The Provo City Planning Commission unanimously voted Aug. 13 to forward a recommendation to the municipal council to amend city code so an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) could be established at 3080 North Bannock Drive in the Indian Hills neighborhood, and urged the council to address an outstanding owner‑occupancy documentation issue.

Jessica, a city planner, explained the specific ordinance section under review (Provo City Code 14.30.02) and said staff recommended denial because current ownership documentation did not meet the subsection that requires owners to demonstrate they occupy the dwelling and have no tax deductions or depreciation claims in the prior tax year. Jessica noted the owners could not produce tax documentation because they have not owned the property long enough; staff interpreted the code as requiring that documentation before the ADU could be established.

Christina Gibson, the applicant and current resident, told the commission she and her husband plan to make the property their primary residence and that they have “no intention of using it as short‑term housing or student rentals.” Christina said she bought the home in January and that her father is on the mortgage to help qualify; that arrangement means the title records currently list more than one owner and some required tax history is not yet available.

Several neighbors and the Indian Hills neighborhood chair spoke in favor of allowing the ADU, saying the applicants are responsible neighbors and that off‑street parking and other safety concerns could be managed. Neighbors noted that illegal ADUs exist in the area and argued that making this ADU legal and licensed would improve oversight.

Commission discussion focused on the code interpretation and enforcement. Commissioners asked whether a development agreement, condition or administrative follow‑up could be used to verify owner occupancy once a year has passed. Staff said they could place an alert on the property record and that license renewal processes allow for follow‑up, but enforcement capacity is limited.

After debate the commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to council, finding that the code’s tax‑history requirement did not bar the applicant in this circumstance and asking the municipal council to adopt a process for verifying owner occupancy at the licensing stage. The motion recommended approval while requesting council consideration of a workable enforcement or follow‑up approach for such cases.