Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo planners recommend 34% lot coverage for North University SSC zone; council questions road access and rental vs. ownership for townhomes
Summary
An applicant asked the council to change the Special Support Commercial zone text to allow indoor storage and drive-throughs and to rezone nearby parcels; the planning commission recommended a 34% lot-coverage ceiling, but councilors pressed engineers’ and traffic details and whether townhomes should be required to favor owner-occupancy.
An ordinance and zoning-text amendment would change the Special Support Commercial (SSC) zone along North University Avenue to add indoor storage units and drive-throughs to the list of permitted uses and to alter lot-coverage rules; the applicant also requested an accompanying rezone and plan for a mixed project that includes townhomes.
Staff told the council the planning commission recommended increasing the SSC lot-coverage to 34% to match the applicant’s concept — the applicant’s concept site plan measures about 33.8% lot coverage. Planning staff proposed a 30% lot-coverage limit comparable to nearby SC1 zoning, but commissioners supported the higher percentage because it reflected the developer’s design.
The applicant, who led earlier Jamestown-area projects, seeks the text change and a map amendment that would add SSC and reduce some professional-office zoning to blend commercial uses into adjacent low-density residential. Councilors and residents raised several concerns: the narrowness of a nearby road and the lack of sidewalks at the eastern end of the site, potential traffic impacts of drive-throughs, and how new development would interface with existing single-family homes. One councilor asked whether engineering would require the developer to widen the road and add sidewalks; staff said public works would require traffic studies and that any required roadwork or sidewalks would be determined during engineering review. Staff also noted that widening could affect the plan and possibly reduce unit counts.
Councilors pressed the applicant about ownership of the proposed townhomes. Planning staff said the project’s townhomes had been presented to the planning commission as rentals in the developer’s concept. Several council members said they prefer more owner-occupied middle housing; others noted a market need for rental middle housing. Staff and the applicant agreed that council may set requirements at rezoning or development-agreement stages. Councilors asked staff to check engineering requirements for street widening before deciding on the rezoning.
Members noted the planning commission had also asked for traffic study data and had discussed neighborhood concerns about driveway placement near the Tree Side Charter School and near an existing apartment development. The planning commission recommended approval of the concept plan and the rezone with conditions; staff planned to return with recommended ordinance language and with any engineering conditions for the council’s evening or subsequent agenda.
