The Provo City Council convened on December 17, 2024, to discuss a significant development proposal that has raised concerns among council members regarding its impact on the local housing market. The meeting focused on a proposed project that includes a mix of rental units and townhouses, with particular emphasis on the need for owner-occupied housing.

The developer presented a modified plan that included a more conservative approach, suggesting the addition of townhouses along the front of the property. However, several council members expressed reservations about the proposal, particularly regarding the limited number of owner-occupied units. Councilor Craig Christiansen voiced his concerns, stating that the current offer of 12 owner-occupied units, representing only 12% of the project, was insufficient. He emphasized the need for a better balance between rental and ownership options to address the community's housing needs.

Councilor Handley raised questions about how the townhouses would be integrated into the development agreement, seeking clarity on the specifics of the proposal. He expressed a desire for more information on the market viability of ownership options in the area. Meanwhile, Councilor Garrett acknowledged the developer's proactive measures, such as providing additional parking, but echoed the sentiment that more owner-occupied units are necessary to prevent the area from becoming predominantly rental-focused.

The discussion highlighted the broader context of housing affordability in Provo, with several council members noting the challenges faced by residents in securing affordable housing. Councilor Whipple pointed out the need for a variety of housing options, including both rentals and for-sale units, to accommodate different demographics, including families and married students.

As the conversation progressed, it became clear that the council was seeking a more compelling proposal from the developer that would enhance the mix of housing types. Councilor Garrett suggested that the project could serve as a transitional property between existing apartments and for-sale homes, but emphasized the need for a higher percentage of owner-occupied units.

In conclusion, the council voted to continue the discussion, encouraging the developer to return with a revised proposal that includes a more substantial commitment to owner-occupied housing. This decision reflects the council's ongoing efforts to balance the need for rental units with the imperative of increasing homeownership opportunities in the community. The next steps will involve further analysis of the proposal's financial implications and its alignment with the city's housing goals.