[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6013592,"mediaKeyId","5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0","parentId",5793579,"title","Planning commission narrowly backs owner’s request to allow ADU at 1841 N. 1550 E as Oak Hills neighborhood protests","audioSeconds",6525,"startMs",4381000,"endMs",10906000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0&start=4381&end=10906","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0/thumbnail_4381000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6013592/Utah/Planning-commission-narrowly-backs-owners-request-to-allow-ADU-at-1841-N-1550-E-as-Oak-Hills-neighborhood-protests","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6013592-994febf451aa8a83de14f995204c47cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195025&Signature=MTMS4XBItjpXYjUhxkMPs9fpwz8UxzjXQ4MLHhjdnN-2DiOgSKPIZUP7bJELWXrZYs-m~Um~UEz8fQ8BZ62QGxI4rjTrFoh-Hk4EEu5OK3gBFbvMWXbhIZ56DGd2JAm68gW7-6ko1XEGlrygNADnqKa7kBy-~XSlqnLqGvz1QrIeGy0vFITxae5ZGojGbeUtPqD21MjyGPJIC4p~NZ518VuVsD31qF1KOF~vlV6zQBQnUs~u0S25B1yBrY7D8hq3rw4PI80qDprKIN7ltnSDFOkfVjk9PN83~thIulfzMCQNLrP-mUHtl9knLsB7iyhBn4Wq7JMJ45AuYUB9fvqmJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","ProvoChannel17","date","2025-09-11T03:45:17Z","article","The Provo Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Sept. 10 to recommend that City Council add 1841 North 1550 East to the city’s map of properties eligible for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The vote forwards a requested ordinance text amendment so the property owners, Alan and Joanna Ludlow, may pursue a rental dwelling license if they meet the city’s ADU standards.

Why it matters: The application touched a policy fault line in Provo between expanding ADU options to increase housing flexibility and preserving long‑standing single‑family neighborhoods. The Ludlows told the commission they bought the house to be the family’s long‑term home and that an ADU would allow them to house parents and, temporarily, help with mortgage costs. Joanna Ludlow said the basement living space was part of the home’s original 1967 blueprint; she told commissioners the family intends owner occupancy and said the unit has four bedrooms and full facilities.

Staff and public: Planning staff explained the process: the councilable ordinance text amendment would add only this single property to the ADU map and would not automatically authorize rental occupancy—owners would still need a rental dwelling license and must meet code standards. Jessica Damicki, planning staff, said, “When this application was submitted, the applicant obtained signatures from 66% of the surrounding neighbors,” but staff also reported that some signatories later rescinded their support.

Public comment split sharply. Supporters argued the Ludlows are responsible homeowners and that legalizing the unit would regularize a long‑standing housing pattern and provide affordable housing options. Opponents said they specifically chose Oak Hills because it is zoned R‑1‑10 for single‑family homes and warned that approval would set a precedent, encourage higher occupancy, increase on‑street parking and strain aging infrastructure. Multiple residents said they have complained previously about what they regard as illegal secondary rentals in the neighborhood and questioned whether the city can enforce rules effectively.

Key clarifications requested during the hearing included whether the basement is a detached ADU (it is an internal unit), whether the Ludlows intend short‑term rentals (they stated they do not; any temporary rental would be short term while refinancing) and whether a legal “second‑kitchen agreement” applies. Staff explained that a second‑kitchen agreement is a recorded covenant in some older properties that restricts use; the planning and enforcement staff will verify recorded title commitments and any required covenants as part of later licensing.

Action and next steps: The commission’s motion recommended approval of the single‑property ordinance text amendment and forwarded the matter to City Council with a split vote. Commissioners who opposed expressed concern about process and enforcement; commissioners who supported said this property fits the policy objectives in the general plan to supply a wider range of housing types and is physically able to meet parking and safety requirements.

