Joaquin Neighborhood Journal

Joaquin Day of Service

2011-09-10T11:16:00.001-07:00

Friends and Neighbors,

On August 27th, we accomplished something incredible! With the help of the Provo LDS East Stake, we were able to literally change the face of 4 blocks within our neighborhood in a day. Nearly 450 people came together to repaint 6 homes, and 2 garages, plant many trees, shrubs and flowers, and clean up an area that really needed our attention.

Before our efforts, had you walked down the alleys on these blocks, you would have thought they weren't good places to be at night. Walking up 350 North between 600 and 700 East would have made you feel like the neighborhood was on the decline. The lack of trees along the streets would have made the area feel more stark.

After our efforts, lots of new trees would lend their green to the colorscape. The new paint jobs on these houses make the area feel upbeat, and like it is moving forward.

We filled 5 of the biggest dumpsters available with yard waste, tree clippings, garbage, nasty old furniture, etc. Literally, the effect is stunning. I urge each of you to walk this area and see what volunteer work, combined with the help of NeighborWorks Provo, and our city's Neighborhood Matching Grant can accomplish.

The area sits between 600 and 700 East, 200 North and 500 North. There is a lot of construction going on due to new storm sewer systems, and the "wrap-up" of the landscaping at the new Provo Peaks elementary. Park the car, and take a walk!

Things that would improve this lot coverage ordinance

2011-06-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

I'd like to write a few things from my own perspective, so please don't take it as more than that. Right now we have a lot coverage ordinance that unfortunately doesn't really please quite a few of us. I thought I'd write this evening about potential changes that could improve it. Feel free to offer your own input.

1. Landscaping requirements. In downtown neighborhoods, with narrow lots, we feel the "pain" of an inadequately landscaped lot next door to us very quickly. The current ordinance doesn't have any real protections in this regard. Having even 4 or 8 feet of landscaping surrounding the lot lines would at least provide a benefit visually, and also in terms of storm water.

2. Allowing much more pavement than is necessary. 40% can be paved for parking, and an unlimited amount for hardscape--the question is why so much. Particularly on large lots, why would we want so much pavement? On a small tiny lot, I can see these percentages being problematic. Perhaps we should look at this in terms of allowing a minimum amount of parking on the lot. Perhaps adequate parking for 3 stalls of parking. If this is covered by front yard or side yard, why are we encouraging more of the backyards to be paved. If no front yard parking is available, then it is reasonable to allow backyard parking--but limits make sense.

Think of it this way--on a narrow lot that is 200 feet deep, 40% may provide 7 stalls of parking. Why on earth would we encourage this? Is our goal to stuff in the cars, or to revitalize neighborhoods? On a short tiny lot, a smaller percentage may not even allow space for 1 car. We have all sorts of lots. If defined in terms of stalls, the percentage may be on a sliding scale, but it would help us on preserving neighborhood character, especially if we had adequate landscaping requirements.

3. I think we should have a serious dialog about requiring permits to pave. We've seen a lot of yards get paved way beyond Provo's standards. If people know the rules before they start, things go much better. Given the impact all this concrete and asphalt have on our environment, storm water system, etc., I believe it could be a reasonable requirement, at the minimum fee.

4. Anything we do needs to incorporate the goals of the Vision 2030 planning. We want character in our neighborhoods, and I'm not talking about the kind of character that means lot line to lot line pavement.

5. Allow for differences in requirements by neighborhood preference. The challenges of many neighborhoods surrounding BYU and downtown make them much more worried about excessive lot pavement. Other neighborhoods further west or those in zones that require 10,000 foot lots may not be so concerned about what their neighbors do.

I feel like each of these ideas would benefit the ordinance, and allow us as citizens of Provo to create a better ordinance.

If you would like to review the petition and add your support, please click on the following link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/strongerneighborhoodsforprovo/

Provo--"green" or paved? That is really just one of the questions...

2011-06-23T18:52:00.000-07:00

Over 5 years ago, our neighborhood led a drive to have our city council make a crucial change. Previously, property owners all over the city were able to pave up to 50% of a backyard for parking. Our own neighborhood, especially in South Joaquin, had been extremely susceptible to this. We have a lot of old homes that had been turned into duplexes, or even triplexes, and in order to get BYU approval, landlords had to have adequate off street parking. So--they paved a lot of back yards. There are several problems with this circumstance.

1. It creates much more of an urban hot zone. Temperatures run as much as 20 degrees higher over pavement than they do over green space.

2. Once paved, these yards almost never go back. They have no appeal to families searching for a home to purchase, since removing the pavement would be an enormous additional expense. As a result, the properties become a perpetual rental.

3. Once paved, these rental properties have more value, sell for more, and are very difficult to remove--when you actually want to remove them, such as in North Joaquin, where we want high density student housing built to replace old worn out homes.

4. We have a need in our neighborhood for more long term residents, more home owners, not for more rental property.

5. The city never required fencing, or adequate landscaping, which meant that these parking lots are eye sores to the neighbors, affecting in a negative way the property values of people living next door, or nearby.

Fortunately, we had a city council at the time that cared about the revitalization of our historic neighborhood, and agreed that this was a good choice for our future. As a result, the amount of land which was allowed to be paved was reduced to 25%.

I can't understate the role that we as a neighborhood played in this. Our efforts benefitted the entire city. Unfortunately, things have now moved the other direction. A different city council and administration have now pushed the percentage allowed in pavement for parking to be increased to 40% of all backyard space. In addition, they eliminated landscaping requirements, and they increased the amount of a front yard which could be paved. All of Provo's neighborhoods are going to be affected by this. It many not be fast (though i've already seen a back yard get new pavement on my street), but it will have an impact.

This legislation came at the request of one landlord. Yes--just one. He made the application, and the council agreed, with some modification. Get ready for more pavement. This goes against your votes in previous neighborhood meetings.

So, my friends, our efforts begin again. A petition has been prepared online for you to lend your voices towards if you support it. Click the link below.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/strongerneighborhoodsforprovo/

Pictures from Paint Your Heart Out 2010

2011-03-16T20:30:00.001-07:00

We moved Paint Your Heart Out in 2010 a little bit to the south, well technically I admit it wasn't in the Joaquin Neighborhood. We worked down in Maeser at 4 different beautiful historic homes that each needed the love and expertise we've gained. Turnout was excellent, and we were helped by Zions Bank, whose employees painted one of the homes for us. This tradition has truly changed perceptions of our neighborhood, and it can do the same for Maeser. Last Friday, I drove around the area with a friend from the City Council, and an acquaintance, who happens to be a developer. He's a great man, someone who lives up in Sandy, and most of his work is done in Salt Lake City. He knows Provo, and lived here while he was going to college in the mid 90's. He said as we drove around--wow, this looks a lot better. He really liked the "paint jobs" we have given to homes, and inspired folks to do. Sometimes, the most fascinating pictures we get are from those whose memory is from another time. In this case, it gave me a lot of hope.

Arbor Day Project improves our Neighborhood

2010-09-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

Saturday morning at 9 am, we had nearly 100 people gather together at the new Joaquin Park to volunteer their time to improve our neighborhood. Thanks to Luke Kennard's Eagle Project, we had 28 trees available from Provo City to plant in our park strips. The Mayor joined us for an Arbor Day ceremony to mark the value that trees have in our lives.

He pointed out that according to our City Forester, we have planted over 400 trees in our neighborhood since 2003 thanks to this type of service project. To me that is amazing. Yes, we have a large neighborhood, but that's quite a number. I want to personally thank Luke and his family for their lead in this effort, as well as the City Staff that helped our event.

The best time to plant a tree will always be 40 years ago--but last Saturday sure wasn't a bad 2nd.

