Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo council rejects current concept for 577 E. 400 S., invites resubmission with conditions
Summary
Councilors rejected the current concept plan to rezone 577 East 400 South from R‑16 to LDR but voted to allow the applicant to return with a revised plan that emphasizes owner‑occupation and reduced density, waiving resubmittal fees. The implied motion passed 6–1.
The Provo City Council on Dec. 3 rejected the current concept plan for a zoning change at 577 East 400 South but gave the property owner the opportunity to bring back a revised concept plan emphasizing homeowner occupancy and lower density without paying additional fees.
Planning staff described the request as a change from R‑16 to Low Density Residential (LDR) in the Mesa neighborhood, noting the Planning Commission recommended approval. Staff and councilors flagged site constraints — frontage, a required 20‑foot frontage for flag lots, and setbacks — that limit subdivision and mean the parcel cannot be subdivided under current code. Staff said an LDR rezone would allow up to three units on the property under the concept plan, with additional units contingent on parking and owner‑occupancy requirements.
Applicant Daniel Franco told the council he currently planned to keep the units in the family and did not promise to be an owner-occupant. "I can't promise that I'm gonna move in," he said, but expressed openness to alternative configurations that would ensure owner‑occupation by someone tied to the property.
Council discussion emphasized finding a compromise that increased housing while protecting neighborhood stability. Several councilors suggested alternatives such as one backyard unit plus an owner‑occupied accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the main house, or a development agreement to secure owner occupancy.
Councilor Katrice McKay made a motion to reject the current concept plan "based on the current rezone and concept plan, but invite development services to allow the applicant to submit a different concept plan and bring it back without fees." The motion was seconded from the dais and passed 6–1, with Councilor Rachel Whipple voting no.
Next steps: The applicant may work with development services on an amended concept (for example, an owner‑occupied configuration or fewer units) and return to the council; no new fees will be charged if the applicant resubmits under the agreed allowance.
