamp linking the agenda items to the video discussion. Electronic version of minutes will allow citizens to view discussion held during council meeting. Vote: The motion passed 7:0 with Councilors Bogdin, Christensen, Garrett, Handley, Hoban, MacKay, and Whipple in favor. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at approximately 7:37 PM. 6th day of May, 2025 Provo City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025 Page 15 of 15