Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Downtown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears proposal to raise DT‑1 height limits in exchange for for‑sale housing; more work planned
Summary
Staff presented a text amendment to the downtown DT‑1 zoning that would allow greater building height in exchange for a percentage of for‑sale housing; councilors requested drafting changes on owner‑occupancy and step‑back rules and expect developer presentation at the night meeting.
Planning staff presented a proposed amendment to Provo’s downtown DT‑1 zone that would scale allowed building height with the percentage of for‑sale (owner‑occupied) housing provided in a development.
Aaron Ardmore outlined the proposal, which would permit incremental increases above the current 100‑foot limit for projects that commit to specified shares of for‑sale units via a written agreement with the city. The proposal also would extend an existing minimum unit‑size relief that now applies to Center Street to University Avenue, where staff said similar development conditions exist.
Ardmore said the amendment grew from a request by a potential Harris Block developer seeking additional height to make a project feasible. The proposed tiered approach would allow modest height increases for smaller percentages of for‑sale units, and greater increases where developers commit a larger share of residential units as owner‑occupied. Ardmore said the developer would present more detail at the evening meeting.
Councilors asked several clarifying questions. Councilor Christiansen flagged a drafting issue: the current language refers to an initial occupancy requirement for the first year rather than the deed‑restriction owner‑occupancy approach discussed at a previous meeting; staff acknowledged the language should be amended to match council direction that the restriction be enforceable in perpetuity (with an initial owner‑occupancy requirement) and that additional details will be included in the ordinance draft.
Council discussion covered the geographic extent of DT‑1, step‑back requirements on Center Street and whether the proposal would apply citywide within the DT‑1 overlay. Staff said the change would be a text amendment affecting the DT‑1 area and not a project‑specific contract; project‑level negotiations could follow on specific parcels.
No vote was taken; staff and the developer will return with specific project proposals and revised code language at a future meeting.
