Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Lakeview Fields amendment, splits Jamestown rezone amid owner‑occupancy debate
Summary
Council approved a Lakeview Fields development amendment allowing updated plans and optional basements and moved forward with a commercial rezoning for Jamestown while continuing the residential portion to negotiate owner‑occupancy terms; developers offered proffers and neighbors raised traffic and safety concerns.
Provo City Council on April 22 approved several land‑use items, including a first amendment to the Lakeview Fields development agreement that permits updated home plans, optional basements and a separate homeowners association. Planner Jessica Danakee and developer Tyler (Keystone Construction) described the changes; Tyler said his firm would record a deed restriction to guarantee 70% owner‑occupied units, and councilors discussed whether that commitment should be time‑limited. The Lakeview amendment passed unanimously (7–0).
Later in the meeting the council considered a text amendment to the Specialty Support Commercial (SSC) zone (to allow indoor storage and drive‑throughs and to replace the old FAR requirement). Staff proposed a 30% lot‑coverage cap while the Planning Commission recommended 34%; after procedural motions the council selected the 34% exhibit and approved the text amendment 7–0.
The related Jamestown site rezone proved more contentious. Developers proposed rezoning a portion of a tract near University Avenue to SSC with an LDR (low‑density residential) segment for six townhomes. Neighbors and councilors raised safety and traffic concerns about access where University Avenue meets a narrow local road and asked the developer for traffic analyses and potential right‑in/right‑out or island mitigations with UDOT.
Councilors pushed for stronger owner‑occupancy protections for the townhomes. The developer said the townhomes were intended as rentals under long‑term ownership and that requiring owner‑occupancy would reduce feasibility; he offered options (70% owner‑occupied for five years or in perpetuity). After debate an initial rezone motion failed 3–4; council then voted to remove the LDR portion from the current action so the SSC commercial rezone could proceed while the residential LDR piece was continued to allow a possible development agreement addressing owner‑occupancy. The SSC commercial rezoning passed 6–1 and the council continued the LDR portion to the May meeting for further negotiation.