Context and limits: The staff memo and the hearing record make two procedural points: (1) adding a property to the ADU map does not itself grant a rental permit—the owner must still obtain a rental dwelling license and pass inspections; (2) an ordinance map change is a legislative action for City Council, and the commission’s recommendation is advisory. Several commissioners and staff said they will ask City Council and city staff to consider code changes to streamline the process and reduce neighborhood confusion over the petition/signature requirements that accompanied earlier versions of similar applications.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Provo City Planning Commission | September 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Provo Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Sept. 10 to recommend that City Council add 1841 North 1550 East to the city’s ADU map so the owners may pursue a rental dwelling license if they meet city standards.","taxTitle","Provo City Other, Provo, Utah County, Utah","taxId",66233,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6013594,"Planning commission continues dance‑hall permit for Wells Fargo event space after neighbors raise noise, parking and safety concerns",2420,305000,2725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0&start=305&end=2725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0/thumbnail_305000.jpg","/articles/6013594/Utah/Planning-commission-continues-dancehall-permit-for-Wells-Fargo-event-space-after-neighbors-raise-noise-parking-and-safety-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6013594-3e5cb3c31b717b733fbdb8439c7a8e54/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195025&Signature=bRsIeisDG4FveqaqSxcCYVdvMHXNo-PMfq7oeCjWwTjemdPhPjIaq~Em~WCIRXvncFqQyNjpkLC0TmRM2SpssjX7dppxbu0dlVV3ocu-oGI8hfkHbr7J6uiH3FrHARKvS7ThfJf~95PqK1Qey7BaUlEfkjz0aAty1Ggjnm0vAZ62LJzLt47hFhTnHKldHmafrCs~ivCa9xB355z0xGdPz4pWIEFSAraBQzb7Pg80eoDTPS8WtOEQcVaF-hIxDpEg6L8i3JcvyWtDhLWY3PneHK1ctcvjpNj~Bw6yUid-aOt~pvq1OJcteeK6Q7qcqBXkAw3tf4FVfbL3DfMWvs50~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Provo Planning Commission voted 6–1 on Sept. 10 to continue a conditional‑use request from Claudia Esteba for a dance‑hall/event space proposed in Suite 110 of the Wells Fargo building at 86 North University Avenue.

The request would allow an event venue in a downtown core zone; planning staff advised the commission that the building owner had pledged 135 parking spaces for the tenant, and that under city parking rules the proposed occupancy limit would be 540 people. Aaron Ardmore, planning staff, told commissioners that “they have allocated, 135 spaces specifically for this tenant,” and warned that conditional‑use permits run with the land and can be revoked only if code violations occur.

Why it matters: neighbors and several commissioners said the packet and the applicant’s presentation left open key questions about how the venue would meet the city’s noise limits, how vibration would be measured and mitigated in the seven‑story mixed‑use building, and how the business would control occupancy, parking and building security. Multiple residents who live in condominiums above the proposed suite testified that prior tenants in the same space produced intrusive noise and vibration that travelled through the building’s steel structure.

Commissioners and residents pressed the applicant and staff for objective evidence that the venue could meet noise standards at neighboring residences. Commissioner Daniel Gonzales called for on‑site decibel testing at property lines with doors open and closed; several commissioners suggested that a pre‑opening sound study be required before any certificate of occupancy is issued so the commission or staff would not have to rely on police complaints to determine compliance.

Residents described prior experience when a restaurant and occasional dance events occupied the same space. Vanessa DeHart, who said she lives in the Wells Fargo building, told the commission: “The information in this packet is misleading.” Brad Moss, who said he is HOA president and property manager for the building, said the building and its parking structure have multiple owners and questioned the assertion that 135 spaces could be exclusively reserved for the venue.

Commissioners also discussed how the city’s noise code measures decibels “across the real property boundary” and that commercial adjacencies inside a mixed‑use downtown zone are measured differently than a residential zone. Planning staff noted that the city already has code provisions that can require security staff for establishments serving alcohol or for events above certain size thresholds; those enforcement tools would apply if the venue began operations.

Action and next steps: Commissioner Harvey DeSoto moved to continue the item and asked that the owner come back with a plan including: decibel measurements at property lines (doors open and closed); a described method to regulate occupancy and count attendees; a parking and enforcement plan showing how allotted spaces will be protected; a security plan for events (noting the city code already allows the police to require security when warranted); a food‑and‑beverage plan including whether alcohol will be served; and any planned acoustical mitigation. The motion passed 6–1. The continuation leaves the conditional‑use application open; the commission will reconsider the item when the owner returns with the requested testing and plans.

