Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo delays vote on 2026 development standards after heated debate over 24‑foot street option
Summary
The council debated removing the 24-foot street option from the development standards. After extensive public comment and council questioning about emergency access, parking, and infill needs, members approved a substitute motion (4–3) asking staff to draft exception language allowing 24-foot roads for limited infill/redevelopment cases.
The Provo City Council paused final action on updates to the citys 2026 development standards after a lengthy debate over whether to retain a 24-foot roadway option for infill and human-scale streets.
David Day, assistant city engineer, explained the proposed standards and noted that the administrations redlines would remove the narrowest cross-section in the road standard chart. Council members asked whether removing the 24-foot option would preclude exceptions for infill, cul-de-sacs and hillside projects. Day and other staff said the 24-foot option is currently limited by traffic-volume criteria (roughly 400 vehicle trips per day) and that allowing narrow streets in special circumstances would require explicit code language.
Residents and advocates offered sustained public comment across many speakers, arguing that 24-foot streets preserve neighborhood character, slow traffic, enable walkability and support infill housing. Speakers included neighborhood residents and representatives from Bike Walk Provo and Families for Safe Streets. Several residents described effective emergency access on narrow streets and urged keeping the option for specific cases; others raised worries about parking loss and enforcement.
During council deliberations, Councilor Garrett moved a substitute motion to ask staff to write code language to preserve a 24-foot option for infill or redevelopment where appropriate; Councilor Bogdan seconded. After discussion and questions to the fire marshal and public-works staff about emergency access, the council approved the substitute motion to continue and return with ordinance language by a 4–3 vote. Council direction asked staff to craft objective criteria (examples cited included infill, redevelopment, hillside constraints and low vehicle volumes) so 24-foot roads could be allowed only when justified and safe.
Councilors said they want to preserve design flexibility for future infill while ensuring emergency access and clear criteria to avoid developers using the narrow option solely to reduce costs. The council will consider the revised language at a future work meeting and return the item for final action.