Kurt Peterson

New Concept (in Provo at least) for Revitalizing Neighborhoods

2010-01-23T14:37:00.000-08:00

Provo City Transfer of Development Rights: Preserving historic neighborhoods through economic incentives for Developers of high density housing in targeted areas.
Provo City has 6 Historic neighborhoods that have deteriorated due to previous zoning standards and their consequences. Old homes were routinely chopped into duplexes, triplexes or worse, turning them into income property instead of cherished owner occupied residential property. Prime example: Knight Mangum house on the corner of 400 East and Center Street. What was once a family mansion is now 12 apartments for married student housing. Unfortunately, as these homes age, their condition deteriorates excessively due to this sort of density, and the lack of “invested” homeowners living in the homes.
In particular, we see this sort of problem in the Joaquin and Maeser neighborhoods. Literally, hundreds of homes which were built as single family homes have become (or are becoming) legal duplexes, with no requirement of owner occupancy. The area has gone from having three schools to one, due to a decline in the number of children and families living in the area. Fewer homeowners in an area where homes range from 60 to 120 years old means a much greater likelihood of blight, higher crime and a larger number of police calls.
The Goal: Treasured family neighborhoods like the “Avenues”, Capitol Hill or the Westminster area in Salt Lake City which have a physical condition that attracts and retains long term residents and successfully preserves the historic character of the homes.
Can we create this in Provo?
Yes: but not with our current tools. Our current tools of revitalization, while effective, have limitations. They can’t enable us to buy historic homes that have been turned into 4-plexes, convert them back into owner occupied property and make the necessary repairs (usually extensive) that would attract new buyers. The costs are too high, and since we have funded most of our revitalization with CDBG funds, we have income and house price limitations in place.
But we can use lessons learned and certain methods of our revitalization efforts in this process. Our Purchase & Rehabilitation Program has been extremely successful at changing the character of troubled property. We buy blighted homes, and through NeighborWorks Provo, we fix structural, system and visual defects, and sell them to owner occupants. However, our funds are limited, and we have to work within fairly strict limits with this program. Squeezing other funds out of the municipal budget right now would be a difficult, if not impossible, task.
So where could we get the money or resources?
We do have another asset which we haven’t put to use yet; it is called Development Rights. In essence, when we zone a particular property, we “impose” a value upon it. If land is zoned to only allow one house for every 10,000 square feet of land, it is likely less valuable to a developer than land which allows one house for every 5,000 square feet of land. In the past, we’ve simply made those determinations by zone changes, and someone (not the city) benefitted economically. Why shouldn’t we put this tool to work for the benefit of our city?
According to the City’s general plan, there is property in Provo where high future density development is planned. North Joaquin and the Transit Oriented Development area quickly come to mind as examples. Neither currently have very specific zoning in place, so perhaps this is an ideal time to consider it.
How could this work?
In essence, we create a plan which allows developers of these high density areas to gain density bonuses for tackling the projects we want to see happen, but can’t afford to do. They purchase and rehabilitate older, larger houses that have been “chopped up” into places a family would love to live. Deed restrictions are placed on the properties which prevent it from once again becoming multi-family or multi-student housing. Owner occupancy could be required for 20 years. If reasonable, an accessory apartment (which always requires owner occupancy in the main unit) could be maintained. The city would be a party to the restrictive covenant language, with a standing right to enforce the deed restrictions. If the home is historic, it would be placed on the Provo Landmarks Registry.
The density bonus could work as follows:
All properties that are in the RC zone (North Joaquin) have a maximum density assigned by current structures. So for our purposes let’s assume a developer has 4 congruent lots with a current density of 12 units for 1 acre of land. The developer’s project wants to put 40 units on that land. To do that, the developer needs 28 density “credits.” To get those credits, the developer accepts purchase/rehabilitation projects which provide that number of credits.

We would likely want to involve a third party, like NeighborWorks Provo in this process, by enabling them to maintain purchase options on various houses within our targeted rehabilitation area. This could prevent artificial inflation, and provide the city with a dedicated, resident guided, method to determine which properties we focus on. Their experience with rehabilitations would be valuable in guiding a sales contract/density bonus for each property that reflects the complexity of the project, and the property’s particular needs for updating and restoration. Another factor would be where the developer’s property is. So let’s look at an example of how this could work.
• NeighborWorks buys an option on a “fix-up” property which fits the goals of the city and its board of directors. Let’s say the property is a house which has been chopped into a triplex.
• NeighborWorks Staff evaluates the house, and draws up plans for turning the house back into a single family home.
• The cost of these improvements is estimated to be 100k.
• Based on estimated value at re-sale and those costs, NeighborWorks assigns a value of 7 density credits to the project.
So what are the real benefits?
• We use a previously unused asset of our city to fund something beneficial to our historic neighborhoods.
• We let market driven forces accomplish 2 things we want: effectively down-zoning “chopped up” historic properties, and creating housing density where we want it.
• We avoid the political battles of a real down-zone or a fight for Amortization.
• These fixed up historic properties will become “crown jewels” in these neighborhoods, attracting long-term residents who will contribute to the quality and stability of the area.
• A higher degree of historic preservation will further push market forces by turning these areas into “neighborhoods of choice.”
What would our City have to invest?
• Staff time, City Council time to create the ordinance.
• A method of administering the ordinance.
• An amount of money from the General Fund or EDI to seed NeighborWorks or RDA involvement in the plan.
Could this be expanded for other use or other areas?
The simple answer is yes. It could be used in other areas where rental property has become too large a percentage of housing stock, or to simply eliminate structures we feel are counter to our goals for the future. My mind is drawn to deteriorating four plexes which dot our neighborhoods…. In essence, if the density reward is sufficient, the task will be accomplished.
How do we use this within our current systems?
Currently, our development process requires a pro-zone and approval by the planning commission and City Council. In essence, we just make this part of our process. City Staff would evaluate the project, and in that process, make a recommendation to the Council about the number of required density credits the project would need. A formula based on location, density desired, and parking ratio would help us make that determination. If a project has some other benefit to the community, the requirement could be reduced. The Council would then make a final determination as part of the Pro-Zone approval. The beauty of this is the flexibility it offers the city government.

Pictures from Paint Your Heart Out 2009

2009-11-05T06:01:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry these are a little late. I should have done it in June, but life and campaign season sort of have a way of getting in the way. This year we focused on 2 homes on 100 North which sit next to each other. One is a big, gorgeous Victorian, the other a large gable-end Craftsman Bungalow. Both are right at 100 years old. One owner occupied, one not. Both are well taken care of and loved.

NeighborWorks Provo (formerly NHS of Provo) provided the paint, organizing skills, and the scaffolding. A good number of volunteers, mostly from our neighborhood showed up to help. Our Mayor elect even came to help, which was wonderful.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and despite all the help, we didn't quite have these two done in one day. We held a small ward service project the following night to do our best to wrap up more of the work. Enjoy the shots!

Special thanks to Sharlene Wilde, Executive Director of NeighborWorks Provo for her work on this.

Neighborhood Dreams do come true...

2009-10-21T06:24:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I should title this entry "the joy of having our new park."

This past week, the dedication/ribbon cutting was held for our new park at the corner of 400 East and 400 North. Joaquin Park became an official reality, open for recreation! Since then, pretty much every time I drive by, I see people there enjoying it. It is everything we envisioned, and perhaps more. Generations of Joaquin residents of all kinds will enjoy it.

It all started with a dream--we wanted another park to serve the approximately 15,000 people who live in this neighborhood. We knew we were losing Joaquin elementary, and needed green space badly. This neighborhood has the highest density in the state, and needs green space wherever it can be found.

Inspiration strikes all of us at times, and even I am no exception. I was out walking around our neighborhood one morning, and noticed three really dilapidated houses on that corner were all empty. They looked tough, and needed love. But, despite my love for old houses, I thought that this would be a great place for a park.

Dave Anderson, my friend and neighbor, (who is a City Planner for Spanish Fork) drew up a plan for a park at this site. I started trying to "sell" it to Provo City Council members. Some nearly scoffed, others listened. The push continued, and thanks to some great help from Cindy Richards and George Stewart, our park began to take form.

It took years, yes years to acquire all the property. Four houses in all. My thanks to Paul Glauser and Julie Beck from the Provo City redevelopment agency for their help on this task. Then the Parks and Recreation department took over, and gathered a committee of neighbors to create a general plan. Frankly, they did an excellent job!

