Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Agritourism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows agritourism minimum lot size from 5 to 1 acre after debate over neighborhood impacts
Summary
The council amended the agritourism overlay minimum lot size from five acres to one acre; the motion passed after debate about commercial zoning, neighborhood impacts and whether a citywide text change was the right tool.
Provo Municipal Council approved a text amendment to the agritourism overlay zone that reduces the minimum lot size required to apply the overlay from five acres to one acre. The implied motion passed 5–2 after extended public testimony and council discussion about unintended consequences.
City planner Dustin Wright told the council the change would not immediately affect any existing properties but would allow agricultural properties of one acre to seek the overlay and, if approved through a rezone, use the agritourism standards. Applicant Peggy Case and business partner David Simpson described a long‑held plan to operate small farm‑to‑table and small events on a long, narrow parcel on Center Street and asked the council to reduce the threshold so they could pursue a formal rezone and permitting.
Speakers at public comment supported the idea that the property could host low‑impact farm classes and small private events; staff and neighborhood representatives urged caution. Planning staff and the applicant said agritourism places limits (for example, a rule discussed at the meeting was that only a portion of the lot may be used for event/visitor functions) that make the overlay less permissive than a full commercial rezoning. Some council members said they preferred a commercial rezone for greater clarity while others supported the one‑acre overlay because it provides tighter limits for residential neighborhoods.
Council discussion raised the potential for unintended citywide consequences if the text amendment were approved without added parameters. Councilor Christiansen proposed continuing the item for more detail but that motion failed; the council then voted in favor of the text amendment 5–2.
Clarifying details provided at the meeting: the applicant estimated about 60–65 parking spaces available on the parcel; staff noted the property’s current base zone was RA and that implementation would still require a separate rezone application to apply the overlay to a specific parcel. The council emphasized that a text change would not automatically rezone any property—it would only lower the acreage threshold for applying the overlay and any application would still require council approval through a zone map amendment.
Why it matters: lowering the overlay threshold could enable small, community‑oriented agritourism businesses to operate legally on smaller parcels, but councilors and neighbors warned a citywide numeric change could invite more applications that may not be appropriate in all residential contexts.
Next steps: applicants seeking the overlay must still file a subsequent zone‑map amendment (rezone) and will be reviewed on a case‑by‑case basis; staff will also be available to recommend code language or conditions for future applications.
