Provo council denies spot amendment to allow ADU at Bannock Drive property

The Provo City Council voted 5-2 to deny an ordinance text amendment that would have added a single property on North Bannock to the map of areas where accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted.

City planner Jessica Donnick told the council the application would allow future owners of the subject property to apply for an ADU if they meet the requirements of Provo City Code (section cited in staff materials as 14-30). Donnick said staff recommended denial because the code requires owner-occupancy and the property title lists multiple owners, creating ambiguity about whether the owner-occupant test is met.

The applicants, Christina Gibson (represented at the meeting by her husband, Joseph Fawcett), told the council they had collected neighborhood support signatures (66 percent of reachable adjacent neighbors, and 24-5 in favor at a neighborhood meeting described in meeting records) and that Gibson intends to make the ADU her primary residence. Fawcett said the family bought the house while a rule change was in progress and began the city's amendment process after closing.

Staff and legal counsel explained the relevant code language requires that an "owner occupant" be an individual who owns 50 percent or more of the dwelling and occupies it with bona fide intent to make it their primary residence, but a later subsection (discussed at length in staff comments) was interpreted by staff to disqualify properties with multiple owners unless all owners occupy the property. Staff said the special administrative permit pathway that previously allowed limited, owner-specific exceptions no longer exists.

Council members debated policy trade-offs between preventing investor conversions and enabling young households who rely on family help to afford housing. Supporters of the amendment cited neighborhood backing and the applicants' stated long-term intent; opponents warned that a spot zoning change would permanently alter property rights and could change neighborhood character. Several council members urged broader neighborhood overlay approaches rather than house-by-house spot zoning.

A substitute motion to continue the item to allow the applicants to pursue a quitclaim or other cure was proposed and failed. On the final vote the council denied the amendment by a 5-2 margin, with two councilors voting in favor.

Council discussion and public comment record the following clarifying points: the applicants had signed neighborhood backing; the planning commission recommended approval while staff recommended denial based on the owner-occupancy interpretation; the now-eliminated administrative special use permit had previously provided a limited, owner-specific path; and a quitclaim transferring the other owner's title interest to the occupying owner would likely cure the occupancy issue (subject to mortgage/lender constraints). The applicants said the property is currently occupied and used as a rental while the permanent process was underway; Christina Gibson was recovering from a recent brain injury and did not present in person.

The denial means the property will not be added to the ADU map. The council record indicates applicants can pursue alternate remedies (quitclaim of title, rezone, or future code changes) but no specific new direction was adopted at the meeting.

Votes: the council recorded the final tally as 5 no, 2 yes.