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obtained signatures from 66% of the surrounding neighbors,” but staff also reported that some signatories later rescinded their support.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.