Generations of children, parents, and yes, young folks from BYU on dates and family home evenings will spend time in that beautiful little park. It's trees will grow, and the years will pass, but the dream has become a reality.

Don't ever doubt that what you work for and believe in can become a reality.

So now my friends, what do you dream of for the Joaquin Neighborhood?

I dream of a neighborhood where these wonderful old historic homes are lovingly cherished by owner occupants who care about them.

Vote today & A message regarding Property Rights

2009-09-15T09:54:00.000-07:00

Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 7:57 AM

Friends & Neighbors,

I got this message in my email today from a friend of mine who was a neighborhood chair in another pioneer neighborhood. I thought it was worth your time to take a look at. Don't forget to vote in today's municipal primary.

The most important issues in this election (remember to vote today) are about property rights. The confusion about this issue derives from your personal definition of property rights.

During the course of my term as neighborhood chair and providing architectural services for developers I have heard numerous complaints about the way that Provo City is infringing on their rights to develop their property as they see fit. I hear the same complaints from real estate investors wanting to buy up houses in our neighborhoods and convert them to rentals. What they don't say is what the infringements are.

The developer and real estate investor are in business to make money. Anything that prohibits them from doing so is an infringement on their property rights. When Provo City requires a developer to have a meeting with the neighbors to discuss their project and to gather feedback from the neighborhood, that is infringement, right? When Provo City requires a landlord to verify that their rental property complies with HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) standards, that is infringement, right? I hope that you can see that the very things that Provo City is asking of developers and landlords is to make sure that they do unto others as they would have done unto them (I would put quotes around that but I am sure that I butchered it). I think that it is sad that the greedy pursuit of money causes some people to ignore the well being of others.

I am a landlord because I rent my basement out. I had to have a home inspection by the City and had to spend over 500 dollars on repairs to bring it up to HUD standards. The repairs consisted of things to make it easier for my tenants to get out of the basement in the event of a fire and to prevent them from electrocuting themselves. It is not about me but the well being of others. Have my rights been infringed upon? No, property ownership is a right and a burden to provide the occupants with a safe and healthy environment to live in. Do unto others...

Paint Your Heart Out 2009--coming right up!

2009-05-29T09:47:00.000-07:00

Friends and Neighbors:

WE NEED YOU! On Saturday, June 6th we will be holding our annual Paint Your Heart Out in the Joaquin Neighborhood. It will start with sign in at 8am at Farrer Elementary (south side--pavillion) where you can grab some donuts and juice. Then we'll be off to our worksites. We have 2 homes that need to get a facelift. They are big, and historic, and when we are all done, they will be beautiful.

Please bring your friends, family, etc. Youth groups are welcome.

Kurt Peterson

Joaquin Neighborhood Chair

Accessory Apartments 101

2009-01-14T19:53:00.000-08:00

Provo's central neighborhoods have a special piece of zoning called an "A" overlay which allows homeowners (who reside in their house) to rent out a portion of the home as an accessory apartment. Of course, there are rules, and I'd like to make sure that you know what some of these are.

The first of these is that having an accessory apartment requires the owner to fill out an application for a building permit with Provo's Community Development department. Your house may have had a basement apartment for 30 years, but if your house isn't a legal duplex, you need this permit if you want an accessory apartment. Thinking it is legal doesn't make it legal, and as far as the city is concerned, ignorance of the law isn't much of an excuse.

If your house has an existing apartment, the city will come out and do an inspection to see if your property meets a few important health and safety requirements. If it doesn't, they will give you a list of corrections that have to be taken care of to have your application approved. Some common corrections: (please note this is not a complete list)

Putting in Smoke detectors

Having GFCI outlets in the bathroom and kitchen

Having properly sized and positioned "egress" windows in all bedrooms.

Having 4 paved parking stalls

Having an "interior connection" between the apartment and the rest of the home

Part of the application is providing the city with a site plan of your property showing where new parking will go. You also have to have a floor plan for each floor of the house. The building permit application costs $50, and the permit lasts 6 months. It can be extended for another six months. Once you've finished all the corrections, another inspection has to take place to demonstrate that you've completed the required work.

Some issues are pretty much impossible to solve. One of those is Lot coverage. Under current zoning, only 25% of your back yard can be paved. So, if you are already at the limit, you won't be able to add more parking spaces. Another serious problem is ceiling height. 6 foot ceilings aren't going to fly.

There are some big differences between legal duplexes and accessory apartments. Legal duplexes have to have separate heating systems/controls. They usually have separate utility meters for Gas and electricity. They have to have "fire-walls" between the units. There aren't connections between the units. Houses with accessory apartments don't usually have separate heating systems/controls, and they usually don't have separate utility meters. They don't have to have "fire-walls."

If you own a legal duplex and rent out one of the units, you now must have a Rental Dwelling License. Homes with accessory apartments do not have to have a license, but they must be owner occupied.

In a few cases, I've seen neighborhood residents put an addition on their home in order to add an accessory apartment. While legal, this is a completely different matter, and the rules more complicated. Current building codes have to be met, and the applicant has to pay impact fees as a part of the building permit application.

There are pro's and con's to a neighborhood having accessory apartments, which we'll have to tackle another day. In the meanwhile, I encourage all of you that have a basement apartment to get things taken care of. Get a determination to find out if it is a Legal Duplex or an Accessory, and find out what needs to get fixed. Get the appropriate permit and/or Rental Dwelling License, and then quit worrying.

Results are in: Paint Your Heart Out 2008

2008-10-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

Lets just say it was an incredible success. 3 great Victorian homes in our neighborhood given a wonderful bath of new paint and new colors. They are great places, and I hope the efforts will inspire others. We were rained out on our first try, and had to do it 2 weeks later. Not quite as many volunteers as I would have liked, but we did have some great advantages. 1st, all the scaffolding we had was donated (temporarily) for our use. We received an incredible grant from Northwestern Mutual Life to pay for all our expenses. So, no one had to spring for the paint. 3 homes in Joaquin, 1 in Maeser, and 3 in Franklin were painted. I'd like to express my thanks to Jamie Peterson & Sharlene Wilde at NHS for all their help. Also--thanks to our brave homeowners who were willing to hang in there through the process. Enjoy the before and after pictures of the Joaquin Neighborhood project homes.

The Fate of 600 East?

2008-09-16T16:07:00.000-07:00

Friends and Neighbors,

As most of you know, we are facing a very large construction project at the former site of Joaquin elementary. Excavation has begun, and will likely continue for some time. Once completed, an additional 960 beds of student housing will be located there. 960 beds of student housing means a lot of cars, and additional traffic. 500 North, and 560 North will likely bear most of that traffic as students head for University Avenue or 900 East. Which street will serve as the primary north/south route for their daily inflow and outflow? 600 East will be very close to the entrance and exits to the underground parking structure. It has one stop sign at 200 East to slow traffic, but nothing on 400, 300 or 100 North. And of course, 600 East is the street most of our elementary students cross to get to Farrer each day. As a neighborhood, we are concerned about this because of the safety of our children.

A petition was submitted to the City Council and the Mayor requesting that 600 East be closed at its intersection with 500 North. I thank each of you who signed that petition, and especially those of you who worked to circulate it. We followed up that petition with a question for the Mayor and City Staff about what traffic calming measures will be put in place to protect our children. The Mayor, and our City Administrator Wayne Parker requested a technical review of 600 East Traffic Calming Measures from the City's engineering department. The following is the result:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:Recently, we received a petition and request from residents expressing concern with the anticipated traffic impacts of the Joaquin Village student housing complex on 600 East Street from 500 North to Center Street. We asked the City Engineer to review his own data as well as the developer's traffic study in an effort to better quantify the expected impacts to traffic on 600 East. We also invited the City Engineer and his staff to make appropriate recommendations regarding these issues. A copy of his report and recommendations is attached.

In essence, his finding and opinion is that the greatest impact would be primarily on 700 East and 500 North and that the anticipated traffic on 600 East would not exceed the current environmental standard for 600 East. However, as this project advances, it will be important to monitor the actual impacts on 600 East and the surrounding corridors and be prepared if the actual outcomes differ from those projected.We believe that this is a reasoned and appropriate approach given the data available, but in the interest of a comprehensive approach, we will submit both the developer's traffic study and the City Engineer's recommendations to an independent, third party consulting traffic engineer for further review and a third opinion. We will share the outcomes of that review once completed."

