Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo council debates Lakeview Fields amendment over basements, owner-occupancy and fencing
Summary
Provo City planners and a developer presented amendments to the Lakeview Fields development agreement covering optional basements, fencing, lot design and homeowner-occupancy requirements; council members pressed for owner-occupancy provisions and clarity on basements and fencing before a vote scheduled for the evening meeting.
Provo City staff and a developer presented a proposed amendment to the Lakeview Fields development agreement, focusing on updated house plans, optional basements, final fencing and a separate homeowners association.
The amendment affects the remaining 11.136-acre parcel just south of Provo High School along Lakeview Parkway and would update a development agreement originally approved in February 2007. Planner Jessica Donahue described staff and CRC review and said public works had raised questions about basement language because portions of the area are in high groundwater.
Developer representatives answered council questions about several specific items. Tyler Graham, representing the developer, said the team planned a vinyl fence along 2000 North with masonry facing the railroad, not cedar as earlier described: “we would like to do a vinyl fence along the street, like what’s already there, and then masonry fence along the railroad tracks.” He also told council the developer does not plan to build basements because newly clarified standards made basements cost-prohibitive: “we’re not planning on doing any basements.”
Councilors focused substantial attention on homeowner-occupancy. Councilor Becky Bogdan said she was “not comfortable” approving the amendment without some owner-occupancy requirement and pressed for language that would favor owner-occupant buyers. Other council members discussed several possible approaches: a fixed percentage of units required to be owner occupied (developers discussed a 60% target in other communities and said 70% might be feasible), and deed-restriction language that prevents rental for the first year after each sale. Developer representatives said they generally sell to the market and that some model homes are rented temporarily, proposing a middle-ground approach rather than a 100% owner-occupancy mandate.
City staff said their standard contract language already includes a one-year owner-occupancy restriction tied to deed restrictions and CCRs: the restriction prevents initial rental for the first year following sale. Counsel and staff advised council the amendment could be approved with explicit direction tonight about any changes to be incorporated before final execution.
Council members also asked about density, confirming the amendment would not increase lot counts, and about fencing and HOA organization. The developer said the new portion would be a separate HOA from the earlier phase. Planning staff said they will bring the specific amended language back to council and anticipated the council would vote on the ordinance and development agreement at the evening meeting.
Council discussion closed with staff confirming the council could vote that night provided members gave clear direction on required changes such as owner-occupancy thresholds or deed restrictions.
