Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo council reviews Northeast Neighborhood Plan; amends map language after residents press Canyon Road concerns
Summary
City staff and a neighborhood advisory committee presented the Northeast Neighborhood Plan. Councilors and residents debated map language, classification of Canyon Road and annexation outreach; council amended a sentence to reference figure 3.3 and approved that change by roll call.
Provo City Councilors on Dec. 17 heard a presentation on the proposed Northeast Neighborhood Plan and later approved a one-sentence wording change clarifying where lower-density residential (LDR) areas are shown on the plan map.
Planner Jessica Danique summarized the plan’s eight objectives — including preserving single-family character and agricultural uses, directing higher-density housing to University Avenue, protecting trails and hillside resources, and outlining an implementation table organized in five-year phases. “We are not proposing any changes to the process for establishing [accessory dwelling units]. Just saying should a property owner want an ADU, they can follow the legislative process for establishing one,” Danique told the council.
The technical advisory committee and neighborhood representatives emphasized outreach and granular parcel review; a neighborhood representative said TAC members held “over four meetings just going over every parcel” and that the plan is a long-standing effort. Residents and planners discussed three neighborhoods included in the plan area (River Bottoms, North Temview and Sherwin Williams), schools in the area, and economic activity near University Avenue.
Most debate focused on the map and transportation designations around Canyon Road. Residents and Council members questioned why parts of Canyon Road are shown as an arterial on the plan’s future land use/transportation map when the corridor currently functions as a two-lane road in places. Public works staff and transportation planners told the council that classification is based on functional role, not lane count, and recommended that changes to road classification be handled in the Transportation Master Plan rather than an area plan.
Councilors and members of the planning commission also discussed language on small-scale infill and housing diversity. Danique and the TAC said the plan does not “aggressively promote” small-scale infill but does not prohibit it; staff said they can add clarifying language if the council wishes. Planning Commission feedback included suggested edits focused on housing diversity and small-scale infill.
At the council’s request, staff proposed a red-line amendment to clarify an ambiguous sentence in the plan text that read “as shown on the map.” Council members moved to remove that phrasing and replace it with a direct reference to the map figure. After a short amendment and discussion the council adopted revised language that specifies “as shown on the map in figure 3.3.” The council recorded the vote on the final wording change.