Context and limits: The commission and staff emphasized that conditional‑use approval would “run with the land,” meaning any future owner could use the space for the approved purpose unless the permit is revoked for code violations. Commissioners said denial requires specific findings that a proposed use would unreasonably interfere with lawful uses nearby; several commissioners said the current record lacks the objective evidence needed to make such findings. The applicant signaled willingness to consider shifting the planned use toward a corporate event/meeting center and to perform sound testing, but the owner was not present at the hearing.","The Provo Planning Commission on Sept. 10 voted 6–1 to continue a conditional‑use request for a proposed dance hall/event space at 86 N. University Ave., Suite 110, citing unresolved questions about noise, vibration, parking allocation and building access raised by residents and commissioners.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6013587,"Planning commission backs removal of by‑right data‑center uses and adopts overlay requiring rezone, environmental reviews",6478,6622000,13100000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0&start=6622&end=13100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5793579-6a370d89b942d4e0dbd38a6ef80456c0/thumbnail_6622000.jpg","/articles/6013587/Utah/Planning-commission-backs-removal-of-byright-datacenter-uses-and-adopts-overlay-requiring-rezone-environmental-reviews","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6013587-4e7112cac480cf62ba9d17fb8c8468b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195025&Signature=KZyraWK~WPT3vfwbAKGE3cL~ly80UPWy6BEEFbo4gFuqYeB57dPAasPjlTlOc~QnrwEKHPg0nxc9RmjmlznL3O8ArZwMGpFPyAzeMi~lei5FHGaCL7SHxs5spocGPAsTu14eQSm8YvGycvyQjoqTkmzHunSimRjCspQX3DE~MFr-JA6PkX4a-udT1Lj64N3kXkT05Bbv0ujgi8Lbb-HgRDiJwXmYLxDOJZxJ3kcrZoS4DSHRS0hXLUi2rsAggMs5iRYU65QYx7NH3MyI1k9Jz9UJ9CJ4g9PyD-TJLSC0flSGS1MMDRQTdDtpI1-E-25FHrqbjAKkA3yrsN36rwB3Cg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Provo Planning Commission unanimously recommended two related changes on Sept. 10: first, to remove data centers as permitted or conditional uses in the city’s zoning map; second, to adopt a new data‑center overlay and related policy standards that would require any prospective data center to seek a rezone for an overlay and to submit detailed environmental, energy and water usage plans for review by staff, UMPA (the municipal power agency) and elected officials.

Why it matters: Data centers can have substantial electricity and, in some cooling systems, water demands; commissioners and staff framed the overlay as a way to make prospective data‑center proposals subject to public scrutiny and to require applicants to demonstrate mitigation strategies before the city grants a site‑specific overlay. Planning staff said the overlay will apply to commercial and light industrial zones where such uses could be reasonably sited, but not to single‑family residential areas.

Key features: The draft overlay ties in the city’s ability to review and restrict uses at several points. It would:
- Require a rezone to a data‑center overlay for any new data center in mapped zones, giving the public, the commission and City Council a formal chance to review applications.
- Use size tiers for energy and water review: for example, the city and UMPA use a 50‑megawatt threshold at which applicants must demonstrate on‑site generation and related interconnection plans.
- Require a full environmental review including energy‑efficiency and renewable‑energy options, air‑quality mitigation and emissions credits where applicable, and an e‑waste/end‑of‑life plan for equipment.

Planning staff and UMPA representatives told the commission that requiring site‑by‑site rezones avoids locking in broad permissions that could allow high‑impact facilities in locations the city later determines to be unsuitable. Hannah (planning staff) summarized the approach: the overlay “adds a layer of public scrutiny and also council and planning commission discretion” and “puts a burden of reporting on the data center applicant to prove why they belong in Provo, why the benefits they bring offset the environmental costs.”

Public comment: A Provo resident, Jennifer Griffin, urged broad restrictions on data centers because of water and energy concerns: “Anything that we can do to restrict data centers in Provo would be amazing considering their all of the usage of water and energy,” she said. Commissioners, staff and members of the public also discussed the range of available cooling technologies and the tradeoffs between water use and electricity consumption.

Action and next steps: The commission voted unanimously to forward both the ordinance removal (item 3) and the proposed overlay and policy package (item 4) to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Staff told commissioners they will continue coordination with UMPA/Provo Power, public works and council staff to define benchmarks and to consider whether applications above a certain size should pay for independent technical review funded by the applicant.

Context and limits: Staff noted that technology changes quickly and that benchmarks should be updated; commissioners asked staff to consider required comparative data or industry benchmarks so non‑specialist elected and appointed officials can evaluate proposed mitigation plans. UMPA will review electrical interconnection, performance bonds and tariff questions; public works will review water availability and infrastructure impacts. The overlay does not itself approve any individual data‑center project; it requires a site‑specific rezone and environmental review before construction permits can be issued.","In unanimous votes on Sept. 10, the Provo Planning Commission recommended code changes removing data centers as permitted uses in multiple zones and proposed a data‑center overlay that would require a site rezone, environmental and energy reviews, and community‑benefit plans for major installations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission narrowly backs owner’s request to allow ADU at 1841 N. 1550 E as Oak Hills neighborhood protests

Planning commission continues dance‑hall permit for Wells Fargo event space after neighbors raise noise, parking and safety concerns

Planning commission backs removal of by‑right data‑center uses and adopts overlay requiring rezone, environmental reviews