So my friends, we shall wait some more to see if our city's administration is going to assist us in this cause. Reading the city engineer's report comes down to a few "facts." First, that Provo City's Transportation Master Plan says streets that include multi-family residential have an environmental capacity not to exceed 4,200 vehicle trips per day. Currently, the traffic volume is far below that, and they don't think it will be above that even with Joaquin Village completed. Also cited by our city engineer, a "prevalent fear concerning the changes and impacts which developments can have on the surrounding neighborhoods."Well, the street may well be "able" to handle the volume, but does that mean it should? I don't believe our children need to be placed at that risk just so "perfect" connectivity can be maintained between 600 East and 500 North. Our neighborhood will need to press on in our efforts. Soon, we will need to finalize plans for the parking permit program. Without it, cars from this development will cover both sides of 600 east for a few blocks south. Please feel free to add your comments and concerns for all to see.

Kurt Peterson
Joaquin Neighborhood Chair

"Bloom where you are planted"

2008-08-01T08:41:00.001-07:00

Friends and Neighbors,

10 years ago, I couldn’t wait to get out of Provo. My wife and I wanted to head east to live closer to my family in the Midwest. But that wasn’t meant to be. Things just didn’t work out. After being disappointed for awhile I remembered a little plaque my mother had in her kitchen when I was a boy. It said “bloom where you are planted.” I realized I had been planted, and that I just as well get on with blooming.

A year later we wanted to buy a home, and started looking around. It was a long process, but we finally found something we could actually afford. We found it because I went for a walk around the Joaquin neighborhood admiring all the historic homes here. After moving into our house, I spent far more time than I should have fixing it up, and falling in love with it. The first day we lived here our neighbor 2 doors down brought cookies over. Her first question was “did you buy this house or are you renting?” I told her we had bought it and she got really excited. I didn’t quite understand why. Over the next year, I kind of figured out why. Homeowners were scarce, and treasured.

Our beloved old bungalow took shape, and gradually became “home.” New neighbors moved in across the street, and they were the “get involved” type. One Saturday in June of 2001, a mass of volunteers surrounded their home and repainted it. It was fun, and fascinating to think that in such a short period of time, such a big difference could be made.

I didn’t realize how contagious this project, that they called Paint Your Heart Out, could be. I soon found myself painting my own house, and the landlord who owned the big Victorian north of me did the same. The next summer, I helped plan the Paint Your Heart out project. Stressful, but exciting, we painted 8 homes in 2 Saturdays. I was hooked.

Since then I’ve had the pleasure of becoming Neighborhood Chair, and working with Neighborhood Housing Services in many ways. We’ve rebuilt old tired homes, repainted nearly 35 homes in this neighborhood, planted hundreds of trees, and done a few things I never dreamed of like creating our own “This Old House” video with me as the inexperienced host.

If you take a walk over to 563 E 300 N, and take a look to the west at 541 E, you'll see two beautiful results of our collective efforts. You see, we are truly Urban Pioneers. We believed in this old neighborhood when nobody else did. When developers were telling the city Council “Joaquin is dead” we knew they were wrong. Thankfully, we’ve gained the support of the City Council and Administration, and are seeing a literal “Sea Change” in our neighborhood.

You can walk the streets now, and not trip on the sidewalks. We have park playground for toddlers, a new park coming soon, and lots and lots of houses with great colors. If you don’t like them, you can blame me. Our challenges remain, but that is a universal constant.

I am literally thrilled to see a $10,000 check coming to NHS. The good it will do, is far more exciting to me than winning their award. I’d like to thank Northwestern Mutual Life’s Charitable Foundation for this award. Perhaps a small gift for an enormous healthy company, but the differences it makes last for decades.

So to all of you who someday find yourself somewhere you didn’t really want to be, and see things you’d like to change—I’ll pass along that wonderful advice: “bloom where you are planted.”

With love,

Kurt Peterson

Neighborhood Chair

Spring in the Neighborhood

2008-04-28T14:44:00.001-07:00

Thought all of you should see these tidbits of our neighborhood. Hope each of you is well and enjoying this time of year.

Kurt

Provo's General Plan as it relates to our Neighborhood

2008-01-28T19:58:00.000-08:00

Extracts from the Provo City General Plan which are most relevant to our neighborhood: (Considered a guide for our city's planning)

The establishment of the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone and creation of a Project Redevelopment Option (PRO) tool have worked together to create an opportunity to slow down the transition that resulted from the previous high-density zoning in the Pioneer neighborhoods, while recognizing legally established uses that resulted during this time period. These tools provide an opportunity to step back, evaluate the present and future needs of the neighborhoods, and make informed choices about specific redevelopment proposals. They also provide an opportunity to help stabilize spiraling property values, opening new doors for reestablishment of owner occupancy in these neighborhoods. The application of the Accessory Apartment (A-overlay) zone to one-family (R1 zoned) neighborhoods, formerly zoned for higher-density as R2 and R2.5, has allowed the creation of accessory dwelling units within one-family dwellings, with the goals of providing financial assistance to owner-occupants of the homes and providing affordable housing for residents of the accessory dwelling units, while discouraging two-family (duplex) dwellings that are typically rental-only units. These have proved to be successful tools for stabilizing and revitalizing these neighborhoods.

While proper zoning and other regulatory controls and redevelopment activities must be part of the solution, success will also require attention to law enforcement, physical infrastructure, public perception, and other issues in the neighborhoods. Tools to accomplish these objectives include:
1. On-street parking permit programs or other on-street parking controls, as over-occupancy complaints are often driven by excessive on-street parking;
2. Proactive zoning enforcement – rather than complaint-driven enforcement – of occupancy, parking, business use in residential areas (other than permitted or conditional home occupations), and other violations that lead to dissatisfaction within neighborhoods;
3. Business licensing of rental-only units, providing revenues for appropriate administration of zoning within affected neighborhoods and enabling the establishment of a better data base and framework for inspections where life-safety issues may be a consideration; and
4. Greater flexibility of land development standards in Pioneer neighborhoods to encourage revitalization and reuse of homes that may not meet today’s standards for families without expansion of living area.
It is anticipated these tools will increase home ownership, enable residents to acquire individual housing equity, enable neighborhoods to strengthen community-held assets, and stabilize property values. These results will then encourage families, retirees, single professionals, and others desiring the values of a stable, centrally located, community-based neighborhood to move back to the Pioneer neighborhoods and invest in the long-term viability of Provo as a city. Committed, well-organized residents will continue to be crucial to the successful implementation of strategies to reclaim and conserve one-family homes and to reestablish a foundation of owner-occupancy within Provo’s
Pioneer neighborhoods.

The mix of land uses, density, and design within a neighborhood affects that neighborhood’s character. Historically significant design themes should be preserved through rehabilitation and protection of significant existing properties. New construction should be compatible with existing design themes in an area. Provo City’s Design Review Committee is raising the level of awareness of design issues, and quality projects are being constructed as a result of this awareness. The Landmarks Commission is identifying properties worthy of preservation, finding ways to provide preservation incentives, and protecting historic properties.

Joaquin Neighborhood
Vision, Challenges and Goals of the Joaquin Neighborhood
The Joaquin neighborhood has long been a desirable area to live in Provo due to its excellent location, peaceful tree-lined streets and rich architectural history, but has experienced special challenges due to its proximity to Brigham Young University. The campus influence both energizes the neighborhood and creates particular pressures for the neighborhood. Considered at one point for division into two distinct neighborhoods to reflect campus-oriented needs and home-owner needs, area residents and City policy makers determined that Joaquin should be respected as a single neighborhood with a range of needs.
Not unlike other neighborhoods that address varying needs for housing, commercial services, parks, schools, and infrastructure improvements, the Joaquin neighborhood can best thrive through cooperative planning efforts and implementation steps to restore and conserve one family homes. Joaquin home owners want to attract additional residents with a long-term commitment to the neighborhood and to reestablish an environment that encourages families and others to make Joaquin their permanent home. Joaquin residents also recognize the need and value of providing desirable housing in a walkable environment for students, through campus-oriented redevelopment on streets within walking distance from BYU.

