Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council moves to remove ADU signature fee waiver and asks staff to clean up ADU map; Bannock Drive case remains contested
Summary
On Sept. 23 the council voted 7–0 to repeal the ordinance text that waived application fees for ADU map amendments backed by neighbor signatures and asked staff to retitle an ADU map entry for clarity. City planners described a contested proposal at 3080 North Bannock Drive where staff recommended denial based on owner-occupancy documentation; the
Provo planners and council staff returned to the council Sept. 23 with several changes and questions about accessory dwelling unit (ADU) policy and a pending application for 3080 North Bannock Drive.
Jessica Donachy, city planner, summarized the Bannock Drive request: the property owner asked that the parcel be added to the ADU map so a future owner could apply for an accessory dwelling unit. Donachy said the applicant had neighborhood support on the immediate parcel (66 percent of surrounding owners signed in favor) but staff recommended denial because ownership documentation showed two owners on title and staff had concerns that the owner‑occupancy requirement was not clearly met under current code. Planning commissioners recommended approval; staff highlighted conflicts around subsections that describe what documentation proves owner occupancy.
Separately, council policy analyst Malia Daley presented three proposed amendments to Chapter 14.30 (ADUs). The council focused on one recommendation: repeal the portion of code (often called the signature pathway) that waives the ordinance‑text‑amendment fee when an applicant submits a petition with neighbor signatures. Supporters of repeal said the signature pathway has been divisive in neighborhoods and creates the perception of uneven notice; opponents said the signature pathway had helped neighbors who otherwise would not realize an ADU application was coming. Donachy and Daley said postcard notice for both planning commission and council hearings is already mailed to properties within the statutory notification area.
At the council meeting the body voted unanimously (7–0) to repeal the signature‑waiver clause (delete 14.30.040 in its current form) and passed a second housekeeping motion to change the ADU map title text in code so it is clearer. Both votes were 7–0. Councilors also directed staff to bring back tidy ordinance language and to return related amendments to the planning commission for review.
Council discussion also touched on the city’s enforcement policy for properties that already operate unauthorized ADUs: the administration said it tries to obtain compliance first, but code enforcement retains the right to enforce or to require retroactive compliance; staff explained that applicants who are out of compliance may legally apply for a legislative fix if they wish to seek a code change.
Donachy said the Bannock Drive applicant’s materials — including letters and documentation of claimed owner occupancy — will be heard at upcoming hearings; the planning commission had recommended approval while staff recommended denial because of the owner‑occupancy documentation. Council members asked staff to present the Bannock case in the evening meeting for public hearing and final council action.
Why it matters: the council’s repeal of the signature fee‑waiver closes a short pathway that had allowed single parcels to pursue map changes with a reduced fee if they turned in neighbor signatures. The change shifts ADU map amendments into the conventional ordinance‑text‑amendment process with standard fees and public notices. The Bannock Drive case illustrates tension between neighborhood‑led petitions and staff’s evidentiary standard for owner occupancy.
What happens next: staff will take the council’s direction, prepare revised ordinance language for Chapter 14.30, and forward the Bannock Drive application through forthcoming public hearings.
