Provo planning commission recommends denial of narrow owner-occupant code edit, urges broader rewrite

The Provo City Planning Commission on Sept. 24 voted 7–1 to recommend denial of a Provo City Council request to amend Provo City Code 14.06.020 to clarify the owner-occupant definition, and asked the council for a broader rewrite of the section.

Commissioner Matt Wheelwright moved the recommendation for denial; Chair Jonathan Hill seconded. The motion passed by a 7–1 vote.

Commissioners and staff said the item before them is a narrow cleanup of conflicting language in the owner-occupant definition but that the broader section needs clarification to avoid unintended effects on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) eligibility and to address family arrangements and enforcement.

David Bile, policy analyst for the city, told the commission the proposed change “is pretty straightforward” and that legal staff advised removing a particular clause “as the cleanest way to, avoid future confusion on this issue.” Scott (the zoning administrator) said a different subsection effectively requires that “anyone who has any percentage has to live there” and explained that the 50 percent ownership threshold in subsection (a) interacts with subsection (d) to create the current uncertainty.

Residents and commissioners raised affordability and family-support concerns. Rhoda Goffin, an Indian Hills resident who spoke during public comment, said home prices in her neighborhood have risen from about $165,000 when she bought to roughly $1 million now, and described situations where parents help children finance homes: “When I bought my home, it was a $165,000. Houses now in my neighborhood are a million.” Commissioner Wheelwright said parental help is increasingly necessary for first-time buyers: “There’s no chance they’re gonna afford their first home without me somehow helping them.”

Several commissioners asked staff to redraft the entire owner-occupant definition so ordinary readers would not need legal assistance to interpret it. Commissioner Lisa Jensen said she would like “the language cleaned up before I feel comfortable with this.” Commissioners debated whether the code should require every owner to live on the property, allow approved exceptions, or provide a conditional-use pathway to enable legitimate family arrangements while limiting sham transactions.

Staff clarified how the change would affect existing applications. Bile said the amendment as drafted would not change zone changes already granted, but it would affect the rental dwelling license process: applicants seeking a rental dwelling license for an ADU must meet the owner-occupant requirements at the time of licensure.

The commission’s formal action forwarded the recommendation to council with the direction that a broader amendment or rewrite be prepared to address the section in its entirety, including clearer wording about ownership percentages and documentation requirements.

The commission did not adopt specific replacement text; commissioners asked city staff and legal to provide a clearer and more comprehensive rewrite for council consideration.

Votes at a glance: Commissioner Matt Wheelwright moved denial; Chair Jonathan Hill seconded. Recommendation to deny forwarded to municipal council; tally: yes 7, no 1.

What’s next: The city council will receive the commission’s recommendation and may approve, reject or return the ordinance language for further edits. Staff said any future changes to owner-occupant rules will be applied at the rental dwelling license stage for ADUs when relevant.