Through cooperative and coordinated planning efforts, appropriate transition between the South Campus Planning and Neighborhood Conservation Areas of Joaquin can be established through architectural and land development standards, zoning, and use. These changes can improve the living environment in the Conservation planning area and help to overcome the impacts created by pressures for student housing within the broader neighborhood. These impacts have included the intrusion of multiple-family housing structures into one-family neighborhoods, with little transition or neighborhood-friendly design, as well as the conversion of one-family homes into multiple-unit student housing. These conversion units experience a high turn-over rate and, too frequently, a decline in the standards to which these properties are maintained. Pressures due to inadequate parking for the increased density and for students who commute to campus from outlying areas have long been an emotional issue in Joaquin.

Goals of the Joaquin Neighborhood include:
1. Increase owner-occupancy to build the neighborhood community, by having more permanent residents to support schools and community efforts;
2. Preserve and maintain the historic homes in the neighborhood;
3. Retain schools for the children within the neighborhood;
4. Improve the pedestrian-friendly aspects of the neighborhood;
5. Improve the on-street parking pressures and the conflicts that result from those;
6. Provide appropriate campus-oriented redevelopment with suitable transition to the neighborhood conservation area through architectural and land development standards, zoning, and land use policies;
7. Provide family-oriented public recreational space within this densely populated area. Joaquin residents envision their neighborhood a being family-oriented, but with a healthy mix of both married and single students. The mix of historic homes and apartment buildings must be maintained in good condition. Redevelopment should focus on property that is inconsistent with the character and goals of the neighborhood, rather than removal of one-family homes with historic character. As one of the Pioneer neighborhoods of Provo, cooperative efforts of the City and other forces, such as Neighborhood Housing Services, can help to achieve these goals.

Encroachment of commercial businesses into residential areas should be discouraged; however, appropriate mixed-use development to provide commercial services is recognized as potential benefit within the walkable, campus-oriented village redevelopment, with zoning and design controls to appropriately integrate the commercial uses into the overall redevelopment plan.

Within the South Campus Planning Area, new development projects, including projects initiated by Brigham Young University along its southern boundary, must be carefully reviewed to assure compatibility with existing development and to assure transportation impacts are properly mitigated.

Areas of specific interest to the neighborhood include:
• Center Street improvements to rebuild boulevards from 100 East to 900 East to enhance natural beauty;
• respecting residential use and efforts to reunite the Joaquin neighborhood when evaluating traffic patterns, infrastructure changes, and street designations (including 200 North and 400 East);
• housing transition and redevelopment along 800 East to provide quality townhomes and other quality housing between 560 North and Memorial Park;
• long-term use of the Joaquin School and surrounding property, with a desire to maintain a neighborhood school and recreational open space being central to the neighbors' concerns;
• improved parking within the Neighborhood Conservation Area of Joaquin;
• enforcement of zoning with a focus on housing occupancy, as well as use of tools such as rental dwelling licensing and parking restrictions to minimize impacts of student housing and parking demands on homes within the Conservation Area of the neighborhood;
• improved public transit service along the corridor between Novell (East Bay) and Utah Valley State College (Orem) to help alleviate parking and traffic impacts to Joaquin and other city neighborhoods; and
• the need for commuter rail service between Provo and other communities along the Wasatch Front to increase employment opportunities for area residents.

Key Land Use Policies – Joaquin Neighborhood, Neighborhood Conservation Area
1. See policies under the guiding principles for the Central Area.
2. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures within areas designated as
Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.
3. Study the feasibility of placing landscape medians in Center Street from 100 East to 1000 East to enhance the proposed design corridor.
4. Create as many residential properties as possible eligible for 20% State Rehabilitation Tax Credits by forming a National Register Historic District extending from 100 East to 600 East between 500 North and 500 South.
5. Discourage encroachment of higher-density, student-oriented housing in the Joaquin Neighborhood Conservation Area.
6. Promote the use of the adopted South Joaquin South Residential Design Standards to assist developers with infill development or redevelopment for one-family housing, adopted herein by reference and incorporated as Appendix A to the General Plan.
7. Continue to evaluate infrastructure upgrades, designation of streets, and opportunities to provide appropriately designed and located public recreational space within the neighborhood and to retain the neighborhood school serving the children of the neighborhood, with the goals of encouraging a reestablishment of owner-occupied, one-family homes for long-term residency. Impacts of traffic patterns and parking to residents from use and designation of city streets and the beneficial influence of services such as schools and parks that can attract long-term residents should be central to planning efforts that help to define and unite the Joaquin neighborhood.

Key Land Use Policies – Joaquin Neighborhood, South Campus Planning Area:
1. See policies under the guiding principles for the Central Area.
2. Create a vision for the planning area south of campus area, anticipated to redevelop for student-oriented housing and amenities within the South Campus Planning Area, as shown on Map # 6.4 Provo City Neighborhoods Map.
3. Encourage any future redevelopment proposals for student or multi-family housing to be pursued through the Project Redevelopment Option (PRO) rezoning process to assure new development is compatible with the goals of the South Campus Planning Area and the Joaquin neighborhood. University-sponsored student housing projects must be similarly reviewed.
4. When redevelopment occurs, have the developer consider the opportunity to relocate homes that may have historical significance.
5. Inasmuch as the Provo City School District has closed the Joaquin Elementary School and intends to transfer the property into private ownership, it is expedient to establish policies for the future development of the property. As a site of particular sensitivity to the neighborhood and location key to defining the future character of the South Campus
Planning Area, this property should be required to develop through the Project
Redevelopment Option (PRO) process and should consider the following goals:
A. Open public or semi-public space should be incorporated in the redevelopment of the Joaquin Elementary School property. This may include the park-block pedestrian plaza concept as outlined in the South Campus Area Master Plan (SCAMP) study report, which study document provided the basis of many of the principles and goals adopted within the Joaquin Neighborhood Key land use policies of the General Plan and may be important for future visioning documents for the area. If a park-block pedestrian plaza is considered for this property, careful attention should be given to its implementation as it will provide a standard for future phases of the park-block pedestrian plaza system that could extend from 500 North to the BYU campus.
B. Planning for the site should be more comprehensive than the Joaquin School
Elementary site alone. Properties immediately west of the site along 500 East and east of the site along 700 East should be planned in conjunction with the property. Future developers for the Joaquin Elementary School property need not control or develop these properties; however, prior to the adoption of any new zone for the Joaquin Elementary School properties, a conceptual plan should be prepared that illustrates how adjacent properties will integrate into an overall and unified plan for the block.
C. The modification of the streetscape on 500 North should be avoided. Existing trees and parkways should be preserved.
D. As the neighborhood policies call for an adequate transition between the South Campus Planning Area and the neighborhood south of 500 North, buildings should not exceed two (2) and three (3) stories along 500 North.
E. A parking permit program as discussed within the General Plan should be
implemented prior to the adoption of a rezone for this property.
F The traffic impacts of any project in the Joaquin School area must be fully
analyzed by the City Administration so that impacts of a particular project can be properly mitigated.
6. Develop a campus oriented residential district, focusing on higher density housing within the general boundaries of 500 North to 800 North and from University Avenue to 900 East, thereby providing a walkable district for student access to campus. Development and redevelopment should focus on larger assembly of property, such as full blocks, rather than smaller parcels. Also included is the area from 800 North to the indoor practice field and from 150 East to University Avenue.
A. Identify strategies to achieve the density recommendations of the South Campus
Area Master Plan (SCAMP) Study, while achieving desirable parking ratios and
encouraging a transition from vehicle-dependency to walking, bicycling, and
transit use.
B. Identify opportunities and implementation tools for larger-scale redevelopment, assembling parcels of sufficient size to incorporate pedestrian plazas and people-oriented spaces in conjunction with housing and possibly mixed-use buildings.

Questions (and Answers) on 350 North

2008-01-22T16:15:00.000-08:00

(picture of DC townhomes)

Friends and Neighbors,

I've recently been asked quite a few questions about the NHS project on 350 North between 600 and 700 East. I'd like to provide you with some information and update your information.

Question #1: Who is the developer?

Answer: Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which works towards revitalizing the 5 pioneer neighborhoods of Provo.

Question #2: Is the City building this?

Answer: No. NHS is an independent organization which is guided by an Executive Director and a Board (several of our neighbors are on that board).

Question #3: How is the City involved?

Answer: The city often supports the efforts of NHS through loan programs to encourage owner occupancy, or by funding the costs of the NHS purchase rehabilitations.

Question #4: Does current zoning allow NHS to build something different on 350 North?

Answer: No, current zoning does not. Anything NHS wants to build will have to be reviewed by the Neighborhood, the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. NHS will have to ask for a rezone of the specific area they want to redevelop. Public Hearings will be held to allow neighborhood input.

Question #5: Is this "spot-zoning"?

Answer: Yes, Provo City has a specific ordinance which allows the use of "spot-zones" in a re-development situation. These are called "PRO" zones.

Question #6: Is NHS going to ask for approval of their initial plans?

Answer: No. The plans were not what the neighborhood wanted, so they have gone back to the drawing board (literally).

Question #7: What is happening now?

Answer: NHS has asked several people within the neighborhood to work on the plans as a "design committee." Rose Rowberry, Jeff Marvolo, Charmaine Thompson, Georgia Solorzano, Carol Wilson and myself are on that committee. Our goal is to create a design that is going to accomplish what we want as a neighborhood. We have finished up the site plan for both sides of the street, and are now working on floor plan and exterior design details. Currently, we are looking at using Townhomes (3 different sizes/floorplans) which have front porches. Both sides of the street will have some community green space. We are being helped in this process by David Gardner, Kent Walker & his assistants from WPA architecture, and by the NHS Executive Director Sharlene Behunin. Sharlene helps us with the finances of the project, David guides us on design and "what will sell," and of course, Kent Walker puts our concepts onto paper.

Question #8: Why should we do anything?

Answer: We don't have to do anything to the property, but an examination of the subject property shows us that the project is worthy of our consideration. NHS has purchased 3 homes on the north side of the street, all of which have been poorly maintained rentals for many years. They are small, and in tough shape. On the south side they own 3 other properties, including a brick bungalow which "morphed" into a 5 plex, a small white shack, and a Postwar home which has been divided into a duplex. None of these homes has been owner occupied in recent years, but anything NHS does would be. Deed restrictions, and the development agreement would stipulate that, and give the city power to enforce it.

You will each have the chance to take a look at the plans, and the details. I hope you will take advantage of that opportunity.

Kurt

Catching up: Paint Your Heart Out, and what it has done for us

2007-11-26T13:38:00.000-08:00

Our neighborhood has been actively working to improve itself for years, and one of our primary tools has been Paint Your Heart Out. Most of you are familiar with it, but probably haven't seen the before and after shots.

For those who aren't familiar: Paint Your Heart Out is an annual volunteer project where we gather volunteers (as many as 300) for one hard day of work repainting older homes in our neighborhood that need a quick facelift. It involves a lot of planning, and preparation work by the owners, and has been assisted by the staff and energy of Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo, our local non-profit which works for revitalizing Provo's Pioneer neighborhoods.

In our neighborhood, this process began back in 2000, when we put it to the test. The results have been exciting ever since. We did take one year off to do a "Plant Your Heart Out." Most of the homes we've done have been owner occupied, but a few eyesore rentals have been tackled. Often, home-owners receive the paint at cost, or free depending upon income. We have a couple homes on the itinerary already for summer 2008. We could possibly add more.

Perhaps the most wonderful thing about Paint Your Heart Out is the effect it seems to have on houses that are close to project houses. Within a year, the new paint seems to spread. Call it the "keeping up with the Joneses" phenomena, or a realization that this is a neighborhood worth investing in. Enjoy the photos!

Parking Permit Program, meeting held

2007-10-22T17:58:00.000-07:00

A meeting was held last Thursday to discuss the Council Draft version of the Joaquin Neighborhood's parking permit program. The meeting was held primarily for South Joaquin residents, who listened, provided feedback, and voted. The vote was 20 - 13 in favor of the permit program. Concerns were focused on visitor parking, and the implementation of the plan.

There were some points that I feel need further explanation. First of all, the basics of the permits. A permit entitles you to park in a particular subdistrict, and owner occupants can get 2 free, and purchase one other. The permits will be "hanging" meaning they can be transferred from car to car as needed. So, if you have a driveway that holds 2 cars, and you have 3 "cars" of visitors, you can use those permits for your visitors, and still be able to handle everyone. Permits for owner occupants are not car specific. They will be for tenants.

Another issue--businesses must be located without the technical boundaries of the neighborhood in order to be eligible for permits. So, Central Business District businesses won't be eligible. That includes all University Ave located businesses.

Things that I feel we need to change, or improve:

I feel the amount of free visitor "one day" spots available to each address needs to be increased. These will be a print-off the web sort of permit. The current plan gives 6 a year per address. That just isn't enough.

I will probably recommend that instead of having 3 subdistricts within South Joaquin, there would be just 1 overall district. This would make it easier for folks to visit friends, home /visit teach, etc.

I plan to recommend an "appeal" process which could enable residents with special circumstances to request additional permits, or perhaps more "visitor permits."
I plan to request a program which would allow local church buildings to request non-enforcement periods on streets immediately surrounding their buildings.

I am still hoping for input from each of you.

Joaquin park news!

2007-10-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

I should be trumpeting this in the streets--the Council approved the purchase of the last remaining home/lot needed to finish up our new Park at the corner of 4th east and 4th north. The sales contract has been signed, the Council allocated the funds, and closing will come shortly. The house, which has been owned by the Oveson family, is the last link we needed. Our park will be nearly .90 acres, and the city could, if desired, expand that to the south, though I'm not going to hold my breath. The city will take possession November 15th, which gives the family time to empty out the home of any desired objects, etc. City staff is preparing requests for demolition bids, and that will likely occur this winter.

Definitely great news.

PS Don't forget the neighborhood meeting tonight at 7pm in the Farrer Library.

Historic Tax Credit can help you preserve your historic home

2007-10-13T09:47:00.000-07:00

Something that has helped me a great deal in preserving and fixing up my home, which was built in 1919 is Utah's tax credit for historic preservation. In essence, it has helped me wipe out 2 years income taxes. It is worth your exploration, and use.

http://history.utah.gov/historic_preservation/financial_assistance/utahtaxcredit.html

What is the Utah Historic Preservation Tax Credit? A 20 % nonrefundable tax credit for the rehabilitation of historic buildings which are used as owner-occupied residences or residential rentals. Twenty percent of all qualified rehabilitation costs may be deducted from taxes owed on your Utah income or corporate franchise tax.
Example: $22,000 in qualified rehabilitation cost = $4,400 state income tax credit.
Does My Building Qualify? Buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places, which, after rehabilitation, are used as a residence(s) qualify. The credit is not available for any property used for commercial purposes including hotels or bed-and-breakfasts. (If the historic B&B is also owner-occupied, this portion of the rehabilitation may qualify.) The building does not need to be listed in the National Register at the beginning of the project, but a complete National Register nomination must be submitted when the project is finished. The property must be listed in the National Register within three years of the approval of the completed project. Staff of the Historic Preservation Office can evaluate the eligibility of your building and provide instructions on nomination requirements. For more information about the National Register see http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/about.htm.
What Rehabilitation Work Qualifies? The work may include interior and/or exterior repair, rehabilitation orrestoration, including historic, decorative, and structural elements as wellas mechanical systems. All of the proposed, ongoing or completed work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Depending on the historic conditions and the specifics of the proposed rehab work, some examples of eligible work items include:
-repairing/upgrading windows -plumbing repairs and fixtures -refinishing floors, handrails, etc. -repairing or replacing roofs -compatible new kitchens & baths -reversing incompatible remodels-painting walls, trim, etc. -repointing masonry -reconstructing historic porches -new furnace, A/C, boiler, etc. -new floor and wall coverings -electrical upgrades
Necessary architectural, engineering, and permit fees may also be included. The purchase price of the building, site work (landscaping, sidewalks, fences, driveways, etc.), new additions, work on outbuildings, and the purchase and installation of moveable furnishings or equipment (window coverings, refrigerators, etc.) do not qualify for the credit.
All of the work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Great Illustrated Guide from the NPS) or the tax credit cannot be taken on any portion of the work. A complete application should be submitted to the SHPO as early as possible. The state law requires application and approval by the SHPO prior to completion of the project.
It is strongly recommended that the application be submitted before starting work. Any work begun without prior SHPO approval is done at the owner's own risk. Once work is underway, changes to bring the project into conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can be difficult, expensive or occasionally impossible to make.
(The National Park Service has prepared an online course to help building owners identify the tangible elements or features that give historic buildings their unique visual character. Reading this will help you make design decisions regarding your historic house.)
Photographs showing all areas of work (interior and exterior) prior to the beginning of the rehabilitation and any construction drawings or other technical information necessary to completely understand the proposed project are also required as part of the application.How Much Money Must I Spend to Qualify? Total rehabilitation expenditures must exceed $10,000. (The tax credit applies equally to this first $10,000.) The purchase price of the building and any donated labor cannot be included. The project must be completed within 36 months. (There is no limit to subsequent $10,000+ projects; separate applications are required.) When Can I Claim the Credit? The credit may be taken for the tax year in which the project was completed and the SHPO approves the rehabilitation work (and a National Register nomination, if needed). A unique certification number will be issued to the owner at that time. Credit amounts greater than the amount of tax due in that year may be carried forward up to five years. Are There Any Restrictions Placed on My Building? All work done to the building during the rehabilitation project, and for three years following the certification of the project, must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Please consult with the State Historic Preservation Office if you have any questions. What if I Already Have Approval From my Local Landmarks Commission?The local review process will be helpful to tax credit application process but state law requires application to the State Historic Preservation Office. Local preservation commissions sometimes have different requirements and other considerations than the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. To qualify for the state tax credit, all of the work must meet the Standards and receive state approval. Application for the state tax credit must be made before the project is completed, preferably before work even begins (see above).
How do I Claim the Tax Credit? The original completed and signed form TC-40H, Historic Preservation Tax Credit, must be attached to your initial state income tax return. This form will be provided by the SHPO when the completed project is approved. If you carry forward an excess portion of this tax credit, you must attach a copy of the signed, original TC-40H form, with the new carry forward amount, to your subsequent tax return(s). Note that carry forward amounts must be applied against tax due before the application of any historic preservation tax credits earned in the current year and on a first-earned, first-used basis. Please consult with the State Tax Commission if you have any questions. Original records supporting the credit claimed must be maintained for three years following the date the return was filed claiming the credit.For More Information or an Application, Contact:
Nelson Knight at (801) 533-3562State Historic Preservation OfficeUtah Division of State History300 Rio GrandeSalt Lake City, Utah 84101fax: (801) 533-3503

Voting Record as it pertains to our neighborhood

2007-10-05T09:39:00.000-07:00

During election seasons, I get asked quite a few questions by various people. One of the recent questions was regarding Steve Turley's voting record on the City Council as it pertains to our neighborhood, specifically. I did some research, and here are the results.

Purchase Rehabilitation projects turn eyesore & problem properties, and drug houses into comfortable homes that families can live in. Steve has voted against the following projects in our neighborhood:
· July 18th, 2006: 631, 637 & 659 East 350 North.
· March 1st, 2005: 746 East 200 North.
· Dec 20th, 2005: 541 East 300 North.
· May 4th, 2004: 386 North 400 East
· Nov 23rd, 2004: 258 East 300 North

Other issues:

July 2004: Voted against strengthening minimum parking requirements for rental dwellings.

October 2004: Abstained from voting on the update of Provo City School Board Districts to reapportion school district boundaries. (This change gave the downtown neighborhoods their own representative on the Provo School Board)

April 20th, 2004: Voted against purchasing 368 North 400 East, and 444 East 400 North for the purchase rehabilitation program or a future park for the Joaquin neighborhood.

April 5th, 2005: Voted against approving the Home Program, the American Dream Down-Payment Initiative, and the Community Development Block Grant Program for the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year. (Funds were included in this for improvements at Memorial Park and Sidewalk repair)

2005: Voted against changing the General Plan Designation on 200 North from Collector road to a neighborhood street.

April 18th, 2006: Voted against enacting temporary zoning regulations to limit lot coverage in one-family residential, and residential conservation zones. (Preventing more people from paving entire back yards for parking)

March 21st, 2006: Voted against a resolution approving the HOME program, the American Dream Down-payment Initiative, and the Community Development Block Grant Program for the 2006-2007 Fiscal Year. (Funds were included in this for purchasing land and developing our new park at 400 East and 400 North and for Sidewalk repair)

March 20, 2007: Abstained from voting on HOME program and American Dream Down-Payment initiative.

March 20, 2007: Voted for using money that had been previously allocated for Joaquin's new park to buy property located at 362-365 N 400 East, despite having voted against the initial allocation in 2006 which provided the park funds.

April 17, 2007: Voted against modifications to the HOME purchase plus, Home Improvement Loans, and down payment assistance programs to modify their terms. (Allowing the available funds to last longer)

*Information provided by Provo City Council Minutes/Records

"Blight" or "Beautiful"

2007-09-23T17:43:00.000-07:00

We all know what "beautiful" is. In terms of a neighborhood, it means well kept lawns, landscaping, beautiful trees and a nicely painted home. It means good sidewalks and streets which aren't covered in litter, and a place where you really want to be. I took a brief bike ride with my son today, and saw a lot of beauty, thankfully.

"Blight" on the other hand, is everything you don't want. Graffiti covered walls, unkept and unwatered lawns, weeds and trash more prevalent than landscaping. It means homes in disrepair. The epitome of this would be an abandoned property with the windows all broken out, and trash covering the ground. Blight spreads, quite insidiously. During the Maeser school renovation, some local "bums" took it upon themselves to break out a few of the old window panes. Soon, there was hardly a sound window left in the building. We don't currently have such an extreme example in our neighborhood, but we have lots of small ones that I'm concerned about.

Those "little" ones are small and large graffiti tags on electrical boxes, and buildings. They are homes and buildings owned by absentee landlords that don't really care about maintaining the building or the grounds. A few years ago, I took Midge Johnson and her husband on a walking tour of the neighborhood to point out the positive and the negative. It didn't take long for her to see the difference between owner occupied structures and absentee owned rentals.

Though things have improved, the struggle is far from over. Sometimes, we just get "used" to blight, and put up with it. This is something we really have to avoid if we are going to improve our neighborhood. Putting up with problem properties isn't a solution.

So, I ask for your help. Please let me know about problem sites, and don't hesitate to use our community resources. If a landlord isn't taking care of a place, look up their contact information on Utah County's website, and call and write them. (http://www.co.utah.us/) If you can't contact them, let the city do it. Our city has a weed abatement ordinance, and of course, a nuisance ordinance. You can reach Community Development by calling 852-6400. Ask for David Heath, or Reta Trimble. David is assigned to our neighborhood, and Reta is his supervisor.

If you see graffiti of any kid, no matter the size, please call 85-CRIME and report it. Provo City will clean off the graffiti, though perhaps not as fast as we would like. Put them to work.

Working together, we can rid ourselves of a lot of "blight," and create a lot more beauty.

New Memorial Park playground

2007-09-07T14:22:00.000-07:00

I'm happy to announce that the new Memorial Park playground is not only complete, but already being actively used by neighborhood residents. The playground is intended for younger kids (5 and under) and provides something that we were missing in the neighborhood. It has slides, swings, and other fun, along with some nice benches for Mom and Dad. The playground is on the West side of 800 East, which divides the park in two. It is near the north end of the park, surrounded on 3 sides by large pine trees.

I was thrilled yesterday to see it already filled with children and their parents as I walked by at 8pm. It only took 5 plus years to see it from idea to reality. Thus are the workings of a city government.

Please enjoy and treasure this resource.

City Wide Election Race--your choices

2007-09-05T20:20:00.000-07:00

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. Most of the council's work is on zoning and developments. He is very consistent in voting for the cause of developers, realtors and a "landlord friendly" 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. Turley does tend to be a friend of our park system, and has pushed in his own way for a new Rec Center. He did lead the budget committee in their updating of City Impact fees for new development, which included, for the first time a park impact fee to expand Provo's park system. Perhaps for the Joaquin Neighborhood, his most concerning votes have been the many votes he cast against funding NHS purchase rehab projects. He also voted against our wishes to change the "title" of 200 North to a residential street-vs its current, more intensive label.

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. His platform includes support for NHS and the city's programs encouraging owner occupancy. He lives in the Franklin Neighborhood, one of our fellow Pioneer neighborhoods.

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. I have given you my very condensed description of the race--now you need to make a decision. The primary, which is on September 11th, will eliminate one of the three people who has filed.

Polling location for Joaquin Residents

2007-08-30T20:05:00.000-07:00

Since we very much want you to get out and vote this fall, I think this information will help.

The polling location for Precinct PRO4 and PRO6 will be in the Historic Courthouse Rotunda on Sept 11, 07 for the Primary election.
51 South University Ave. Parking will be an issue for most voters. Center and University Ave will be the best or over at the Health and Justice Building parking garage. The county elections office is also looking for poll workers for the next year. There will be three elections happening next year one in Feb. June, and Nov. The pay is a nice benefit for community service.

Parking Permit Program status report

2007-08-27T19:46:00.000-07:00

(Common streetscape in Joaquin: Cars.....)

As all of you know, parking is one of our neighborhood's curses. We have too many cars, and not enough parking spaces for all of them. This is especially true in North Joaquin. Nearly 1 year ago, we submitted a parking permit plan to the City. The Mayor at that point instructed Community Development to begin work. Brent Wilde, one of the City's Senior Planners, began working on the issue. He has done a great deal of work, and frankly, I'm grateful. He has put together a report on the issue for the Mayor and the City Council, and that report contains his proposals for helping us with the problem. The City Council will begin working on the issue this fall. We expect the ordinance will be passed relatively soon, and will go into effect in January. That date may change, but that's my best guess at this point.

This week (Aug 27th to 31st) is our last week of relatively low volumes of cars in the neighborhood. Next week they'll come back in force once BYU resumes classes. The difference in both traffic and cars on the streets is unfortunately very noticeable. We suffer from a few core problems which I'd like to review:

Commuter traffic. We have a lot of folks who live further out who enjoy using our neighborhood as their parking lot each day while up at BYU. BYU has now changed its policies to offer free parking to students in most of its lots. Frankly, they have all the parking they need, it just isn't where students want it to be. It is over in the Marriott Center parking lot, and at the Stadium. It takes a good 15 minutes to walk from that end of campus to the south end, where most of the classrooms are. Shuttles aren't provided, so many find it easier to park in our neighborhood and walk up the hill. 800 North in particular is used for this.
Students parking on the street instead of in stalls provided by their apartment complexes/houses. Provo City Code has required landlords to provide offstreet parking for all cars operated from that residence since the 1950's. We all know that hasn't really happened. But, many complexes have adequate parking, and it sits half empty while the streets overflow with cars.
Maintaining an appropriate balance of parking to keep Joaquin a positive place for owner occupants to live.

The proposal has too many points to be covered quickly, and needs your attention. We will be having neighborhood meetings to cover it. It divides the neighborhood into 2 basic sections, mostly along 500 and 560 North. The "plan" for North and South Joaquin are quite different in many respects. South Joaquin's plan will likely offer all owner occupants at least one free on street permit, and allow homeowner's to purchase one more. All homeowners will be given first priority, and at least a 2 week period of time to obtain/purchase their permits. After that, tenants that live in apartments and houses with a Rental Dwelling License will be able to obtain permits. Brent has calculated exactly how many parking space there are in South Joaquin, and no more than that number will be sold. So, if we've got 2000 parking spots, no more than 2000 permits will be sold. Arrangements for visitor parking, Farrer elementary, local businesses, and churches are all part of the plan.

I encourage each of you to take a look at the plan and "study up." I can provide it to you as a pdf file. Your opinions will be needed.

Joaquin's new park

2007-08-26T18:59:00.000-07:00

(Picture of land that will be our park)

In 2005, when Joaquin elementary was closed, our neighborhood lost a significant resource. Our greenspace became a demolition zone, and since then has been sold and rezoned for a large new apartment complex. With a population of nearly 15,000 residents, we were very underserved by our city in terms of park space. After the 2005 City elections, George Stewart and Cindy Richards led a push to provide funds for the creation of a new park. By this point, the city already owned the 2 homes on the SE corner of 400 East and 400 North. This land became designated as that spot. The city has since purchased another home on 400 East, and is working to buy a 4th.

This spring, part of that land was cleared, with 2 large Sycamore trees being preserved. The Parks and Rec department started putting in sprinkler system, replaced sidewalks, and we hope to see this land covered in sod this fall. Further development will wait until the last home is bought. Negotiations are currently under way.

We hope to see a wonderful neighborhood resource in the future. A playground, and hopefully, a small ball field will be available, along with a pavillion.

Welcome to the Joaquin Journal

2007-08-26T18:28:00.001-07:00

(Knight-Mangum Home on Center Street)

Welcome to the Joaquin Neighborhood Journal! Its our latest tool to help neighbors keep track of what's happening, issues they should be concerned about, and the positive things that are happening in our neighborhood. My name is Kurt Peterson, one of the two co-chairs of the Joaquin Neighborhood.

Our neighborhood is one of Provo's Pioneer Neighborhoods. It comprises half of the Provo Historic District, and sits just NE of our city's downtown. Our boundaries run from Center Street on the South to 800 North on the North, University Avenue is our Western edge, and 900 East is our Eastern edge. Nearly 15,000 people live in our 72 block neighborhood, which is located just South of Brigham Young University. The area we call North Joaquin is mostly populated by BYU students living in different apartment complexes and older homes. South of 500 North is "South" Joaquin, which has a mix of historic homes as well as apartments. Nearly 90% of all owner occupied homes in the neighborhood are in South Joaquin.

Our neighborhood elementary school is Farrer, which serves both our neighborhood and Maeser, which is just South of Center Street. It's boundaries also extend to 200 West in the Commercial Business District, and a piece of the Foothills neighborhood (to the East). The school, built in the 1930's as a WPA project, as been updated and changed many times. The land to the north and south of the School serves as a recreation zone for the neighborhood. 3 playgrounds, two outdoor pavillions, tennis courts, and a basketball area are located on them. It served as one of Provo's Middle Schools until 2005. The middle school which serves our area is Centennial, and our High School is Timpview. Both of these schools are in NE Provo.

Our neighborhood has 2 parks, though one is being developed as I write this. Memorial Park is located in the SE corner of our neighborhood, straddling both sides of 800 East. It is an old park, with large mature trees, and nice walking paths. Many of the evergreen trees planted in the park were put in after WWI, and were planted as a memorial to the soldiers from Provo who gave their lives in that war. A new playground is being put together in this park, tucked between several of these trees. The playground is meant to serve Toddlers and younger children. The other park, known to us currently as Joaquin Park, is being built at the SE corner of the intersection of 400 North, and 400 East. The city has purchased 3 homes for it, and is trying to buy the 4th. The first two that were bought have been torn down, and the land has been cleared and graded. Completion date is unknown at this point.

Provo City has a City Council in which there are 5 districts, and 2 City-wide seats. The district which covers Provo's Pioneer Neighborhoods is represented by Cindy Richards. George Stewart, a former Mayor, and Steve Turley are the City-Wide representatives. Our representative on the Provo School Board is Mary Ann Christiansen, one of our own! Put them to work for you!

If you have ideas, or concerns that you want addressed on this blog, you can email me at kurt_peterson@comcast.net. I encourage you to let me know about important events and issues that you would like on here. I look forward to your participation.